ninme

So, Nigella Lawson (the cookbook author and TV chef) went out and said that no way were her kids getting a dime of her money (inheritance tax debate aside, one’s mind does turn to the fact that she’s been using them, filmed in soft focus scampering innocently about in front of a cozy fireplace before lining up clean-faced and unaffected at the oversized dining room table in her TV studio mock home to tuck in eagerly to her latest suggestive-facial-expression-inducing culinary creation and then the camera fades 3, 2, 1, out. since they were toddlers):

Telegraph - I’ve changed my mind on inheritance tax, by Alice Thomson

Three years ago, the Public Policy Unit at Oxford University set up focus groups to look at inheritance tax. They were hoping to find support for increasing it. Instead, half the participants were implacably opposed to the tax on principle. Only one of the 32 group members fully supported it. And these views were despite the fact that very few would have to pay it. Only six per cent of Britons are liable. But the groups made it clear that in an increasingly competitive, insecure world, they aspire to leave as much as possible to their children.

So are the majority of British people selfish and uncaring, obsessed by clinging onto their wealth even from the grave? I am beginning to side with Nigella’s husband Charles Saatchi, who has every intention of handing over his hard earned £100 million (and presumably his art collection) to his daughter. There is nothing morally wrong in wanting to pass down some money. It’s actually healthy.

Inheritance tax is unfair because it is a double taxation: the money you pass onto your children has already been taxed as income or capital gains, so you are giving Mr Brown two chances to fritter away your inheritance. (Don’t forget you will probably also have to pay for your care home before you cop it.) Pushing up death duties also encourages consumption. Grandparents should be able to spend their money on cruises, but it seems unfair to penalise those who prefer to hand on their wealth.

Nor is inherited wealth necessarily damaging to society. The great estates, passed from generation to generation, are able to take a long term view of the land and the people on it. They are less likely to throw out tenants to make way for gyms in the cottages; they will plant trees that won’t mature for two generations. The same goes for companies. A private equity firm out to maximise its returns in three years has little thought for the long-term future of a business; family ownership may seem antiquated, but it is more interested in passing on a thriving concern to the next generation. The majority of British philanthropy comes from second-, third- or fourth-generation wealth. Britain would become very sterile if it were composed only of the self-made man or woman or the recipients of state support.

That was a dig at Madonna, btw. The bit about the gym.

Most people aren’t talking about the mind-altering amounts of Bill Gates. They are not worried that their children and grandchildren are going to be spoilt and overindulged, but they are increasingly concerned that they will flounder without any help. With university tuition fees and rising house prices, many will struggle to afford a first flat, or will be forced into high-earning professions rather than teaching or nursing so that they can provide for their children.

If meritocrats such as Nigella are so keen on giving everyone the same start, it is the glaring inequality in schooling that they should be tackling rather than inheritance. It is the private education that Nigella’s children receive that will give them the greatest advantage in life rather than any treasure chest they might be handed at 18.

Btw, I don’t own any Nigella books. I’ve downloaded a few of her recipes, I’ve seen a few episodes of her show, I’ve had the impulse to run out and buy all the ingredients for the things she makes, but in the end, I like Jamie Oliver better. His tastes align perfectly with my own.