5 ms·

Aww, sounds like you're an American. Well, I have news for you... > my kids inherit what I've worked for Almost certainly that will also be taken away by the

by javert 6y ago

Aww, sounds like you're an American. Well, I have news for you... > my kids inherit what I've worked for Almost certainly that will also be taken away by the US government by the time you die.

tyingq 6y ago
The federal estate tax exemption amount is $11.7 million for individuals. Life insurance payments are not treated as taxable income, beneficiaries do not pay income tax on them.
- tesmar2 6y ago
  > $11.7 million for individuals Should be 0. Death taxes are horrible.
  - elric 6y ago
    Would you care to elaborate why? Estate tax (which IMO seems way too low in the US) makes it harder to accumulate generational wealth, and is a good way help prevent inequality.
    - javert 6y ago
      We should not want to prevent inequality through government intervention. We should want to live for our own ends, not for the sake of other people.
      - GavinMcG 6y ago
        > not for the sake of other people By that measure there should be no objection to eliminating inheritance altogether.
        javert 6y ago
        Loving your children can be one of your chosen "ends." What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you. We should not want that. We should not want government-forced sacrifice instead of giving an inheritance to a beloved person according to our own choices. I would argue that people who want to ban inheritance love their "brothers" (random and probably non-deserving strangers) too much, and love their children too little.
        geofft 6y ago
        Can hiring only white people be one of my chosen "ends," which the government has no business interfering with? Can serving food to only white people be one of my chosen "ends"?
        javert 6y ago
        Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices. What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory. What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian? What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs. Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
        CRConrad 6y ago
        > What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? The state doesn't think that it's "stupid" to only serve white people; it thinks that it's evil to only serve white people. Therefore the state makes that illegal. (And rightly so. Had it thought -- or, as you say, when it did think -- the opposite, then it was the state that was evil.) The state also seems to (at least to) some tiny extent think that it's bad to contribute to (or by inaction to allow) economic power becoming concentrated in ever fewer hands, and therefore tries to avoid doing that by limiting your freedom to aggravate this concentration. You don't seem to have a cogent counter-argument; what you're spewing is just simplistic libertarian rah-rah. > Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Yeah, right. That's why the USA kept doing precisely that for at least another century after the civil war. (Or, arguably, is still doing it.) The view you're proclaiming is hilariously Pollyanna. (That often seems to go hand-in-hand with simplistic libertarian rah-rah.)
    - tesmar2 6y ago
      > good way help prevent inequality It's not the gov's job to prevent inequality, but rather to secure God-given negative rights. Or where do you think rights come from?
      - javert 6y ago
        Rights come from deciding what rules we need to have in place to thrive. Not God. There is no evidence for God. The argument that rights come from God is not sustainable today.
        tesmar2 6y ago
        > There is no evidence for God I think we will respectfully depart there. I think there is, and hence, rights come from God. You don't think that, but it's such a fundamental difference that it's hard to go anywhere from there.
        javert 6y ago
        I'm curious what you would claim as evidence, if you are willing to share, even though, full disclaimer, I don't think talking about this sort of thing is within the realm of intellectual discourse.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
frongpik 6y ago
Can't you move all your savings to a trust that would pay only to your kids?
- javert 6y ago
  Not that I'm aware of.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  Yes. You need an estate attorney to set it up properly but you can put all your assets into a trust with designated beneficiaries. This also has the advantage of greatly simplifying the probate process compared to a simple will. IANAL but I think this is because the trust does not "die" so all the assets the trust owns are excluded from probate.
  - javert 6y ago
    > has the advantage of greatly simplifying the probate process Which is why people do it. I have seen no evidence that trusts can reduce inheritance taxes. It you have specific examples, I'd appreciate that. I've always been told by wealth management people that trusts are for managing inheritance, not for reducing taxes on it. Maybe I don't have good enough people. Some of the articles online use a lot of weasel language. For example, consider: https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-taxes-trusts-1.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-taxes-trusts-1... It says: "... An amount up to the estate tax exemption is placed into a trust ..." Yeah - so not helpful! Also says: "... Shares of a privately held company that are assigned a low value are placed in the trust and allowed to grow, so that appreciation passes to the heirs tax-free..." Yeah, but appreciation passes tax-free anyway. If your children inherit stocks from you, they get a cost basis step-up to the value of the stocks on the day of your death. The article is written as if this has something to do with the trust, but it doesn't.

by javert 6y ago

Aww, sounds like you're an American. Well, I have news for you... > my kids inherit what I've worked for Almost certainly that will also be taken away by the US government by the time you die.

tyingq 6y ago

The federal estate tax exemption amount is $11.7 million for individuals. Life insurance payments are not treated as taxable income, beneficiaries do not pay income tax on them.

tesmar2 6y ago
> $11.7 million for individuals Should be 0. Death taxes are horrible.
- elric 6y ago
  Would you care to elaborate why? Estate tax (which IMO seems way too low in the US) makes it harder to accumulate generational wealth, and is a good way help prevent inequality.
  - javert 6y ago
    We should not want to prevent inequality through government intervention. We should want to live for our own ends, not for the sake of other people.
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      > not for the sake of other people By that measure there should be no objection to eliminating inheritance altogether.
      - javert 6y ago
        Loving your children can be one of your chosen "ends." What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you. We should not want that. We should not want government-forced sacrifice instead of giving an inheritance to a beloved person according to our own choices. I would argue that people who want to ban inheritance love their "brothers" (random and probably non-deserving strangers) too much, and love their children too little.
        geofft 6y ago
        Can hiring only white people be one of my chosen "ends," which the government has no business interfering with? Can serving food to only white people be one of my chosen "ends"?
        javert 6y ago
        Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices. What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory. What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian? What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs. Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
        CRConrad 6y ago
        > What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? The state doesn't think that it's "stupid" to only serve white people; it thinks that it's evil to only serve white people. Therefore the state makes that illegal. (And rightly so. Had it thought -- or, as you say, when it did think -- the opposite, then it was the state that was evil.) The state also seems to (at least to) some tiny extent think that it's bad to contribute to (or by inaction to allow) economic power becoming concentrated in ever fewer hands, and therefore tries to avoid doing that by limiting your freedom to aggravate this concentration. You don't seem to have a cogent counter-argument; what you're spewing is just simplistic libertarian rah-rah. > Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Yeah, right. That's why the USA kept doing precisely that for at least another century after the civil war. (Or, arguably, is still doing it.) The view you're proclaiming is hilariously Pollyanna. (That often seems to go hand-in-hand with simplistic libertarian rah-rah.)
  - tesmar2 6y ago
    > good way help prevent inequality It's not the gov's job to prevent inequality, but rather to secure God-given negative rights. Or where do you think rights come from?
    - javert 6y ago
      Rights come from deciding what rules we need to have in place to thrive. Not God. There is no evidence for God. The argument that rights come from God is not sustainable today.
      - tesmar2 6y ago
        > There is no evidence for God I think we will respectfully depart there. I think there is, and hence, rights come from God. You don't think that, but it's such a fundamental difference that it's hard to go anywhere from there.
        javert 6y ago
        I'm curious what you would claim as evidence, if you are willing to share, even though, full disclaimer, I don't think talking about this sort of thing is within the realm of intellectual discourse.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

frongpik 6y ago

Can't you move all your savings to a trust that would pay only to your kids?

javert 6y ago
Not that I'm aware of.
throwawayboise 6y ago
Yes. You need an estate attorney to set it up properly but you can put all your assets into a trust with designated beneficiaries. This also has the advantage of greatly simplifying the probate process compared to a simple will. IANAL but I think this is because the trust does not "die" so all the assets the trust owns are excluded from probate.
- javert 6y ago
  > has the advantage of greatly simplifying the probate process Which is why people do it. I have seen no evidence that trusts can reduce inheritance taxes. It you have specific examples, I'd appreciate that. I've always been told by wealth management people that trusts are for managing inheritance, not for reducing taxes on it. Maybe I don't have good enough people. Some of the articles online use a lot of weasel language. For example, consider: https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-taxes-trusts-1.aspx https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-taxes-trusts-1... It says: "... An amount up to the estate tax exemption is placed into a trust ..." Yeah - so not helpful! Also says: "... Shares of a privately held company that are assigned a low value are placed in the trust and allowed to grow, so that appreciation passes to the heirs tax-free..." Yeah, but appreciation passes tax-free anyway. If your children inherit stocks from you, they get a cost basis step-up to the value of the stocks on the day of your death. The article is written as if this has something to do with the trust, but it doesn't.