3 ms·

Meanwhile the Netherlands is taxing the common people like crazy, and politicians are talking about raising taxes even more.

conception 1y ago
The Netherlands also has the number two quality of life in the world so maybe don’t worry about it so much? https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.j...
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  it's weird when Americans day dream of giving tax breaks to billionaires because they might be rich one day; it's a another thing for people who ostensibly have the best social system in the world looking at America and say "we should do that".
  - snickerdoodle12 1y ago
    There are plans for making mortgages more expensive by removing tax deductions and for taxing inheritance a whopping 75%. That is hardly giving tax breaks to billionaire, more so screwing over anyone who isn't dirt poor. Oh, and I'm already paying pretty much half my income in various taxes. Anyone who has a significant amount of money can avoid these taxes, as always.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ReaperCub 1y ago
        The problem with inheritance tax is that the person pays taxes all through their lifetime and then when their significant others inherit that wealth (which already has been taxed once at least) it gets taxed again. The issue isn't the amount, the issue is the principle of it. I suspect BTW the very rich won't ever pay these taxes as there are always ways to restructure the wealth or simply move it elsewhere. I know this is done in the UK. So what it does is punish the middle classes the most.
        dragonwriter 1y ago
        > The problem with inheritance tax is that the person pays taxes all through their lifetime and then when their significant others inherit that wealth (which already has been taxed once at least) it gets taxed again. Yes, because that's a transfer to different people. That's not a problem. The problem is that it's not just treated as income to the recipients—which it manifestly is—with the income tax then being modified to include both advance recognition and windfall spreading options to allow taxpayers to deal with irregular income in a fair basis with more regular income. This is also the problem with capital gains tax. And its not th people who have the kind of income that avoids regular income taxation that are getting screwed by that.
        ReaperCub 1y ago
        > Yes, because that's a transfer to different people. That's not a problem Sorry I don't agree. The tax has already been paid when the person was alive. There shouldn't be a an additional tax on top because it is given to others after they died. Which is what is happening. > The problem is that it's not just treated as income to the recipients—which it manifestly is—with the income tax then being modified to include both advance recognition and windfall spreading options to allow taxpayers to deal with irregular income in a fair basis with more regular income. The problem wouldn't exist if the tax was abolished. > This is also the problem with capital gains tax. And its not the people who have the kind of income that avoids regular income taxation that are getting screwed by that. Again another case of a problem that wouldn't exist if the tax (capital gains) was abolished.
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        Tax is a means to an end (paying for civil services). Whether or not something is taxed twice is not inherently wrong, it's just a choice on how we choose to pursue our needs in a way that is effective and equitable. I mean, reductively, saying something can't be taxed twice doesn't make any sense because all taxes work like that. A company sells products, those sales (and/or value add) are taxed. That money is paid as income, then that income is taxed. That income is spent on goods or services, where the sale (and/or value add) is taxed. Ad infinitum. A reasonable tax on inheritance, growing with wealth, makes sense in a society that has no effective wealth caps. Otherwise the "haves" accumulate wealth, which accumulates wealth, which accumulates wealth. By imposing a tax on wealth that is not earned, but entirely dependent on the circumstances of one's birth, you create a redistribution scheme that's... Quite fair? No living person has their labor stolen, some redistribution is achieved, but the heir still receives a significant benefit.
      - snickerdoodle12 1y ago
        What? I'm talking about the netherlands, like is extremely obvious from the context. Read the thread you are replying to... And I said politicians are talking about changing the laws. There are upcoming elections. Why are you talking about the current laws? Completely irrelevant. I very clearly said: > There are plans for making mortgages more expensive by removing tax deductions and for taxing inheritance a whopping 75% You could just google it, but I'll do it for you: https://www.metronieuws.nl/geld-carriere/belasting/2025/07/75-procent-belasting-op-erfenis-boven-een-ton-sp/ https://www.metronieuws.nl/geld-carriere/belasting/2025/07/7...
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        I describe the law of and linked to a government website of the Netherlands. > And I said politicians are talking about changing the laws. No, you said "there are plans". What you did not say is that one party leader made an insane comment in a campaign cycle met with so much backlash it took less than a day to radically change to "with 0% under €500.000" and has still been unilaterally mocked by opinion makers, politicians, and media.
        snickerdoodle12 1y ago
        Buddy, I'm dutch. I am following local politics, and clearly, you're not. > I describe the law of and linked to a government website of the Netherlands. No shit? How is the current law relevant to plans to change it? > What you did not say is that one party leader made an insane comment in a campaign cycle met with so much backlash it took less than a day to radically change to "with 0% under €500.000" and has still been unilaterally mocked by opinion makers, politicians, and media. Yeah, so he's planning it. For now they seem to have changed their campaign surrounding the subject but there's no saying what they'll do if elected.
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        Buddy, that's not really was "there are plans to" means. Unless you count MJT talking about Jewish space lasers "plans to" investigate Jewish space lasers from the US government. In which case, you've got a tabloid-level definition. The quote of the current law is used to emphasize just how ridiculous sounding what you're saying even is.
    - conception 1y ago
      Americans also pay half or more their income in various taxes/premiums. Again, I’m not sure what greener grass you’re looking for.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

conception 1y ago

The Netherlands also has the number two quality of life in the world so maybe don’t worry about it so much? https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.j...

cyanydeez 1y ago
it's weird when Americans day dream of giving tax breaks to billionaires because they might be rich one day; it's a another thing for people who ostensibly have the best social system in the world looking at America and say "we should do that".
- snickerdoodle12 1y ago
  There are plans for making mortgages more expensive by removing tax deductions and for taxing inheritance a whopping 75%. That is hardly giving tax breaks to billionaire, more so screwing over anyone who isn't dirt poor. Oh, and I'm already paying pretty much half my income in various taxes. Anyone who has a significant amount of money can avoid these taxes, as always.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ReaperCub 1y ago
      The problem with inheritance tax is that the person pays taxes all through their lifetime and then when their significant others inherit that wealth (which already has been taxed once at least) it gets taxed again. The issue isn't the amount, the issue is the principle of it. I suspect BTW the very rich won't ever pay these taxes as there are always ways to restructure the wealth or simply move it elsewhere. I know this is done in the UK. So what it does is punish the middle classes the most.
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        > The problem with inheritance tax is that the person pays taxes all through their lifetime and then when their significant others inherit that wealth (which already has been taxed once at least) it gets taxed again. Yes, because that's a transfer to different people. That's not a problem. The problem is that it's not just treated as income to the recipients—which it manifestly is—with the income tax then being modified to include both advance recognition and windfall spreading options to allow taxpayers to deal with irregular income in a fair basis with more regular income. This is also the problem with capital gains tax. And its not th people who have the kind of income that avoids regular income taxation that are getting screwed by that.
        ReaperCub 1y ago
        > Yes, because that's a transfer to different people. That's not a problem Sorry I don't agree. The tax has already been paid when the person was alive. There shouldn't be a an additional tax on top because it is given to others after they died. Which is what is happening. > The problem is that it's not just treated as income to the recipients—which it manifestly is—with the income tax then being modified to include both advance recognition and windfall spreading options to allow taxpayers to deal with irregular income in a fair basis with more regular income. The problem wouldn't exist if the tax was abolished. > This is also the problem with capital gains tax. And its not the people who have the kind of income that avoids regular income taxation that are getting screwed by that. Again another case of a problem that wouldn't exist if the tax (capital gains) was abolished.
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        Tax is a means to an end (paying for civil services). Whether or not something is taxed twice is not inherently wrong, it's just a choice on how we choose to pursue our needs in a way that is effective and equitable. I mean, reductively, saying something can't be taxed twice doesn't make any sense because all taxes work like that. A company sells products, those sales (and/or value add) are taxed. That money is paid as income, then that income is taxed. That income is spent on goods or services, where the sale (and/or value add) is taxed. Ad infinitum. A reasonable tax on inheritance, growing with wealth, makes sense in a society that has no effective wealth caps. Otherwise the "haves" accumulate wealth, which accumulates wealth, which accumulates wealth. By imposing a tax on wealth that is not earned, but entirely dependent on the circumstances of one's birth, you create a redistribution scheme that's... Quite fair? No living person has their labor stolen, some redistribution is achieved, but the heir still receives a significant benefit.
    - snickerdoodle12 1y ago
      What? I'm talking about the netherlands, like is extremely obvious from the context. Read the thread you are replying to... And I said politicians are talking about changing the laws. There are upcoming elections. Why are you talking about the current laws? Completely irrelevant. I very clearly said: > There are plans for making mortgages more expensive by removing tax deductions and for taxing inheritance a whopping 75% You could just google it, but I'll do it for you: https://www.metronieuws.nl/geld-carriere/belasting/2025/07/75-procent-belasting-op-erfenis-boven-een-ton-sp/ https://www.metronieuws.nl/geld-carriere/belasting/2025/07/7...
      - Tadpole9181 1y ago
        I describe the law of and linked to a government website of the Netherlands. > And I said politicians are talking about changing the laws. No, you said "there are plans". What you did not say is that one party leader made an insane comment in a campaign cycle met with so much backlash it took less than a day to radically change to "with 0% under €500.000" and has still been unilaterally mocked by opinion makers, politicians, and media.
        snickerdoodle12 1y ago
        Buddy, I'm dutch. I am following local politics, and clearly, you're not. > I describe the law of and linked to a government website of the Netherlands. No shit? How is the current law relevant to plans to change it? > What you did not say is that one party leader made an insane comment in a campaign cycle met with so much backlash it took less than a day to radically change to "with 0% under €500.000" and has still been unilaterally mocked by opinion makers, politicians, and media. Yeah, so he's planning it. For now they seem to have changed their campaign surrounding the subject but there's no saying what they'll do if elected.
        Tadpole9181 1y ago
        Buddy, that's not really was "there are plans to" means. Unless you count MJT talking about Jewish space lasers "plans to" investigate Jewish space lasers from the US government. In which case, you've got a tabloid-level definition. The quote of the current law is used to emphasize just how ridiculous sounding what you're saying even is.
  - conception 1y ago
    Americans also pay half or more their income in various taxes/premiums. Again, I’m not sure what greener grass you’re looking for.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]