5 ms·

What's inherently wrong with a multi-generation estate? What's wrong with me wanting to pass on wealth to my kids and grandkids without this already-taxed money

What's inherently wrong with a multi-generation estate? What's wrong with me wanting to pass on wealth to my kids and grandkids without this already-taxed money to be double-dipped by the government? If I want to work so hard that I can leave significant money for my descendants, why should the government get to tax that money twice? That seems incredibly unfair to me.

kllrnohj 10y ago
Look at it as a regular income event. You were taxed when you got that money from whoever gave it to you and now your kids are being taxed when they get the money. Your kids aren't you. Money isn't a taxed-once thing, it's taxed every time it changes hands. Death is an event at which money changes hands (from you to your kids), and is taxed appropriately. Anyway multi-generation estates are very well tested as being bad for society over time. Just look up monarchies.
- KZeillmann 10y ago
  Then why not tax everyone when they pass money/assets onto their kids? Why is there an arbitrary ~$5.1 million cutoff? (Not that I have anywhere near that much money, but it's the principle)
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    Taxing everyone would be the "correct" solution, but it's more pragmatic/politically expedient to allow a $5mil exemption.
  - kllrnohj 10y ago
    There's always a cutoff just due to practicality. If you give a friend $5 probably neither of you filed taxes for that. If you give a friend $10m, well, the IRS will probably notice that one. (in the case of a gift tax the cutoff is $14k and yes it applies to your children, see: https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Emplo... )
geofft 10y ago
If you want to work so hard that you can leave significant money for your employees, the government taxes that twice: once when it goes to the business, and once when it goes to the employees. Why are children different?
- themartorana 10y ago
  I am failing to see where - salaries are write-offs, and sales tax, which doesn't necessarily apply to all situations, are a tax on the buyer, not the recipient... What am I missing?
- ganeumann 10y ago
  Well, not in the US. The money paid to employees is tax-deductible to the business, so it's only taxed once (the employee pays taxes on the money paid to them, but the business doesn't.)
- KZeillmann 10y ago
  Except that you can write off salaries.
nhaehnle 10y ago
Wealth tends to translate into power. Multi-generation wealth transfer translates into dynasties. Dynasties are the antithesis of democracy. Hence, multi-generation estates are anti-democratic. Of course there is nuance in the extent of the effect. Some inter-generational wealth transfers are fine. Multi-generation estates wouldn't be a problem if everybody had them. And so on. But the core of an important argument against multi-generation estates is very plain. (Other arguments can and have been made as well, of course, including fairness arguments - I didn't work for my inheritance, for example.)
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Is that why there are so many laws to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the US?....

kllrnohj 10y ago

Look at it as a regular income event. You were taxed when you got that money from whoever gave it to you and now your kids are being taxed when they get the money. Your kids aren't you. Money isn't a taxed-once thing, it's taxed every time it changes hands. Death is an event at which money changes hands (from you to your kids), and is taxed appropriately. Anyway multi-generation estates are very well tested as being bad for society over time. Just look up monarchies.

KZeillmann 10y ago
Then why not tax everyone when they pass money/assets onto their kids? Why is there an arbitrary ~$5.1 million cutoff? (Not that I have anywhere near that much money, but it's the principle)
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  Taxing everyone would be the "correct" solution, but it's more pragmatic/politically expedient to allow a $5mil exemption.
- kllrnohj 10y ago
  There's always a cutoff just due to practicality. If you give a friend $5 probably neither of you filed taxes for that. If you give a friend $10m, well, the IRS will probably notice that one. (in the case of a gift tax the cutoff is $14k and yes it applies to your children, see: https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Emplo... )

geofft 10y ago

If you want to work so hard that you can leave significant money for your employees, the government taxes that twice: once when it goes to the business, and once when it goes to the employees. Why are children different?

themartorana 10y ago
I am failing to see where - salaries are write-offs, and sales tax, which doesn't necessarily apply to all situations, are a tax on the buyer, not the recipient... What am I missing?
ganeumann 10y ago
Well, not in the US. The money paid to employees is tax-deductible to the business, so it's only taxed once (the employee pays taxes on the money paid to them, but the business doesn't.)
KZeillmann 10y ago
Except that you can write off salaries.

nhaehnle 10y ago

Wealth tends to translate into power. Multi-generation wealth transfer translates into dynasties. Dynasties are the antithesis of democracy. Hence, multi-generation estates are anti-democratic. Of course there is nuance in the extent of the effect. Some inter-generational wealth transfers are fine. Multi-generation estates wouldn't be a problem if everybody had them. And so on. But the core of an important argument against multi-generation estates is very plain. (Other arguments can and have been made as well, of course, including fairness arguments - I didn't work for my inheritance, for example.)

Chris2048 10y ago
Is that why there are so many laws to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the US?....