7 ms·

>found a workaround to avoid the silly death tax I don't know if you're using the word "silly" sarcastically here, but if not, isn't this an example of this ty

>found a workaround to avoid the silly death tax I don't know if you're using the word "silly" sarcastically here, but if not, isn't this an example of this type of tax working exactly as intended? John still greatly benefited from his parents' work, and so did society at large to this very day.

arp242 2y ago
"Death tax" alone is already a very loaded way to describe inheritance tax. That said, having to pay inheritance tax twice over an organisation like this in a short span of time is rather unusual, and arguably, a bit "silly".
- Lutger 2y ago
  It is very good example of political framing. It evokes the thought of tax as a punishment for dying, and its collection as a kind of harassment of the bereaved. So tax bad, case closed, no discussion. But of course, it is not death and loss that it taxed, it is rather the accumulated wealth being redistributed over both society at large and the heirs, in some kind of ratio. In favor of inheritance tax: the wealth somebody amassed has also been thanks to its participation in society, so it is only fair some portion of it goes back to society. The heirs played no part in it, so why should they get any, let alone all of it? Furthermore, inheriting wealth goes against the idea of meritocracy, and maintains inequality in an unfair way in modern societies. Why should inheritance tax not be 100%? Children often grow attached to the 'stuff' their parents have collected, be it things or land, houses or money. It seems unfair to take it all away from them, as they feel they already 'own it' merely by being their children. So inheritance tax is some kind of compromise. However, as each generation these days tend to fully 'break' with their parents, in a way (economically, spiritually), inheritance itself seems more and more like a thing of our tribal pasts. I imagine a future where there is no inheritance tax anymore, because the whole concept of inheritance will go away.
  - ajsnigrutin 2y ago
    But wasn't the "society" paid off by all the "living taxes" before the person died? Imagine having nothing, your parents dying, you, an eg. broke college student inheriting a 2 bedroom apartment, which is somehow worth $1mio, and you owe so much tax (that you can't pay) that you're forced to sell the apartment, the only place you've ever known. With 100% inheritance tax, i'd literally stop working as soon as i reached enough money to retire. Why work harder if it all vanishes when I die, and my hypothetical kids gain nothig? Or, more realistically, i'd convert stuff to cash and give it to them without the government knowing. Tax the income, close the loopholes, once the tax for something is paid, the rest should go to the person, the government has got its share, it has enough. And i'm saying this as someone who already lives in a country without inheritance tax (in most usualy cases).
    - Draiken 2y ago
      This leads to what we have today: insane levels of wealth inequality. Everyone that inherits fortunes from their parents get to live life on easy mode while every one else is poorer, with less assets and barring winning a lottery ticket, no way to ever catch up. Wealth creates a feedback loop that if gone unchecked will hoard all assets from everyone else. We can't have both meritocracy and inheritance as they are mutually exclusive. If we want to keep telling people there's any modicum of truth to meritocracy, we have to stop all this inheritance bullshit. The particulars of it can be discussed with caps based on amounts, for example, but that's not the point. There's a reason that most wealthy people from the past are still wealthy today and I can guarantee you it's not through their own merit. Tax wealth, not work. There should be no billionaires.
      - Ntrails 2y ago
        > Tax wealth, not work. There should be no billionaires. NB. This does not mean that Inheritance should be a taxable event! There would be less need to have inheritance tax if we had a consistent wealth tax. It remains obvious to me that inheritance drives social inequality, and similarly it is obvious that parents are going to resent not giving their children as much help as they can.
- Starlevel004 2y ago
  "Inheritance tax, is broadly speaking a voluntary levy paid by those who distrust their Heirs more than they dislike the Inland Revenue" - Roy Jenkins MP
jajko 2y ago
Silly is actually too nice a word for such extortion scheme. As you see if rich enough/business big enough, it could be easily circumvented. The little people without access to great lawyers and accountants got absolutely hammered when it got applied to them. But victorian England wasn't setup for little people in mind, it was all lords and wealthy businessmen ruling it all. So similar to current situation in many places - if you are rich enough, you basically exist outside of tax system, be it capital gains, investments, inheritance etc. Obscure tax structures spanning whole globe as ie Panama papers showed. Its the middle class that gets hammered out of existence, ie in France its around 40% for inheritance tax, and trusts are AFAIK forbidden / treated very punitively. Very rich still bypass this and everybody knows this, everybody below not so much. Its not even effective there, the amount extracted yearly in such way is minuscule, but it pleases crowds with 'social justice' so they don't protest so much and burn more cars on streets.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Most jurisdictions have a tax-free allowance or threshold. If you're affected by an inheritance tax, you're not poor. As I said in the comment you're responding to, this seems like an example of how this type of tax worked correctly for a very rich person, so the thread you're responding to is already a counterexample to your argument. I agree that inheritance taxes can be implemented poorly. Still, the concept of an inheritance tax is good, and poorly implemented inheritance taxes should be fixed by improving them, not removing them.
  - hgomersall 2y ago
    Recently proposed changes to the UK system to include business property (and farms) are going to further the take over of productive property (including farms) in the UK by private equity and large and multi-national companies who have shown to be pretty poor actors in furthering the public good. In my opinion, this is a particularly bad change to inheritance tax.
    - davedx 2y ago
      Insightful comment. Good example of the law of unintended consequences there.

arp242 2y ago

"Death tax" alone is already a very loaded way to describe inheritance tax. That said, having to pay inheritance tax twice over an organisation like this in a short span of time is rather unusual, and arguably, a bit "silly".

Lutger 2y ago
It is very good example of political framing. It evokes the thought of tax as a punishment for dying, and its collection as a kind of harassment of the bereaved. So tax bad, case closed, no discussion. But of course, it is not death and loss that it taxed, it is rather the accumulated wealth being redistributed over both society at large and the heirs, in some kind of ratio. In favor of inheritance tax: the wealth somebody amassed has also been thanks to its participation in society, so it is only fair some portion of it goes back to society. The heirs played no part in it, so why should they get any, let alone all of it? Furthermore, inheriting wealth goes against the idea of meritocracy, and maintains inequality in an unfair way in modern societies. Why should inheritance tax not be 100%? Children often grow attached to the 'stuff' their parents have collected, be it things or land, houses or money. It seems unfair to take it all away from them, as they feel they already 'own it' merely by being their children. So inheritance tax is some kind of compromise. However, as each generation these days tend to fully 'break' with their parents, in a way (economically, spiritually), inheritance itself seems more and more like a thing of our tribal pasts. I imagine a future where there is no inheritance tax anymore, because the whole concept of inheritance will go away.
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  But wasn't the "society" paid off by all the "living taxes" before the person died? Imagine having nothing, your parents dying, you, an eg. broke college student inheriting a 2 bedroom apartment, which is somehow worth $1mio, and you owe so much tax (that you can't pay) that you're forced to sell the apartment, the only place you've ever known. With 100% inheritance tax, i'd literally stop working as soon as i reached enough money to retire. Why work harder if it all vanishes when I die, and my hypothetical kids gain nothig? Or, more realistically, i'd convert stuff to cash and give it to them without the government knowing. Tax the income, close the loopholes, once the tax for something is paid, the rest should go to the person, the government has got its share, it has enough. And i'm saying this as someone who already lives in a country without inheritance tax (in most usualy cases).
  - Draiken 2y ago
    This leads to what we have today: insane levels of wealth inequality. Everyone that inherits fortunes from their parents get to live life on easy mode while every one else is poorer, with less assets and barring winning a lottery ticket, no way to ever catch up. Wealth creates a feedback loop that if gone unchecked will hoard all assets from everyone else. We can't have both meritocracy and inheritance as they are mutually exclusive. If we want to keep telling people there's any modicum of truth to meritocracy, we have to stop all this inheritance bullshit. The particulars of it can be discussed with caps based on amounts, for example, but that's not the point. There's a reason that most wealthy people from the past are still wealthy today and I can guarantee you it's not through their own merit. Tax wealth, not work. There should be no billionaires.
    - Ntrails 2y ago
      > Tax wealth, not work. There should be no billionaires. NB. This does not mean that Inheritance should be a taxable event! There would be less need to have inheritance tax if we had a consistent wealth tax. It remains obvious to me that inheritance drives social inequality, and similarly it is obvious that parents are going to resent not giving their children as much help as they can.
Starlevel004 2y ago
"Inheritance tax, is broadly speaking a voluntary levy paid by those who distrust their Heirs more than they dislike the Inland Revenue" - Roy Jenkins MP

jajko 2y ago

Silly is actually too nice a word for such extortion scheme. As you see if rich enough/business big enough, it could be easily circumvented. The little people without access to great lawyers and accountants got absolutely hammered when it got applied to them. But victorian England wasn't setup for little people in mind, it was all lords and wealthy businessmen ruling it all. So similar to current situation in many places - if you are rich enough, you basically exist outside of tax system, be it capital gains, investments, inheritance etc. Obscure tax structures spanning whole globe as ie Panama papers showed. Its the middle class that gets hammered out of existence, ie in France its around 40% for inheritance tax, and trusts are AFAIK forbidden / treated very punitively. Very rich still bypass this and everybody knows this, everybody below not so much. Its not even effective there, the amount extracted yearly in such way is minuscule, but it pleases crowds with 'social justice' so they don't protest so much and burn more cars on streets.

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Most jurisdictions have a tax-free allowance or threshold. If you're affected by an inheritance tax, you're not poor. As I said in the comment you're responding to, this seems like an example of how this type of tax worked correctly for a very rich person, so the thread you're responding to is already a counterexample to your argument. I agree that inheritance taxes can be implemented poorly. Still, the concept of an inheritance tax is good, and poorly implemented inheritance taxes should be fixed by improving them, not removing them.
- hgomersall 2y ago
  Recently proposed changes to the UK system to include business property (and farms) are going to further the take over of productive property (including farms) in the UK by private equity and large and multi-national companies who have shown to be pretty poor actors in furthering the public good. In my opinion, this is a particularly bad change to inheritance tax.
  - davedx 2y ago
    Insightful comment. Good example of the law of unintended consequences there.