Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 46

Epilogue: Death duties, where angels fear to tread

Not unexpectedly, my November 2013 Cuffelinks article suggesting that death duties be considered as a public finance tool attracted some strong criticism. I am grateful for all the comments. In retrospect, I concede the label ‘death duties’ would repel many. A more accurate description would be ‘inheritance tax’. I had meant the terms interchangeably.

My responses to the comments are in italics below:

  • They complicate asset-rich family business succession through forced sales. Multiple deaths during a short period are even worse.

As pointed out in the comments, insurance is the obvious solution. Accrual accounting will treat the related cost as an ongoing business expense, amortised as net worth is built up.  This is no different really from the way family needs would be financed pursuant to the breadwinner’s death: insurance or asset sales. With prudent planning, fire sales can be avoided through holding a proportion of liquid assets. 

  • It is an appalling tax, as elders will worry about it in their twilight years. Pre-empting it during one’s lifetime by gifts risks leaving the donor without money, or dependent on recipients. A harrowing example of the commentator’s great grandmother was cited.

As I had explained, the dead cannot be taxed, only those left living. Individual examples are always painful. Those who accumulate wealth would be accustomed to taxes on income, and most cope by only considering the post tax component for meeting their commitments (e.g., a worker focusing not on gross but net cash flow). The taxation of capital gains is similar, when an investor would take into consideration the net-of-tax gain.

  • Superannuation imposes inheritance tax indirectly, by levying 15% (plus medicare) on benefits paid to non-dependents such as adult children. The tax can be avoided by paying the benefits during the member’s lifetime.

I am unsure if this is an argument for (‘we already have it, so why the fuss?’) or against (‘shock horror, the dreaded tax lurks in unlikely corners’). Regardless, for inheritance tax to be effective and fair, it should be accompanied by suitable anti-avoidance measures. Circumvention through prior gifting would be obvious. Centrelink already claws back certain gifts in calculating age pension. 

  • The dichotomy inherent in taxing earned income in full, capital gains in part but exempting gambling and inheritance is inequitable.

To encourage a strong work ethic, as a principle, unearned income (inheritance, gambling and capital gains) should be in principle taxed in preference to earned income from personal exertion. The current attitude towards inheritance tax offends the principle. The worsening dependency ratio (workers to total population) demands a review, to transmit appropriate behavioural signals.

To sum up, a strong case against considering the tax has not been made as the economy balances the many competing factors on the demand and supply side. Any introduction has to be tested against real income, capacity to pay, progressiveness and the inevitable challenges of transition. I adored the suggestion that death duties give an extra incentive for living longer. Researchers, take note. The economies of the world struggling with improving longevity have now stumbled upon the ‘killer’ rationale – literally speaking - for introducing an inheritance tax.

Ramani Venkatramani is an actuary and Principal of Ramani Consulting Pty Ltd. Between 1996 and 2011, he was a senior executive at ISC /APRA, supervising pension funds.

January 24, 2014

I support inheritance tax. I live in a middle class neighbourhood and some of my children's contemporaries will inherit two sizable generational nest eggs of property and other assetts before they reach retirement age. Less 'well born' people will have to work and budget for thirty or fourty years to provide for themselves the sort of retirement income the 'well born' will simply have land in their laps - tax free. So the less lucky members of society will have all their earnings taxed, while the 'well born' will not be asked to pay tax on money they inherit.

This money also ends up resting largely in the already large bank accounts of the over fifties. Most will inherit when they are at this age and already have large bank accounts. The over fifties tend to save their money ( so it is not working productively in the economy), or many now are spending it on endless overseas holidays - so that it is not circulating through the economy here. So the money itself contributes less than it might to the economy. It would benefit the economy to have at least 15 - 20 % circulating through it if it was taxed and recirculated here.

I say this as someone who will inherit about half a million dollars when the eighty plus year old parents pass. I pay tax on my salary, I pay tax on my superannuation, so why is the free money of an inheritance treated so favourably?

January 26, 2014

Simple answer is - because the tax has already been paid. This is really a much more complicated debate than can be handled here, for instance what about the many Australians that build a family business - and in the event of the death of a family member tax must be paid - how to value the business - sell it or value it, then where does the tax come from to - sell it? What about farmers, sitting on productive land that mostly makes little profit (Why is a another long story), again they would likely have to sell (part of) it - sometimes to less productive hobby farmers - having a double whammy on our economy - taxing just because of the death of a person and contributing to reduced productivity by forcing breakup of assets.
Due to the over inflated price of Sydney housing these days, unless I leave some form of legacy for my children - to buy in Sydney, they will start life with so much debt I am concerned we will drive too much risk aversion into our economy and people will not take a chance to build their own businesses and innovate.
I have had the pleasure of working with rich and poor and I have come to the conclusion it is not the size of the inheritance that makes a person. I am proud of the fact that my father left me something, I have invested it (sometimes spent some and sometimes topped it up) and I plan to pass it to my children. I do not see this as a waste and hence tax should be paid on it.
One could say it is more productive than sending my children out in their 20's or is it 30's! to secure a huge debt to banks to pay off huge mortgages for next 30 or more years.
Some people do waste money, some have businesses and some have properties. Inheritance tax does not drive productivity - it just shifts wealth to the government - to do what?
They got rid of Wealth Tax years ago - I am one that would suggest for the majority of Australians it is not the answer to our many problems.

February 07, 2014

There could be a logical defence against inheritance tax. But 'because tax is already paid' is not one.

When I receive my wage, I pay tax. This net amount is spent on consumables (which in turn levy tax), and the traders then pay tax on profits. Cascade is a tax reality. The puristic distaste of double tax does not work in practice.

The purported troubles of business, agriculture etc in coping with the tax by having to sell are problems of plenty, being trivial relative to the poor wage earner subject to PAYG tax at source. If pain of payment is a valid reason to eschew taxation, then all taxes will have to go.

As the dead taxpayer is free from all materialistic obligation such as tax, and it is the progeny / inheritors who pay inheritance tax, the presumed identity between the previous and subsequent payers is an illusion.

The final assertion 'it goes to the government' works the other way, by denying the substantial fiscal identity between the Government and citizenry. It emphatically settles the issue. Strip away the agency risk and pipeline wastage, the government is us!

Inheritance (or wealth / gift) tax may be blasphemous to some. But historically, blasphemy has been a useful step towards innovation and unsettling the status quo. Thankfully, burning at stake is so Joan of Arc!


Leave a Comment:



Anti-detriment abolition: death duty on the sly

Living within one’s means

Death duties, where angels fear to tread


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.