The government is considering a sliding scale of probate fees, an idea that could apply elsewhere
In Finland, speeding fines are based on the offender’s income. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA
There was outrage this week when the government said it was pressing ahead with a new approach to charging for its role in probate (the legal process for settling your financial affairs on death). Instead of the current £155 flat fee for the paperwork, the government is considering a sliding scale of probate fees based on the value of the estate, from zero to £6,000 – even though the cost of the paperwork is virtually the same.
The Law Society – representing the solicitors who do probate work – says it’s unfair. “The cost to the courts for providing a grant of probate does not change whether the size of the estate is £10,000 or £1m.” It argues that this is no longer a fee but a “stealth” increase in inheritance tax.
Much steeper inheritance taxes are perfectly fine, but this back-door attempt to raise IHT will strike even soak-the-rich types as a bit odd. What next? Should a homebuyer pay a higher fee for local authority searches depending on the sale price of the property? Should your TV licence be based on your income? Should you pay a bigger fine for not having a TV licence, if you have an above-average income?
Actually, on the last one, plenty of countries do go down that path. In Finland – to which we must now genuflect on all things progressive – there is a system called “day fines”. If you commit a misdemeanour that may result in a fine issued by a public authority – such as a speeding ticket – then the size of the penalty is based on the person’s income.
In 2015, a millionaire in Finland was hit with a €54,000 (£4,700) fine for speeding, while in 2002 a Nokia executive received a €116,000 fine for speeding on his Harley Davidson motorcycle, and in 2001 a driver was punished with a €35,300 fine for going through a red light.
Behind the idea of bigger fines for the rich is the fear that they can “purchase” the right to commit offences, because the relative cost to them is immaterial. Anybody who speeds, or evades their TV licence, or who goes through a red light, is equally blameworthy, but the richer person is less deterred from repeating the offence because the fine is relatively meaningless.
Of course, this is all about misdemeanours. Surely there’s no read-across to pure government services? But there is: your family might produce the same amount of rubbish as a similar family on the other side of town, but you are already effectively paying a much higher price (through your council tax) for it to be collected if you live in a pricier house.
There may be more merit in a sliding scale for probate fees than first thought – and a very good case for making speeding and other fines payable according to income.
There was outrage this week when the government said it was pressing ahead with a new approach to charging for its role in probate (the legal process for settling your financial affairs on death). Instead of the current £155 flat fee for the paperwork, the government is considering a sliding scale of probate fees based on the value of the estate, from zero to £6,000 – even though the cost of the paperwork is virtually the same.
The Law Society – representing the solicitors who do probate work – says it’s unfair. “The cost to the courts for providing a grant of probate does not change whether the size of the estate is £10,000 or £1m.” It argues that this is no longer a fee but a “stealth” increase in inheritance tax.
Much steeper inheritance taxes are perfectly fine, but this back-door attempt to raise IHT will strike even soak-the-rich types as a bit odd. What next? Should a homebuyer pay a higher fee for local authority searches depending on the sale price of the property? Should your TV licence be based on your income? Should you pay a bigger fine for not having a TV licence, if you have an above-average income?
Actually, on the last one, plenty of countries do go down that path. In Finland – to which we must now genuflect on all things progressive – there is a system called “day fines”. If you commit a misdemeanour that may result in a fine issued by a public authority – such as a speeding ticket – then the size of the penalty is based on the person’s income.
In 2015, a millionaire in Finland was hit with a €54,000 (£4,700) fine for speeding, while in 2002 a Nokia executive received a €116,000 fine for speeding on his Harley Davidson motorcycle, and in 2001 a driver was punished with a €35,300 fine for going through a red light.
Behind the idea of bigger fines for the rich is the fear that they can “purchase” the right to commit offences, because the relative cost to them is immaterial. Anybody who speeds, or evades their TV licence, or who goes through a red light, is equally blameworthy, but the richer person is less deterred from repeating the offence because the fine is relatively meaningless.
Of course, this is all about misdemeanours. Surely there’s no read-across to pure government services? But there is: your family might produce the same amount of rubbish as a similar family on the other side of town, but you are already effectively paying a much higher price (through your council tax) for it to be collected if you live in a pricier house.
There may be more merit in a sliding scale for probate fees than first thought – and a very good case for making speeding and other fines payable according to income.
No comments:
Post a Comment