[EliRivers]

We call that a "will". They already exist. The new owner pays inheritance tax because they've inherited things. Labelling it something else doesn't change it. People already tried.

I did say that people already tried this sort of thing and that the taxman has come down on them in the past. This has really been tried and really not worked.

[dpark]

> We call that a "will". They already exist. The new owner pays inheritance tax because they've inherited things.

You're hypothesizing a world where inheritance isn't a recognized thing and asserting that in such a world, it would be impossible to effectively recreate inheritance with clever contracts. I'm telling you that you're wrong. It would be trivial in any world where contracts and transfer of ownership are accepted to recreate an inheritance system.

[EliRivers]

I am speaking of this world; the world in which we live today. In this world, "inheritance" is a thing we already know about. In this world, when actions are taken to stop something we know about, people don't suddenly forget about it.

We have laws already against people trying to dodge inheritance tax, and when people try to do that, it is frowned upon. In this world, should inheritance tax effectively become 100%, and based on the knowledge people have now, I see no reason why society would not notice people trying to break the law by clever use of contracts to recreate the inheritance system. This is something that already happens; laws come into being, some people try to break those laws, it is frowned upon. This happens already. Fact.

"It would be trivial in any world where contracts and transfer of ownership are accepted to recreate an inheritance system."

This would be some other world entirely. Sure, in that world that you're hypothesising, you can have whatever you like. I'm talking about this world; the world in which we already live, where we have hard evidence of people already trying to dodge inheritance tax with contracts and getting busted for it, and hard evidence of new laws being created and people being busted for breaking them. You have no such evidence (hardly your own fault; your world doesn't exist), so I find your argument less convincing. I will find any argument based on hypothetical worlds where you simply assert whatever you like as fact to be unconvincing.

If you have no facts and no evidence to present, the usefulness of this conversation is at an end.