6 ms·

For starters, 100.000 EUR is nothing. Also, in many jurisdictions that threshold only applies to direct (eg father-son) inheritance but not eg between siblings.

by zxspectrum1982 2y ago

For starters, 100.000 EUR is nothing. Also, in many jurisdictions that threshold only applies to direct (eg father-son) inheritance but not eg between siblings. I have an unmarried aunt with no kids. Most of her estate is land (that has passed through centuries in the family and is almost illiquid because the European Union has killed agriculture) and some stock (that cannot be used to pay the taxes because it's not yours until you pay the taxes). I just checked and when she dies, my mom (her only sister) will have to pay 45% of that in death tax. We may need to turn down the estate when she dies because we cannot pay the tax. And you think that's fair? Grow up.

pluies 2y ago
The whole point of inheritance tax is to redistribute some of the accumulated family wealth across society. You think that's unfair? Grow up.
- gambiting 2y ago
  I think it's unfair, you work your entire life paying tax on every single euro you make(a lot of tax in fact!) and then when you want to leave that to your child it's taxed again? What complete nonsense. I'm very glad the country where I'm from(Poland) doesn't have that.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    People could equally argue that it is unfair that some children are born with all the advantages while others have none. I don't think "fairness" is a strong argument here because it is entirely subjective. What seems fair to you looks like a huge injustice to somebody else. My parents are upper-middle class, and I've profited from their wealth all my life. My inheritance will be taxed, and I don't find that unfair at all. I was born on second base and had an advantage over others at every stage of my life; it would be fatuous to complain about an inheritance tax.
    - vixen99 2y ago
      Suppose you've inherited genes which contribute in varying degrees to brains, beauty, longevity and charm. These are arguably advantages rather more significant in life than money. If there was a choice who wouldn't choose these? So should you be taxed given how you will undoubtedly profit from it? Or is it just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill with something and destined for a short life who's hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash? https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/how-genes-shape-personality-traits-new-links-are-discovered/ https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/how-genes-shape-perso... https://human-intelligence.org/intelligence-is-genetic/ https://human-intelligence.org/intelligence-is-genetic/ https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/beauty-may-not-lie-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-it-may-lie-in-genetics-317717 https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/beauty-may-... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23925498/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23925498/
      - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
        >is it just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill with something and destined for a short life who's hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the exact point you're making. I follow the premise of your argument. You're saying genes are a birth advantage, just like money is. I absolutely agree with that. But I don't understand how this ends in "just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill" being "hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash." FWIW, in many Western countries, healthy people are already functionally "taxed" (although it's often not technically a tax) more than unhealthy people because both pay similar amounts into healthcare but derive different benefits from it. I also think that's good, just like taxing inheritance is.
      - FabHK 2y ago
        Those unearned traits might make you more money, and you might also bequeath these traits to your kids. It would compound the injustice if you could furthermore bequeath all the money to your kids, while it would ameliorate the injustice if the inheritance were largely taxed away.
  - lores 2y ago
    It's taxed above a pretty reasonable threshold. You have the option of gifting your money tax-free to your children, or to public-good organisations. Hell, you have the option to spend some of the money you made in your lifetime! You earned it, spend it! See the world! Eat the finest cheeses for breakfast, lunch and dinner! Have a masseur on retainer! The kids sound pretty entitled anyway!
    - zxspectrum1982 2y ago
      Read my comment: your brother passes away without children and the Tax Agency steals 45% of his estate (and that's after the "discount" for the threshold, the actual tax rate over the threshold is higher than 45%). That's not reasonable at all.
      - lores 2y ago
        Why should one be entitled to the property of their brother? What's special about a brother that should be unavailable with leaving property to, say, one's best friend?
        zxspectrum1982 2y ago
        Communism never ends up well. Remember that when your wishes become reality.
        gambiting 2y ago
        I don't see what this has to do with communism, and frankly I don't think you do either. And I do agree with you that taxing inheritance is unacceptable.
        lores 2y ago
        Not only that's not communism, but, by the looks of it, greed-capitalism isn't turning out so well either, now, is it?
      - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
- zxspectrum1982 2y ago
  Stop the communist brainwashing "redistribution of wealth" and start thinking: 45%, that you saved after paying taxes, is pure robbery.
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    I would much rather pay less tax while I’m alive and the majority of it when I’m dead and will no longer give a shit.
    - radiator 2y ago
      You don't give a shit about your offspring? But even so, aren't you at least able to understand that other people do care about their progeny?
      - petesergeant 2y ago
        Distributing wealth in society on the basis of parental success seems like it would be a terrible idea.
      - ath3nd 2y ago
        There is a name for a system where people pass on their wealth (and titles) to their progeny, by birthright. I am sure the average 99%-er American would love to be back in medieval Europe, where kings and queens, and lords and dukes cared so much for their offspring! Wealth by birthright, that's so progressive!
      - graemep 2y ago
        Money is not the most important thing I can give my kids. Love, education, support and encouragement ...
        akimbostrawman 2y ago
        Nobody claimed otherwise however making sure your loved ones are taken care of in the best possible position involves love and support otherwise why bother you are already dead.
- godshatter 2y ago
  The government already got their share during the accumulation period. They have no claim on it anymore. If people want the government to spread their wealth around to help society they can specify that in their will.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    On what basis? Is there a law that says they can't tax estates?
lores 2y ago
It's not nothing - with 1.8 children the tax-free allowance covers 60-70% of the population (outstanding mortgages and loans are not counted in the 170K figure). And why should anyone be entitled to a relative's property? How does it benefit society? Why not friends', then?
- zxspectrum1982 2y ago
  "Benefit society"??? Pal, stop with the communist propaganda and start thinking for yourself. One thing I can assure you: the moment you get a job, a house, a family, that's the moment you'll realize you are being systematically robbed by taxes that end up eating 70% of your income. If you are not socialist when you are young, you haven't got a heart; if you are not conservative when you grow up, you haven't got a brain.
  - lores 2y ago
    I'm probably older than you, pal, and I'm happy to pay taxes as long as they help make society better. This is a considered, rational, and ethical decision. Just because I'm a highly-paid engineer doesn't mean I work harder or am a more deserving human being than a nurse or a Bangladeshi immigrant working two shifts a day at a fast-food. I'm not so selfless I want to give all my good luck away, but not so selfish I don't want life to be easier for others too, don't want the kids to get a good education, don't want the sick to get treated, don't want interesting art in the streets. I love dystopias, but only in books. I also am not so deluded as to think everything is reducible to money, and that what I achieved did not depend on having a society around me that made it possible.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    >"Benefit society"??? Pal, stop with the communist propaganda and start thinking for yourself. It's funny to me that you both think that "benefitting society" is "communist propaganda" and that others need to start thinking for themselves. Who are these communists spreading this duplicitous propaganda of considering the well-being of others and the betterment of our community? I need to find them to thank them for their service and also scold them for being bad at communism. >One thing I can assure you: the moment you get a job, a house, a family, that's the moment you'll realize you are being systematically robbed by taxes I have all that, and I still care for people other than myself and my family.

pluies 2y ago

The whole point of inheritance tax is to redistribute some of the accumulated family wealth across society. You think that's unfair? Grow up.

gambiting 2y ago
I think it's unfair, you work your entire life paying tax on every single euro you make(a lot of tax in fact!) and then when you want to leave that to your child it's taxed again? What complete nonsense. I'm very glad the country where I'm from(Poland) doesn't have that.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  People could equally argue that it is unfair that some children are born with all the advantages while others have none. I don't think "fairness" is a strong argument here because it is entirely subjective. What seems fair to you looks like a huge injustice to somebody else. My parents are upper-middle class, and I've profited from their wealth all my life. My inheritance will be taxed, and I don't find that unfair at all. I was born on second base and had an advantage over others at every stage of my life; it would be fatuous to complain about an inheritance tax.
  - vixen99 2y ago
    Suppose you've inherited genes which contribute in varying degrees to brains, beauty, longevity and charm. These are arguably advantages rather more significant in life than money. If there was a choice who wouldn't choose these? So should you be taxed given how you will undoubtedly profit from it? Or is it just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill with something and destined for a short life who's hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash? https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/how-genes-shape-personality-traits-new-links-are-discovered/ https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/how-genes-shape-perso... https://human-intelligence.org/intelligence-is-genetic/ https://human-intelligence.org/intelligence-is-genetic/ https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/beauty-may-not-lie-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-it-may-lie-in-genetics-317717 https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/beauty-may-... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23925498/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23925498/
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      >is it just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill with something and destined for a short life who's hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the exact point you're making. I follow the premise of your argument. You're saying genes are a birth advantage, just like money is. I absolutely agree with that. But I don't understand how this ends in "just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill" being "hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash." FWIW, in many Western countries, healthy people are already functionally "taxed" (although it's often not technically a tax) more than unhealthy people because both pay similar amounts into healthcare but derive different benefits from it. I also think that's good, just like taxing inheritance is.
    - FabHK 2y ago
      Those unearned traits might make you more money, and you might also bequeath these traits to your kids. It would compound the injustice if you could furthermore bequeath all the money to your kids, while it would ameliorate the injustice if the inheritance were largely taxed away.
- lores 2y ago
  It's taxed above a pretty reasonable threshold. You have the option of gifting your money tax-free to your children, or to public-good organisations. Hell, you have the option to spend some of the money you made in your lifetime! You earned it, spend it! See the world! Eat the finest cheeses for breakfast, lunch and dinner! Have a masseur on retainer! The kids sound pretty entitled anyway!
  - zxspectrum1982 2y ago
    Read my comment: your brother passes away without children and the Tax Agency steals 45% of his estate (and that's after the "discount" for the threshold, the actual tax rate over the threshold is higher than 45%). That's not reasonable at all.
    - lores 2y ago
      Why should one be entitled to the property of their brother? What's special about a brother that should be unavailable with leaving property to, say, one's best friend?
      - zxspectrum1982 2y ago
        Communism never ends up well. Remember that when your wishes become reality.
        gambiting 2y ago
        I don't see what this has to do with communism, and frankly I don't think you do either. And I do agree with you that taxing inheritance is unacceptable.
        lores 2y ago
        Not only that's not communism, but, by the looks of it, greed-capitalism isn't turning out so well either, now, is it?
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
zxspectrum1982 2y ago
Stop the communist brainwashing "redistribution of wealth" and start thinking: 45%, that you saved after paying taxes, is pure robbery.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  I would much rather pay less tax while I’m alive and the majority of it when I’m dead and will no longer give a shit.
  - radiator 2y ago
    You don't give a shit about your offspring? But even so, aren't you at least able to understand that other people do care about their progeny?
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      Distributing wealth in society on the basis of parental success seems like it would be a terrible idea.
    - ath3nd 2y ago
      There is a name for a system where people pass on their wealth (and titles) to their progeny, by birthright. I am sure the average 99%-er American would love to be back in medieval Europe, where kings and queens, and lords and dukes cared so much for their offspring! Wealth by birthright, that's so progressive!
    - graemep 2y ago
      Money is not the most important thing I can give my kids. Love, education, support and encouragement ...
      - akimbostrawman 2y ago
        Nobody claimed otherwise however making sure your loved ones are taken care of in the best possible position involves love and support otherwise why bother you are already dead.
godshatter 2y ago
The government already got their share during the accumulation period. They have no claim on it anymore. If people want the government to spread their wealth around to help society they can specify that in their will.
- freejazz 2y ago
  On what basis? Is there a law that says they can't tax estates?

lores 2y ago

It's not nothing - with 1.8 children the tax-free allowance covers 60-70% of the population (outstanding mortgages and loans are not counted in the 170K figure). And why should anyone be entitled to a relative's property? How does it benefit society? Why not friends', then?

zxspectrum1982 2y ago
"Benefit society"??? Pal, stop with the communist propaganda and start thinking for yourself. One thing I can assure you: the moment you get a job, a house, a family, that's the moment you'll realize you are being systematically robbed by taxes that end up eating 70% of your income. If you are not socialist when you are young, you haven't got a heart; if you are not conservative when you grow up, you haven't got a brain.
- lores 2y ago
  I'm probably older than you, pal, and I'm happy to pay taxes as long as they help make society better. This is a considered, rational, and ethical decision. Just because I'm a highly-paid engineer doesn't mean I work harder or am a more deserving human being than a nurse or a Bangladeshi immigrant working two shifts a day at a fast-food. I'm not so selfless I want to give all my good luck away, but not so selfish I don't want life to be easier for others too, don't want the kids to get a good education, don't want the sick to get treated, don't want interesting art in the streets. I love dystopias, but only in books. I also am not so deluded as to think everything is reducible to money, and that what I achieved did not depend on having a society around me that made it possible.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  >"Benefit society"??? Pal, stop with the communist propaganda and start thinking for yourself. It's funny to me that you both think that "benefitting society" is "communist propaganda" and that others need to start thinking for themselves. Who are these communists spreading this duplicitous propaganda of considering the well-being of others and the betterment of our community? I need to find them to thank them for their service and also scold them for being bad at communism. >One thing I can assure you: the moment you get a job, a house, a family, that's the moment you'll realize you are being systematically robbed by taxes I have all that, and I still care for people other than myself and my family.