Should we be free to leave our estates as we wish? (Venue A: Caffè Nero)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

It's autumn so we will meet indoors for the next few months.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Should we be free to leave our estates as we wish?

I'm grateful again to Richard who has prepared this week's topic.

Suppose that someone dies with significant assets - land, investments, works of art, or anything else. It is normal to leave a will directing where the assets should go, and it is widely (but not universally) accepted that people can put what they like in their wills. But should it be so?

Arguments for complete freedom

The wishes of the deceased should be respected. That is part of respect for the deceased as human beings.

We are generally free to give away assets as we wish during our lifetimes, even the day before death (whether or not anticipated). Why should the day after death be any different?

The deceased (or previous generations) earned the assets. They are legitimately theirs.

State direction is likely to be misdirection. Officials will not understand how assets can best be allocated within families or between charities, and general rules laid down in advance may often lead to inappropriate results.

People will not accumulate assets to cover their old age if they think that their wishes as to the use of assets left over will not be respected.

Arguments against complete freedom

There is no need to honour the wishes of the deceased. They have no wishes, no awareness, and no property rights.

Beneficiaries may be greatly enriched. Shouldn't the state take a slice in the form of taxation, just as they would if someone received substantial income? (We could say this either with a donee-based tax or with a tax like the UK's inheritance tax, which is charged on the estate so that the heirs get what is left.)

Some assets, such as works of art, will be of great public value. Maybe they should be directed to museums. (In the UK there is an inheritance tax discount if you give works of sufficient quality to museums in lieu of tax, and deferral if you keep them but make them available to the public.)

Perhaps family members have a legitimate claim, even if the deceased did not like them. In England, family and dependants can sometimes claim money from an estate. In France, a large proportion of an estate goes to children, regardless of what any will says.