4 ms·

Or it's just a way to screw younger people who didn't lock in fixed rate mortgages when they could.

incomingpain 5y ago
>Or it's just a way to screw younger people who didn't lock in fixed rate mortgages when they could. Lets say we climb to 15% inflation and subsequently interest rates. Who can afford to pay 150,000$/year on a million $ home? Literally nobody. The boomer selling the home suddenly cant sell their home for a million. It will have to drop in order to spend that $. That retirement fund is suddenly looking weaker. Generational wealth is a remarkable field that we don't know anything about. We do know inheritance taxes are absolutely destructive to economies, but 1 generation can't in debt another in order to retire. Soon as you retire, I saw that I will now only work for much much more than you can afford on your fixed income. The system is understanding this. There's a reason why real yields are negative. Hell Switzerland is -0.75% interest rates. Denmark -0.6%. Japan -0.1%. Most of the west is at 0% or recently increased.
- mupuff1234 5y ago
  > We do know inheritance taxes are absolutely destructive to economies Is there any data to back that claim?
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    largely speaking as I said we don't know a significant amount about generational wealth. It's virtually impossible to account for all variables etc etc. You cant make conclusions. I guess before we go forward, why is it bad? You are taxing families, family taxes are literally the worst thing you can do. Hence why there are so many tax benefits if not literally $ like in baby bonuses being given to families. If you actually were to make it such that families with children under age 18 got basic income and individuals between age 18 and 65 who don't have children of any age pay for it. Tax for being childless would probably be painful and unpopular obviously not everyone can have kids etc... but theoretically this would be ideal for society. Society is made for families and should be hostile toward individuals. Kind of jumping to actual wealth tax, the important detail is that many countries have tried it. Denmark or more specifically Iceland is the one I researched/studied in depth. Iceland's weak economy and weak isk made it a great study point. Not only did they not actually generate much revenue, it came with waves of silver crime. It had significant wealth escape to britain. The actual wealth tax produced a negative tax revenue. Later, CCP hired an economist who measured the brain drain and what forced them to open up offices outside iceland. Denmark followed and within a year of cancelling it they had significant measurable improvements they didnt even expect. In fact, because of denmark's success quite a few countries nuked their wealth taxes. Which is remarkable because how many countries ever reduce taxes? It's pretty rare, you only ever see taxes increasing.

>Or it's just a way to screw younger people who didn't lock in fixed rate mortgages when they could. Lets say we climb to 15% inflation and subsequently interest rates. Who can afford to pay 150,000$/year on a million $ home? Literally nobody. The boomer selling the home suddenly cant sell their home for a million. It will have to drop in order to spend that $. That retirement fund is suddenly looking weaker. Generational wealth is a remarkable field that we don't know anything about. We do know inheritance taxes are absolutely destructive to economies, but 1 generation can't in debt another in order to retire. Soon as you retire, I saw that I will now only work for much much more than you can afford on your fixed income. The system is understanding this. There's a reason why real yields are negative. Hell Switzerland is -0.75% interest rates. Denmark -0.6%. Japan -0.1%. Most of the west is at 0% or recently increased.

mupuff1234 5y ago
> We do know inheritance taxes are absolutely destructive to economies Is there any data to back that claim?
- incomingpain 5y ago
  largely speaking as I said we don't know a significant amount about generational wealth. It's virtually impossible to account for all variables etc etc. You cant make conclusions. I guess before we go forward, why is it bad? You are taxing families, family taxes are literally the worst thing you can do. Hence why there are so many tax benefits if not literally $ like in baby bonuses being given to families. If you actually were to make it such that families with children under age 18 got basic income and individuals between age 18 and 65 who don't have children of any age pay for it. Tax for being childless would probably be painful and unpopular obviously not everyone can have kids etc... but theoretically this would be ideal for society. Society is made for families and should be hostile toward individuals. Kind of jumping to actual wealth tax, the important detail is that many countries have tried it. Denmark or more specifically Iceland is the one I researched/studied in depth. Iceland's weak economy and weak isk made it a great study point. Not only did they not actually generate much revenue, it came with waves of silver crime. It had significant wealth escape to britain. The actual wealth tax produced a negative tax revenue. Later, CCP hired an economist who measured the brain drain and what forced them to open up offices outside iceland. Denmark followed and within a year of cancelling it they had significant measurable improvements they didnt even expect. In fact, because of denmark's success quite a few countries nuked their wealth taxes. Which is remarkable because how many countries ever reduce taxes? It's pretty rare, you only ever see taxes increasing.