5 ms·

> 471 million in estate taxes on a $1 billion collection? That's depressing. I agree. It should be much higher.

by jquery 14y ago

swombat 14y ago
That's a bold statement to make without any substantiating argument. This is money earned by someone through their hard work. They probably created hundreds or thousands of jobs in the process too. They paid taxes on it already, too. Why should the state help itself to almost half of the inheritance? Because it doesn't suck enough to have a close relative die, so you want to make it more painful?
- brudgers 14y ago
  Assuming you are correct, the person who created all those jobs is dead. The people paying the taxes, the heirs, did none of those things.
  - swombat 14y ago
    Do you disagree with the very concept of inheritance then? Do you think nothing should be allowed to pass from you to your children?
    - Joakal 14y ago
      94% of inheritances are untaxed in UK. Why? It's because it's a rich inheritance tax. Do you think children should win the birth lottery?
      - eggnet 14y ago
        Having good parents is worth more than money. Should parents give up their children to the state to make sure nobody has unfairly great parents? Maybe the state should control mate selection as well. We wouldn't want all of the best people pairing up, what is left for the rest?
        jquery 14y ago
        > Should parents give up their children to the state to make sure nobody has unfairly great parents? It's called public education and it's not very controversial.
      - writetoalok 14y ago
        Humans have won the gene lottery compared to other primates, what makes the next step hard to digest?
    - brudgers 14y ago
      Even after paying $471 million in taxes on the art, the heirs stand to net half a billion dollars. So it's hardly "nothing" and hardly a cause of hardship (and that's just the art portion of the wealth). In the US, it is a tiny fraction of estates which are encumbered with any sort of inheritance taxes. As an American, I am not opposed to inheritance taxes. Discouraging the creation of an hereditary aristocracy is part and parcel of the legacy of our revolution and has long been one of the reasons for enacting inheritance taxes. Given the way in which our tax code favors capital gains, the inheritance tax is in many ways a mechanism which allows people to grow their wealth tax deferred. And in the case of the art, it is a stretch to consider any increase in value a capital gain that contributed to economic growth. Other cultures enjoy supporting hereditary nobility. But it's not part of our founding principles.
      - swombat 14y ago
        I think you're only making this argument because it doesn't apply to you. If you were rich, that would be because you cared to generate wealth on that scale. You worked your bollocks off and created vast amounts of wealth at the cost of blood and sweat and your life. I am not rich, but I am earning decent money through my business now and trust me when I say that every penny the government takes on the money that I earned through my hard work creating something from scratch is painful. I shudder at the thought that when I die, a large percentage of what I earned would be snatched away from those I love "just because the state can".
        brudgers 14y ago
        My comments have been motivated by the characterization of the inheritance tax as liable to leave the heirs as waifs. Sonnabend's heirs are middle aged adults, who like their mother were raised in wealth. There is nothing wrong with that, nor even with owning a $30,000,000 stuffed bald eagle (the prohibition on the sale of which I think is absurd). However, the basis of my opinion regarding the inheritance tax in general is based on a simple political philosophy similar to that of Socrates - when one has enjoyed and benefited from the rule of law for a life time, the only ethical course is to accept those parts of the law which may be to one's detriment. Sonnabend clearly benefited from the laws of the US for many decades - among those the ability to own private property, enforce contracts, and exchange goods for fungible currency. Indeed, it was US immigration policy which allowed her and her family to immigrate and transfer their wealth from Europe on the eve of the Second World War. The US tax code allows wealth to be transferred between generations in accordance with American values. The creation of a permanent aristocracy has not traditionally been consistent with those values. As for me, I shudder at the the thought of money constituting my most important legacy to those I love.
  - cglace 14y ago
    So when the person dies The possessions should go back to their rightful owner. The government.
    - Joakal 14y ago
      Actually, it's going to the people. The government is representing the people. However, the children inheritances will still far above average after rich inheritance taxes.
      - felipemnoa 14y ago
        Lets be cynical and say that in most governments it will go to whomever can steal the most.
    - kabdib 14y ago
      Since when is the government the rightful owner of anything? Are we ultimately slaves, then? If my spouse is dead or I am divorced, and I have a house, and I die, are my children homeless and destitute? I am honestly flabbergasted at the concept that a government should own things by default. A government is not a kingdom, and it should govern, not own.

> 471 million in estate taxes on a $1 billion collection? That's depressing. I agree. It should be much higher.

by jquery 14y ago

> 471 million in estate taxes on a $1 billion collection? That's depressing. I agree. It should be much higher.

That's a bold statement to make without any substantiating argument. This is money earned by someone through their hard work. They probably created hundreds or thousands of jobs in the process too. They paid taxes on it already, too. Why should the state help itself to almost half of the inheritance? Because it doesn't suck enough to have a close relative die, so you want to make it more painful?

brudgers 14y ago
Assuming you are correct, the person who created all those jobs is dead. The people paying the taxes, the heirs, did none of those things.
- swombat 14y ago
  Do you disagree with the very concept of inheritance then? Do you think nothing should be allowed to pass from you to your children?
  - Joakal 14y ago
    94% of inheritances are untaxed in UK. Why? It's because it's a rich inheritance tax. Do you think children should win the birth lottery?
    - eggnet 14y ago
      Having good parents is worth more than money. Should parents give up their children to the state to make sure nobody has unfairly great parents? Maybe the state should control mate selection as well. We wouldn't want all of the best people pairing up, what is left for the rest?
      - jquery 14y ago
        > Should parents give up their children to the state to make sure nobody has unfairly great parents? It's called public education and it's not very controversial.
    - writetoalok 14y ago
      Humans have won the gene lottery compared to other primates, what makes the next step hard to digest?
  - brudgers 14y ago
    Even after paying $471 million in taxes on the art, the heirs stand to net half a billion dollars. So it's hardly "nothing" and hardly a cause of hardship (and that's just the art portion of the wealth). In the US, it is a tiny fraction of estates which are encumbered with any sort of inheritance taxes. As an American, I am not opposed to inheritance taxes. Discouraging the creation of an hereditary aristocracy is part and parcel of the legacy of our revolution and has long been one of the reasons for enacting inheritance taxes. Given the way in which our tax code favors capital gains, the inheritance tax is in many ways a mechanism which allows people to grow their wealth tax deferred. And in the case of the art, it is a stretch to consider any increase in value a capital gain that contributed to economic growth. Other cultures enjoy supporting hereditary nobility. But it's not part of our founding principles.
    - swombat 14y ago
      I think you're only making this argument because it doesn't apply to you. If you were rich, that would be because you cared to generate wealth on that scale. You worked your bollocks off and created vast amounts of wealth at the cost of blood and sweat and your life. I am not rich, but I am earning decent money through my business now and trust me when I say that every penny the government takes on the money that I earned through my hard work creating something from scratch is painful. I shudder at the thought that when I die, a large percentage of what I earned would be snatched away from those I love "just because the state can".
      - brudgers 14y ago
        My comments have been motivated by the characterization of the inheritance tax as liable to leave the heirs as waifs. Sonnabend's heirs are middle aged adults, who like their mother were raised in wealth. There is nothing wrong with that, nor even with owning a $30,000,000 stuffed bald eagle (the prohibition on the sale of which I think is absurd). However, the basis of my opinion regarding the inheritance tax in general is based on a simple political philosophy similar to that of Socrates - when one has enjoyed and benefited from the rule of law for a life time, the only ethical course is to accept those parts of the law which may be to one's detriment. Sonnabend clearly benefited from the laws of the US for many decades - among those the ability to own private property, enforce contracts, and exchange goods for fungible currency. Indeed, it was US immigration policy which allowed her and her family to immigrate and transfer their wealth from Europe on the eve of the Second World War. The US tax code allows wealth to be transferred between generations in accordance with American values. The creation of a permanent aristocracy has not traditionally been consistent with those values. As for me, I shudder at the the thought of money constituting my most important legacy to those I love.
- cglace 14y ago
  So when the person dies The possessions should go back to their rightful owner. The government.
  - Joakal 14y ago
    Actually, it's going to the people. The government is representing the people. However, the children inheritances will still far above average after rich inheritance taxes.
    - felipemnoa 14y ago
      Lets be cynical and say that in most governments it will go to whomever can steal the most.
  - kabdib 14y ago
    Since when is the government the rightful owner of anything? Are we ultimately slaves, then? If my spouse is dead or I am divorced, and I have a house, and I die, are my children homeless and destitute? I am honestly flabbergasted at the concept that a government should own things by default. A government is not a kingdom, and it should govern, not own.