6 ms·

On a hill station winter night me and few friends were on a remote old bungalow drunk and contemplating life, as it usually goes. One topic became specifically

On a hill station winter night me and few friends were on a remote old bungalow drunk and contemplating life, as it usually goes. One topic became specifically heated, partly because one of the participants was the son of a notoriously corrupt politician. He hated his father, except when it came to enjoy luxuries that was paid for by the father. The topic was - how to deter, scare the criminals? How to make it less viable for them to be corrupt and criminals? They often commit crimes of various nature including corruption in the hope that if not them their children, family would get to reap the benefits and they make financial arrangements so that even if they are indicted and properties seized, at least a decent part of the proceeds indeed goes to the family. We reached an impasse with loosely discussing that vigilante justice is the only way. But then the family, wife, kids didn't really directly participate in the crime so how and when to punish them? For not denouncing the proceeds that was earned from the corrupt and criminal means? I mean there's a law against aiding and abetting in crime. So would that not work here? Besides, even if we proceed with the vigilante justice, where to draw the line? Is everyone supposed to be picking up arms. That would be total revolution, anarchy in other words. Part of the discussion also included how criminals, politicians intimidate and harm weaker adversaries and if society collectively starts hitting back and hard at them where it hurts - their business, family members - it could deter them. How long can they provide security to them? How often? All it needs one successful target among many. Yes, they can keep the family in a steel cage. Good for them! But we did reach an agreement that they should not be left untouched. How exactly? That remained the question.

didibus 6y ago
I recently started to think that inheritance should just be all together eliminated. It is still a root of inequality, and promotes all kind of bad behavior. Your accomplishments, your money, not your kids. When you die, the assets should go back to the people equally. That way all children, no matter their parents, citizen of a country, should have equality in opportunity. In theory, children with rich parents will still have plenty of advantages, connections, know how, good education, etc. But they shouldn't inherit any assets or financials. Now how would that be managed in practice, no idea, and I haven't fully thought through everything here, but I'm just surprised this isn't an idea I hear more about, as it seems to me this is a huge source of inequality remaining in our society.
- tasuki 6y ago
  What about gifts? Can people gift other people things? If we forbid gifts, because they're an obvious transfer of wealth, what about financial transactions that favour one party? Should it be legal for a rich parent to sell their car to their offspring for below market value? How much below market value? As you can see, none of this makes any sense to me. I believe people would get around whatever restrictions you put in place rather easily.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > If we forbid gifts, because they're an obvious transfer of wealth, what about financial transactions that favour one party? Should it be legal for a rich parent to sell their car to their offspring for below market value? How much below market value? In fact, this is already illegal, but there's no enforcement. (Enforcement would be challenging in any realistic scenario; it always is when every party to a transaction benefits from it.) According to the law, whenever you obtain anything from anyone (not just relatives) at a price below market value, you have to pay taxes on the difference.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      In fact, neither of those is illegal. You’d have to be fairly wealthy and incredibly generous to actually trigger conditions needed to pay taxes on gifts. Aside from being able to give $15K per person per year (or twice that for married couples) you also get a lifetime gift-giving exemption of nearly $12 million for any gift giving over the annual amounts. You’re also allowed to sell your kid your car for $1. It’ll probably be counted as a gift of market value - $1. Your kid will probably be required to pay taxes on it as if he purchased it for market value. But it’s not illegal.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > You’re also allowed to sell your kid your car for $1. It’ll probably be counted as a gift of market value - $1. Your kid will probably be required to pay taxes on it as if he purchased it for market value. But it’s not illegal. Sure. But when I say "this is already illegal", I'm implicitly including the kid not paying the taxes after this happens.
tsjq 6y ago
There's an Indian movie based on this perspective . Rang De Basanti
ozim 6y ago
You know that you cannot just "gift" a house or a car even to close family. There is amount for which above tax authorities have to be notified and there is a gift tax. So if investigation goes about searching for crime related gains it should go around connections of the crime boss. If they have house, they have to have at least contract to prove it is theirs. If you were not earning any money for entire life (because you were a mistress of a kinpin) and now you have a house that is at least suspicious. So if you don't disclose your income source then around 80% tax comes in for income without source. In Poland government introduced extended seizure so, mothers, sisters, wife's are under scrutiny for any possessions that were acquired by those people in relation to crimes with a lot of money involved. Such crimes are above $50k and are taking into account all possessions that are within last 5 years before court verdict. That means just as in tax case all those people have to prove they legally acquired their possessions. They probably have to have invoices, contracts and prove they had such amount of money. To remind as well, for tax purposes you have to prove you are not guilty, because you have house/car/money which makes you guilty until proven otherwise.
mr_woozy 6y ago
>But then the family, wife, kids didn't really directly participate in the crime so how and when to punish them? Pretty sure being the recipient or beneficiary to stolen or embezzled funds makes them an accomplice.

didibus 6y ago

I recently started to think that inheritance should just be all together eliminated. It is still a root of inequality, and promotes all kind of bad behavior. Your accomplishments, your money, not your kids. When you die, the assets should go back to the people equally. That way all children, no matter their parents, citizen of a country, should have equality in opportunity. In theory, children with rich parents will still have plenty of advantages, connections, know how, good education, etc. But they shouldn't inherit any assets or financials. Now how would that be managed in practice, no idea, and I haven't fully thought through everything here, but I'm just surprised this isn't an idea I hear more about, as it seems to me this is a huge source of inequality remaining in our society.

tasuki 6y ago
What about gifts? Can people gift other people things? If we forbid gifts, because they're an obvious transfer of wealth, what about financial transactions that favour one party? Should it be legal for a rich parent to sell their car to their offspring for below market value? How much below market value? As you can see, none of this makes any sense to me. I believe people would get around whatever restrictions you put in place rather easily.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > If we forbid gifts, because they're an obvious transfer of wealth, what about financial transactions that favour one party? Should it be legal for a rich parent to sell their car to their offspring for below market value? How much below market value? In fact, this is already illegal, but there's no enforcement. (Enforcement would be challenging in any realistic scenario; it always is when every party to a transaction benefits from it.) According to the law, whenever you obtain anything from anyone (not just relatives) at a price below market value, you have to pay taxes on the difference.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    In fact, neither of those is illegal. You’d have to be fairly wealthy and incredibly generous to actually trigger conditions needed to pay taxes on gifts. Aside from being able to give $15K per person per year (or twice that for married couples) you also get a lifetime gift-giving exemption of nearly $12 million for any gift giving over the annual amounts. You’re also allowed to sell your kid your car for $1. It’ll probably be counted as a gift of market value - $1. Your kid will probably be required to pay taxes on it as if he purchased it for market value. But it’s not illegal.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > You’re also allowed to sell your kid your car for $1. It’ll probably be counted as a gift of market value - $1. Your kid will probably be required to pay taxes on it as if he purchased it for market value. But it’s not illegal. Sure. But when I say "this is already illegal", I'm implicitly including the kid not paying the taxes after this happens.

tsjq 6y ago

There's an Indian movie based on this perspective . Rang De Basanti

ozim 6y ago

You know that you cannot just "gift" a house or a car even to close family. There is amount for which above tax authorities have to be notified and there is a gift tax. So if investigation goes about searching for crime related gains it should go around connections of the crime boss. If they have house, they have to have at least contract to prove it is theirs. If you were not earning any money for entire life (because you were a mistress of a kinpin) and now you have a house that is at least suspicious. So if you don't disclose your income source then around 80% tax comes in for income without source. In Poland government introduced extended seizure so, mothers, sisters, wife's are under scrutiny for any possessions that were acquired by those people in relation to crimes with a lot of money involved. Such crimes are above $50k and are taking into account all possessions that are within last 5 years before court verdict. That means just as in tax case all those people have to prove they legally acquired their possessions. They probably have to have invoices, contracts and prove they had such amount of money. To remind as well, for tax purposes you have to prove you are not guilty, because you have house/car/money which makes you guilty until proven otherwise.

mr_woozy 6y ago

>But then the family, wife, kids didn't really directly participate in the crime so how and when to punish them? Pretty sure being the recipient or beneficiary to stolen or embezzled funds makes them an accomplice.