| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10852 Posts
On August 28 2015 00:20 GoTuNk! wrote: Statist have little regard for reality. They blindly support their bad ideas. Lower consumption tax on all things needed for everyday live. Way higher ones for clear luxury items. Property taxes. Inheritance taxes . . . Its damn easy | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18219 Posts
On August 28 2015 03:10 Velr wrote: Lower consumption tax on all things needed for everyday live. Way higher ones for clear luxury items. Property taxes. Inheritance taxes . . . Its damn easy It's not. Why would I buy my Ferrari in Switzerland, when I can buy it in France and drive it into Switzerland? This also just highlights the general problem with different taxation systems throughout the EU, and why the Ireland-Netherlands-Luxemburg tax triangle exists (and not just for EU corporations either). | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On August 28 2015 03:10 Velr wrote: Lower consumption tax on all things needed for everyday live. Way higher ones for clear luxury items. Property taxes. Inheritance taxes . . . Its damn easy Define "clear luxury items" please. And whilst easy, do you actually consider any of that particularly reasonable? Take the inheritance tax - what is the argument for that one? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10852 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22102 Posts
On August 28 2015 03:57 Ghostcom wrote: Define "clear luxury items" please. And whilst easy, do you actually consider any of that particularly reasonable? Take the inheritance tax - what is the argument for that one? Saving money for later use is fine. Saving money to never spend is bad for the economy. I would say that it needs a bottom line tho. Leaving some money for your children/grand children is fine. Its large amounts of money that do nothing that is wasteful. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote: Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22102 Posts
On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote: So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The children basically get free money. Getting less free money is still getting free money. They are not being punished for anything. We don't take away the kids money, we give them less free money. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote: So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. Let’s not even talk about the fact that people will just dump their money into physical assets or trusts to prevent the government from taking it. And people who inherit large amounts of assets are normally business owners who have employees. Clearly an increased tax rate on extremely large amounts of liquid assets being inherited is acceptable, but make it to high and everyone will just play the “hide the money” game. If you want to transfer wealth away, make it more appealing for the wealthy to spend their money on investment in their own country. Trying to take via massive taxes is doomed to failure. On August 28 2015 05:09 Gorsameth wrote: The children basically get free money. Getting less free money is still getting free money. They are not being punished for anything. We don't take away the kids money, we give them less free money. There is a difference between taxing liquid assets and physical ones. But the whole idea that "money should only be earned", which was floated above, is just plain hyperbolic. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
On August 28 2015 05:09 Gorsameth wrote: The children basically get free money. Getting less free money is still getting free money. They are not being punished for anything. We don't take away the kids money, we give them less free money. You're taking away something they would be getting, you have to engage in some really difficult mental acrobatics to not constitute that as taking something away from them. Imagine if I were to give you £50, but then a bird swoops in and steals £10 from that. Would you feel happy that you got free money or annoyed that someone took 20% from you? Again, this is money that has already been taxed and will be taxed more when it is spent. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 28 2015 05:14 dismiss wrote: You're taking away something they would be getting, you have to engage in some really difficult mental acrobatics to not constitute that as taking something away from them. Imagine if I were to give you £50, but then a bird swoops in and steals £10 from that. Would you feel happy that you got free money or annoyed that someone took 20% from you? Again, this is money that has already been taxed and will be taxed more when it is spent. To be fair, all money is taxed when it is transferred between people. Gifts of large amounts of money are also taxed(at least in the US). So this transfer can also be taxed, but not excessively. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22102 Posts
On August 28 2015 05:14 dismiss wrote: You're taking away something they would be getting, you have to engage in some really difficult mental acrobatics to not constitute that as taking something away from them. Imagine if I were to give you £50, but then a bird swoops in and steals £10 from that. Would you feel happy that you got free money or annoyed that someone took 20% from you? Again, this is money that has already been taxed and will be taxed more when it is spent. What kind of question is that? Would I be annoyed? Ofc I would be annoyed. But then I'm annoyed by a lot of things. That doesn't mean I cant be happy about the 40, or that I cant understand why it was taxed. When you win the Lottery you don't get the strait million dollars. Your paying a lot of taxes over that ((or you pay them 1 year later depending on the way it is setup)In the Netherlands anyway). Does that mean I am punished for winning the lottery? Ofcourse not. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
On August 28 2015 05:18 Plansix wrote: To be fair, all money is taxed when it is transferred between people. Gifts of large amounts of money are also taxed(at least in the US). So this transfer can also be taxed, but not excessively. I admittedly don't know much about the American tax code but here there are quite generous tax exemptions for inherited or even gifted money. Unless you're looking to transfer €3-4 million in one go you won't have to pay much of anything. This is disregarding that you can completely dodge this by transferring your money into a charity whose purpose is to manage its own assets and then name your donee as the sole guy in charge. Also, lottery winnings are tax exempt in most countries. >_> Disregarding that winning the lottery is a scenario which differs in one critical point. Arguably you earned your money by investing here, and thus it has yet to be taxed, whereas in the scenario of an inheritance the "work" part has already been done. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On August 28 2015 05:09 Gorsameth wrote: The children basically get free money. Getting less free money is still getting free money. They are not being punished for anything. We don't take away the kids money, we give them less free money. The money wasn't free. It was earned. By their parents admittedly, yet still earned. And it's not like they were earmed without any cost in time - time which they could have spent with their kids instead of earning money which the state is now taking by taxing those money a second time. Stating that money should be earned and not inherited is not merely hyperbolic, it is downright stupid. EDIT: In Denmark the inheritance tax is 15-25% depending on some details. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Also the entire enterprise appears to be, at least in part, based on a false assumption that we have a savings glut, when we clearly still have an overleverage problem. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Really only the rich can afford to find those loop holes. The middle class pay out the nose because that is how tax law currently works in the US. Edit: Clutz is correct and any tax law that attempts to deal with inheritance needs to a minimum threshold to avoid harming people with modest savings. Or a clear path for them to take their equity and put it someplace that won't harm their ability to give it to family members. Otherwise people will just dump it into things to avoid the government taking it. Because, why do they care, they are going to be dead during the process. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10852 Posts
Just set a baseline on inheritance that is taxfree (this can be rather high) and tax everything above that pretty heavily... Including property and other stuff. If you want that second house/yacht/whatever your parents own? Just pay the tax on it and its still yours. The money has allready been taxed you say? Well yes. It will also again be taxed via consumers tax if I use it +several taxes more depending on what i use it for. The "it has allready been taxed" argument just false flat on it face when hit with todays reality. ROFL.. Clutz. So your Parents would rather die piss poor than to "just" leave "most" of their assets to you? Wow... Just wow. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22102 Posts
On August 28 2015 05:30 Ghostcom wrote: The money wasn't free. It was earned. By their parents admittedly, yet still earned. And it's not like they were earmed without any cost in time - time which they could have spent with their kids instead of earning money which the state is now taking by taxing those money a second time. Stating that money should be earned and not inherited is not merely hyperbolic, it is downright stupid. And I would be perfectly fine with them spending some time with their kids instead. Note I'm not talking about an average family. I mentioned a bottom limit on such a tax for a reason. | ||
|
dismiss
United Kingdom3341 Posts
On August 28 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote: High inheritance taxes are also an incredible moral hazard (perhaps not the right phrase). Basically, it encourages people to die with as close to $0 in savings as possible, which means your system essentially needs people to be prophetic about the time of their death. We know this is untrue, so many will become wards of the state. Also the entire enterprise appears to be, at least in part, based on a false assumption that we have a savings glut, when we clearly still have an overleverage problem. Most fortunes large enough to be impacted by inheritance tax are, to a large degree, illiquid. I suppose you could take that as a way of saving money. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On August 28 2015 05:33 Velr wrote: I will inherit plenty, probably more than i will ever make myself. But i honestly don't see why I should get it. I live on my own earnings now and i don't see how anyone should be able live on their parents fortune. Just set a baseline on inheritance that is taxfree (this can be rather high) and tax everything above that pretty heavily... Including property and other stuff... You want that second house/yacht/whatever your parents own? Just pay the tax on it and its still yours. The money has allready been taxed you say? Well yes. It will also again be taxed via consumers tax if I use it... +several taxes more depending on what i use it for. The "it has allready been taxed" argument just false flat on it face when hit with todays reality. You have yet to give any single reasonable argument as to why it SHOULD be taxed heavily other than "I want the state to have their money" - which is frankly not even close to being a good reason. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10852 Posts
Basically the stuff we allready use taxes for but constantly cut due to money isusues? If that is not a good reason, well, then i don't know what is. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 RotterdaM StarCraft: Brood War 517mouzHeroMarine  281TKL  259uThermal 231ProTech150 BRAT_OK  123IndyStarCraft  110UpATreeSC 65SteadfastSC  53JuggernautJason3 Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games singsing2004 Grubby2000 FrodaN1692 hiko842 ceh9499 Liquid`VortiX261 Sick185 KnowMe169 QueenE136 ArmadaUGS118 Trikslyr66 C9.Mang065 ToD39 |
|
OSC
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Winter Champion…
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo Complete
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
