7 ms·
What I like about these schemes is they allow old people to enjoy the value of their property rather than enduring poverty just so their heirs can have an unear
by exporectomy 5y ago
What I like about these schemes is they allow old people to enjoy the value of their property rather than enduring poverty just so their heirs can have an unearned pile of cash. So much value in the world is generated by hard working people then just dumped into the flaming rubbish pit of reckless children and spouses by inheritance. I wish inheritance wasn't the default way and you had to explicitly assign property in your will or otherwise for it to happen. The default would be that it goes to the state or something else not personally connected to the dead person.
- nyokodo 5y ago> The default would be that it goes to the state Because that's less of a flaming rubbish pit of recklessness than family?
- andyana 5y agoTo the right state, I think it is less of such a pit, yes.
- rkk3 5y agotell us when you've found one.
- andyana 5y agoI'll do that. In the meantime, are you going to keep doing nothing?
- zarathustreal 5y agoI for one will continue doing nothing, much better than taking steps in the wrong direction
- andyana 5y agoKeeping active is good for you. Any steps that aren't towards negativity are better than none at all, I reckon.
- permo-w 5y agopretty much any northern european state
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- exporectomy 5y agoYes. That's why we pay tax to the state, not to family members.
- ekianjo 5y agoYou pay tax to the state bevause you have to. its not like its ever a choice.
- enjeyw 5y agopeople choose to live in places with higher levels of taxes, sometimes due to the associated benefits of those higher taxes.
- jjk166 5y agoThere's a difference between choosing higher taxes and tolerating higher taxes. Further, voting with one's feet is easier said than done - the overwhelming majority of people can't arbitrarily move wherever they like whenever they like.
- ekianjo 5y agoMost people live in the country they are born. Mobility is the highest of all time but it's still a very tiny minority of people who move borders.
- dkdk8283 5y agoArguably the benefits don’t outweigh the financial burden of taxes. The human element is the common denominator to all failing (or failed) policy and there will always be winners and losers. mIn my opinion the only way to succeed is to give people a chance at winning instead of taxing them into poverty.
- permo-w 5y agoHacker News has a libertarian anti-tax bent that I think a lot of people on here assume is the consensus globally. It’s not. I’m happy to pay taxes and I like the benefits they bring society as a whole. I can understand why decades of Republicans and to some extent Democrats deliberately ruining your public services would give you a scepticism towards taxes, but you have to remember that not everyone lives in the US, and even then not everyone has the same attitude
- an_opabinia 5y agoNothing says representative democracy like a law that would take your assets and give it to the one party nobody ever wants to give it to.
- antifa 5y agoYou could say our representative "democracy" is a little too indirect.
- LatteLazy 5y agoBecause then you could cut income taxes for people who work or cap gains taxes for people who actually save. The fact you pay more tax on things you earned than the inheritance lottery is BS.
- alisonkisk 5y agoIncome tax is tax on production. Taxing on gifts/inheritance just makes it harder to move money. One person lost the the same money someone else lost.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y agoWhat happens to the old person's home when the financial institution goes bankrupt?
- dehrmann 5y agoI suppose the homeowners would be the debtors, and since the institution went bankrupt, it presumably missed payments, voiding the contract?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 5y ago> So much value in the world is generated by hard working people then just dumped into the flaming rubbish pit of reckless children and spouses by inheritance Most of inheritance in France goes to the state which is the most rubbish pit of recklessness of all.
- dopidopHN 5y agoFunny both my grand parent die 2 years ago. I inherited some even being a grand son. Also, after living 6 years in your wonderful country: I can wait to go back to the rubbish pile that is france. To each it’s own I guess. Rugged individualism, rampant inequalities and industrial decay is not for me. The tax burden depends on the amount you inherit It’s between 20% and 45% You can play with a official calculator here https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F14198 https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F14198
- chrismcb 5y agoWhy? So the will industry can make more money? If this was the default, almost everyone would immediately set up a will to give everything to their children . A lot of people want to provide for their spouse and children, even after they are gone.
- GlennS 5y ago> The default would be that it goes to the state I feel like this is a fight you will never win, and it's one I have abandoned, but... I think a better sell would be: > The default would be that it goes to orphanages and adoption services
- NicoJuicy 5y agoGovernment already takes a big % of inheritance. That's why some people decline it too ( Belgium). Default going to the state is insane and ineffective. People would give it away more during their life.
- mijamo 5y agoWell if you give it away during your life it would be taxed as income, so not really a problem for the state either.
- axiosgunnar 5y agoGifts are tax free for everyone but the 0.1%ers. It has nothing to do with income tax, since it was not income for work rendered - it was a gift.
- yourusername 5y agoThat really depends on the country. In the Netherlands gifts over €3244 are taxed 10-40% depending on the specific situation.
- zepto 5y ago> just so their heirs can have an unearned pile of cash Do you think everyone should start out at zero and then build up debt until they are old enough to start working and paying it off?
- alisonkisk 5y agoEveryone? No Some people, but not others? Also no.
- andrepd 5y agoWhy is it more leginitate for some people to start at zero and build up debt until they are old enough to start working and paying it off, while other people start with a cool few mil in the bank and never have to work a day in their lives, being able to extract the surplus value from the former's labour and still enjoying a vastly superior standard of living?
- zajio1am 5y agoBecause it is not possible to forbid procreation to ones who cannot provide enough starting capital to their children. But one can still consider that irresponsible. It is false dilemma 'start at zero' vs 'few mil in the bank'. Providing to children some basic capital resources that are necessary for living in society is something that could be done by significant share of population.
- andrepd 5y ago> Because it is not possible to forbid procreation to ones who cannot provide enough starting capital to their children. Neither possible nor desirable, what on earth made you think I was suggesting such an absurd dystopian notion? > But one can still consider that irresponsible. No. Making children is our #1 biological imperative. In a sense, it's the only "objective" purpose we have on this land: generate descendants before we die. It's absurd to say poor people are to blame if they want to have children. > Providing to children some basic capital resources that are necessary for living in society could be done by significant share of population. Not sure what you're arguing for here.