4 ms·

On the other hand, two generations would be dead after 100 years and federal inheritance tax is 40% and has been higher and the exemption limit was only about $

On the other hand, two generations would be dead after 100 years and federal inheritance tax is 40% and has been higher and the exemption limit was only about $500,000 up till the 90s, so that return is not so great, mainly because of taxes. If you are a tax exempt foundation like an Ivy League University, it's absolutely awesome though.

exporectomy 5y ago
And if you felt like passing it down your family tree, the number of people would have multiplied by an order of magnitude, diluting the share each grandchild ends up with.
- iknowicouldturn 5y ago
  The richest woman alive [by far] is the grand daughter of L’Oréal founder. Bloomberg puts the family’s stake all in her name. The info bit also says French inheritance says 50% has to go to one person. So for at least a few generations, the majority of the wealth can remain consolidated.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    That's a bit shocking about the French inheritance law. It must create awful family tensions when there are more than 2 children.
    - valesco 5y ago
      If I remember correctly the rules for minimum inheritance, it’s actually (n-1)/n of the inheritance has to be dedicated to the children, where ‘n’ is the number of children. Each child is entitled to 1/n of that. If I have 5 children, I have to give them 4/5 of the inheritance. Each one will have 1/5 of that 4/5. And in the case of a sole child, she must receive 100% of 50% of the inheritance, at least.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - exporectomy 5y ago
        OK. That makes more sense (except (n-1)/n=0 when n=1). In New Zealand too, you're required to give some inheritance to each of your children. There isn't a formula but lawyers seem to have observed that a minimum of about 10% each is acceptable.
      - narrator 5y ago
        In the U.S, it is ok to completely disinherit children. It has to be done so explicitly though.
alisonkisk 5y ago
Dead people don't need money, and an inheritance is infinity% return on 0 investment.
- beefield 5y ago
  Yep. Also, if I want to get pleasure from a bag of candies using my hard earned money, most people expect me to pay sales tax and candy shop taxes from profits and whatnot. But if I happen to want to get pleasure by giving the money away to my kids, I should absolutely not be taxed. Or to a charity, in which case I should not only not pay any taxes, but I should also be for some incomprehensible[1] reason be able to deduct the expenses in my taxation... Well, I guess nobody has promised that people should be logical in their preferences. [1] Yes, yes I know. Charities are supposed to do some good. How, exactly, providing income to candy shop owner so that they can buy education for their kids is less good than your average tax avoidance charity scheme?
  - frutiger 5y ago
    > deduct the expenses in my taxation You don’t get to deduct the expenses from your taxation. You get to deduct the expenses from your taxable income. That’s a big difference. You can’t make money on taxes by giving it away to charity (unless that charity is somehow fraudulently enriching you).
jsterSC 5y ago
You say that like it's a bad thing?

exporectomy 5y ago

And if you felt like passing it down your family tree, the number of people would have multiplied by an order of magnitude, diluting the share each grandchild ends up with.

iknowicouldturn 5y ago
The richest woman alive [by far] is the grand daughter of L’Oréal founder. Bloomberg puts the family’s stake all in her name. The info bit also says French inheritance says 50% has to go to one person. So for at least a few generations, the majority of the wealth can remain consolidated.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  That's a bit shocking about the French inheritance law. It must create awful family tensions when there are more than 2 children.
  - valesco 5y ago
    If I remember correctly the rules for minimum inheritance, it’s actually (n-1)/n of the inheritance has to be dedicated to the children, where ‘n’ is the number of children. Each child is entitled to 1/n of that. If I have 5 children, I have to give them 4/5 of the inheritance. Each one will have 1/5 of that 4/5. And in the case of a sole child, she must receive 100% of 50% of the inheritance, at least.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - exporectomy 5y ago
      OK. That makes more sense (except (n-1)/n=0 when n=1). In New Zealand too, you're required to give some inheritance to each of your children. There isn't a formula but lawyers seem to have observed that a minimum of about 10% each is acceptable.
    - narrator 5y ago
      In the U.S, it is ok to completely disinherit children. It has to be done so explicitly though.

alisonkisk 5y ago

Dead people don't need money, and an inheritance is infinity% return on 0 investment.

beefield 5y ago
Yep. Also, if I want to get pleasure from a bag of candies using my hard earned money, most people expect me to pay sales tax and candy shop taxes from profits and whatnot. But if I happen to want to get pleasure by giving the money away to my kids, I should absolutely not be taxed. Or to a charity, in which case I should not only not pay any taxes, but I should also be for some incomprehensible[1] reason be able to deduct the expenses in my taxation... Well, I guess nobody has promised that people should be logical in their preferences. [1] Yes, yes I know. Charities are supposed to do some good. How, exactly, providing income to candy shop owner so that they can buy education for their kids is less good than your average tax avoidance charity scheme?
- frutiger 5y ago
  > deduct the expenses in my taxation You don’t get to deduct the expenses from your taxation. You get to deduct the expenses from your taxable income. That’s a big difference. You can’t make money on taxes by giving it away to charity (unless that charity is somehow fraudulently enriching you).

jsterSC 5y ago

You say that like it's a bad thing?