By Spandan Sahu.

The motion for this debate was “This house believes that there should be 100% inheritance tax”. On the proposition, we had Leo Manolis as first speaker, and James Trowbridge (former Liberal Democrat representative) as the second speaker. The opposition saw the likes of Luke Miranda and Ayaan Bhagat (acting debating captain), who arguably had the easier take on this motion.  

Leo Manolis kicked off with a powerful attack upon the rich elderly men who stash hordes of money to pass down to their heirs; sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons. The proposition, although they failed to properly define which price bracket this tax would fall upon, made it clear that the full sum of money would go toward government spending, solving poverty and helping people get jobs. He also said that the money made from this 100% inheritance tax could contribute to filling the 22 billion black hole the Tories have left in the government.

Luke Miranda began with some steely rebuttals; the opposition argued that university fees, high as they already were, could be repaid with this inheritance money. Again, the current inheritance tax of 40% on inheritances more than £325,000 was ignored, but the concept of inheritance money being used to repay fees or reinvest into family businesses was a valid argument. Luke also made the strong point that families would either move abroad, avoiding this tax entirely, or base their assets in trust funds or charities to prevent inheritance money from being accessed by the government entirely; and this was a point the opposition sadly failed to address.

James Trowbridge, as second speaker, further justified some of Leo’s points. He made it evident that the idea of hereditary positions in the House of Lords was being phased out, and similarly, hereditary inheritance was also not as prevalent as it used to be. He also made the point that by accumulating wealth over many generations, this could lead to tampering with legislation, damaging democracy and the people, using the example of the Medici family, a hugely wealthy Italian banking dynasty.

But it was the second speaker of Beckingham, Ayaan Bhagat, who stole the stage. Beginning with some witty humour, mentioning how governments could easily acquire money not by taxing the rich but by invading other countries, and just “forgetting” about the massive debt that we are in. He used this ridiculous notion to transition into how families who build wealth from nothing to reach the peak of society, through hard work and ingenuity, would suffer from the fruit of their labour being taken away from their children and used to fund the government. Surely the elevated position that the children of such individuals are put in is one that should be cherished and used to benefit society, rather than stealing the rightful money that their parents worked hard for them to have.

Inevitably, it was Beckingham who took the win; the eloquence of Leo couldn’t defeat Ayaan’s strong and passionate argument, and Luke’s speech supported Ayaan’s much better than James’ supported Leo’s. Come to House debating this Thursday, Powell vs Nettles, for some spectacular discourse.