3 ms·

Debt might not be passed to children, but when the parent's assets are liquidated and sold on death to settle high taxes on inheritance, it is clear that they e

Debt might not be passed to children, but when the parent's assets are liquidated and sold on death to settle high taxes on inheritance, it is clear that they effectively are even at a local scale. Assets that would've been inherited by the children, as a form of generational wealth transfer, are cut off. High government debt means high taxes. Those assets are liquidated and heavily taxed. Rent seeking behaviour then limits that generation's ability to grow their own asset base. A mortgage for a home, a person's main store of wealth, is now more about how much lifetime debt you can sustain rather than a reasonable price for a reasonable asset backed loan. The whole thing is insane. Welcome to a world where you own nothing, die with nothing and pass nothing on. This prevents the accumulation of wealth (power) over generations, keeping the poor poor and helping the rich become richer.

candiddevmike 3y ago
End of life care is going to obliterate generational wealth long before taxes, it doesn't even get taxed until you're over 13 million in the US. IMO, generational wealth should be taxed more as it's a huge source of sustaining inequality and trivial to avoid/plan around if you're rich.
- HenryBemis 3y ago
  This could be fair (?) if you are a billionaire. If I've been saving and investing most of my life, and I end up leaving €2-3m to my children, why would the taxman take 20-30-40% of it? (since you don't mention a percentage I came up with it). Why should I be punished for 'not giving money back to the economy' (spending - ~25% VAT)? Saving money gives the bank the ability to loan it to someone else (or even me), thus growing the economy. Investing money gives the company (assuming stocks/etc.) funds to grow. Am I being punished for not paying a VAT or ~25% (spending) but instead of paying 'only' the 15%-19% for capital gains tax (when my children close those positions)? Heads I lose, Tails I lose?
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    Since you’re talking about fairness, Mossack Fonseca had 214,000 accounts. Many rich people are taking an option you don’t mention.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    > Investing money gives the company (assuming stocks/etc.) funds to grow. How does that work? If I buy 100 shares of MSFT from some other shareholder, no funds are going to Microsoft.
- jen20 3y ago
  £325000 in the UK. Less than the price of a one bedroom flat in London 15 years ago.
- lurking15 3y ago
  > it's a huge source of sustaining inequality The biggest source of inequality is that humans are essentially unequal, and you only have to see the outcomes among siblings to see that this is true. If a family cannot ensure equality among siblings, certainly a government will fail horribly.

candiddevmike 3y ago

End of life care is going to obliterate generational wealth long before taxes, it doesn't even get taxed until you're over 13 million in the US. IMO, generational wealth should be taxed more as it's a huge source of sustaining inequality and trivial to avoid/plan around if you're rich.

HenryBemis 3y ago
This could be fair (?) if you are a billionaire. If I've been saving and investing most of my life, and I end up leaving €2-3m to my children, why would the taxman take 20-30-40% of it? (since you don't mention a percentage I came up with it). Why should I be punished for 'not giving money back to the economy' (spending - ~25% VAT)? Saving money gives the bank the ability to loan it to someone else (or even me), thus growing the economy. Investing money gives the company (assuming stocks/etc.) funds to grow. Am I being punished for not paying a VAT or ~25% (spending) but instead of paying 'only' the 15%-19% for capital gains tax (when my children close those positions)? Heads I lose, Tails I lose?
- ttyprintk 3y ago
  Since you’re talking about fairness, Mossack Fonseca had 214,000 accounts. Many rich people are taking an option you don’t mention.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  > Investing money gives the company (assuming stocks/etc.) funds to grow. How does that work? If I buy 100 shares of MSFT from some other shareholder, no funds are going to Microsoft.
jen20 3y ago
£325000 in the UK. Less than the price of a one bedroom flat in London 15 years ago.
lurking15 3y ago
> it's a huge source of sustaining inequality The biggest source of inequality is that humans are essentially unequal, and you only have to see the outcomes among siblings to see that this is true. If a family cannot ensure equality among siblings, certainly a government will fail horribly.