|
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. |
On August 28 2015 05:33 Velr wrote:
ROFL.. Clutz. So your Parents would rather die piss poor than to "just" leave "most" of their assets to you? Wow... Just wow.
I work in the legal field and deal with probate all the time. They give it away to family members to spend on houses or other investments. Or they pay for college when maybe loans or a cheaper school would be been better. I can't tell you the number of estates that are just made of all debt because people do things with their money to avoid losing a huge amount of it to the government.
Its not that they don't give it to their family, its that they spend it when they think they might pass away.
|
That is an argument for WHAT the state could use more money on. It is not an argument for WHY they should tax people more.
|
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.
I agree on the moral hazard, tho its not that big of a deal as you make it out to be. Would you rather starve then give your child taxed money?
Which is again why I advocate a bottom limit so that you can live off your savings without fear and know that what is left will go to your children so long as your not sitting on 100.000 dollars.
|
On August 28 2015 05:36 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It should be taxed like most gifts of huge amounts of money. Maybe a little less. You can't give away 200K without someone paying taxes on it.
|
On August 28 2015 05:39 Ghostcom wrote:
That is an argument for WHAT the state could use more money on. It is not an argument for WHY they should tax people more.
Because some of us believe that a Welfare state is good for society and such a state is expensive. If we can fund a small part of it by taxing rich inheritance then I'm cool with that.
|
On August 28 2015 05:39 Ghostcom wrote:
That is an argument for WHAT the state could use more money on. It is not an argument for WHY they should tax people more.
Because states are constantly cutting on education, infrastructure and stuff like that? This could help with this problem and wouldn't hurt anyone (living).
Another very simple idea:
Raise inheritence taxes --> Lower payroll taxes.
Redistribution whiteout any evil handouts right there.
|
On August 28 2015 05:39 Ghostcom wrote:
That is an argument for WHAT the state could use more money on. It is not an argument for WHY they should tax people more.
There is also the problem that if the rich keep getting richer, while the middle classes and poor's life are not improving, that inequality works itself out in other ways on a long enough time line. It's not a stable way in any way, for any nation or people. And currently the a lot of the wealth of the world in controlled by a very small number of people. And that trend has not diminished.
|
On August 28 2015 05:37 Velr wrote:
Reduce customers tax on everyday goods and even income tax on the lower levels. Healthcare. Public Transport, Infrastructure, Education...
Basically the stuff we allready use taxes for?
I imagine every one agrees that those with more should contribute more to the social state, but you can't exclusively burden those who are doing well for themselves. What kind of message would it send to continuously reduce taxes for everyone else but those with 10million+ in assets and then take it out of their pockets. These people are already being taxed more than 50-60% of their income once you add everything up. I'm all for an expansive social state, but doing it by excessively burdening wealthy people simply because they are wealthy doesn't seem just.
|
On August 28 2015 05:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 05:36 Ghostcom wrote: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. It should be taxed like most gifts of huge amounts of money. Maybe a little less. You can't give away 200K without someone paying taxes on it.
You can gift anyone you're related to about 800k every 10 years without it being taxed here. >_> actually it might be 400k, and then 400k from your spouse, not entirely sure how exactly that worked out.
|
The wealthy are the ones who would harmed the least. They can afford more than anyone else and their basic needs are met several times over. You have to burden someone, so you do it to the people who will be the least effected. At worst they will have to go without luxuries that the middle class and poor could never dream of affording.
On August 28 2015 05:48 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 05:40 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2015 05:36 Ghostcom wrote: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. It should be taxed like most gifts of huge amounts of money. Maybe a little less. You can't give away 200K without someone paying taxes on it. You can gift anyone you're related to about 800k every 10 years without it being taxed here. >_>
But that is over 10 years. That is some long term planning. But that isn't how inheritance is transferred or even what I was talking about.
|
On August 28 2015 05:42 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 05:39 Ghostcom wrote:
That is an argument for WHAT the state could use more money on. It is not an argument for WHY they should tax people more. Because states are constantly cutting on education, infrastructure and stuff like that? This could help with this problem and wouldn't hurt anyone (living).
So as long as states are cutting on education, infrastructure and stuff like that we should simply increase taxes?
Look, I'm a very happy tax payer. I'm 26 years old and I'm already paying the highest tax-rate in Denmark - I'm currently paying roughly 60% income tax of my last earnings. At what point do you think I pay a high enough tax? 70%? 80% 90% 99%? At what point do you think I say: "Fuck this, I'm not going to work this much as I don't get enough out of it" - at which point the state loses out on money they could have taxed me for as well as the value I would have created by working. Whilst a welfare state is a good thing, a communist state is not.
It hurts the kids whose inheritance you are stealing.
|
And how is inheritance tax interacting your income tax? In fact it could even lower it.
I'm all in favor of taxing assets/wealth instead of income.
But this is a bad topic to discuss here, tax codes are too diffrent among countries. 2 people could have nearly the same basic views, but due to the diffrent taxrates and taxes in general they have to pay in their countries they would argue for diffrent stuff  .
|
On August 28 2015 05:50 Plansix wrote:The wealthy are the ones who would harmed the least. They can afford more than anyone else and their basic needs are met several times over. You have to burden someone, so you do it to the people who will be the least effected. At worst they will have to go without luxuries that the middle class and poor could never dream of affording. Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 05:48 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 05:40 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2015 05:36 Ghostcom wrote: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. It should be taxed like most gifts of huge amounts of money. Maybe a little less. You can't give away 200K without someone paying taxes on it. You can gift anyone you're related to about 800k every 10 years without it being taxed here. >_> But that is over 10 years. That is some long term planning. But that isn't how inheritance is transferred or even what I was talking about.
My grandfather gifted 50.000 DKK every year to his beneficiaries because he was morally opposed to inheritance tax. He did this for 15 years. It is being done to avoid inheritance tax and highly relevant to what we are discussing. It doesn't make any particular sense that he was allowed to buy me an expensive dinner one day, then he died and now he is not without the state eating 1/3 of every dish.
|
On August 28 2015 05:53 Velr wrote:
And how is inheritance tax changing your income tax? In fact it could even lower it.
I'm all in favor of taxing assets instead of income.
That is the worst way to do it. Assets can be anything, including a business that pay people. Or a house that they would have to sell quickly or be bankrupted by the taxes from inheriting it. That is a huge problem in the US and children end up with tax debts just because their parents didn't plan for their own death.
|
On August 28 2015 05:50 Plansix wrote:The wealthy are the ones who would harmed the least. They can afford more than anyone else and their basic needs are met several times over. You have to burden someone, so you do it to the people who will be the least effected. At worst they will have to go without luxuries that the middle class and poor could never dream of affording. Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 05:48 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 05:40 Plansix wrote:On August 28 2015 05:36 Ghostcom wrote: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. It should be taxed like most gifts of huge amounts of money. Maybe a little less. You can't give away 200K without someone paying taxes on it. You can gift anyone you're related to about 800k every 10 years without it being taxed here. >_> But that is over 10 years. That is some long term planning. But that isn't how inheritance is transferred or even what I was talking about.
Nope, it can be in one big payment, or split into as many small ones as you feel are appropriate. Basically it works like this: Give your child 800k --> wait 10 years --> free to give them 800k again, no continual transfer of money necessary.
|
On August 28 2015 05:53 Velr wrote:And how is inheritance tax interacting your income tax? In fact it could even lower it. I'm all in favor of taxing assets instead of income. But this is a bad topic to discuss here, tax codes are too diffrent among countries. 2 people could have nearly the same basic views, but due to the diffrent taxrates and taxes in general they have to pay in their countries they would argue for diffrent stuff .
Because inheritance tax would follow the same argumentation. Why should I work if I can't leave anything for my children? And what do you do when there is no more inheritance to tax - cut back on "education, infrastructure and other stuff" again? Or start taxing another area? This proposal of yours sounds more and more like pissing your pants.
EDIT: Also, taxing assets is NOT a good idea.
|
Question about inheritance tax: How does the tax apply to non-liquid assets? Lets say the parents die and leave a company with a market value of $5M. Are the children supposed to come up with $1.5M to pay for the tax? Otherwise does the state take a 30% equity stake in the company?
What if the parents leave a house valued at $1M. What if the children don't have $300k in cash to pay the tax. Does the government get 30% of the house? Do they force the sale of the house?
|
On August 28 2015 05:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 05:53 Velr wrote:
And how is inheritance tax changing your income tax? In fact it could even lower it.
I'm all in favor of taxing assets instead of income. That is the worst way to do it. Assets can be anything, including a business that pay people. Or a house that they would have to sell quickly or be bankrupted by the taxes from inheriting it. That is a huge problem in the US and children end up with tax debts just because their parents didn't plan for their own death.
Obviously there would be special rules for companies and stuff like that, but that would go too far here. I mean, even our actual taxcodes tend to suck, i probably won't be able to make up a better one on the spot  .
Btw: I'm accountant, evading taxes legally (and on a place i worked before even "grey") is basically my job :D:
|
On August 28 2015 05:59 warding wrote:
Question about inheritance tax: How does the tax apply to non-liquid assets? Lets say the parents die and leave a company with a market value of $5M. Are the children supposed to come up with $1.5M to pay for the tax? Otherwise does the state take a 30% equity stake in the company?
What if the parents leave a house valued at $1M. What if the children don't have $300k in cash to pay the tax. Does the government get 30% of the house? Do they force the sale of the house?
In the US, they force a sale or you end up with a massive amount of back taxes. There are ways to avoid it prior to the estate, like selling the property to your children for a dollar. But then you have to deal with other issue risks like your kids kicking you out of the property or selling it from under you.
In short, it sucks, don't tax assets transfers. Then tax them when they sell the assets.
|
On August 28 2015 05:33 Velr wrote:
ROFL.. Clutz. So your Parents would rather die piss poor than to "just" leave "most" of their assets to you? Wow... Just wow.
Umm...yes. Whenever you get inheritance taxes about 50% or so you start seeing this. I do not work in estate law like Plansix, but I do work with some wealthy people. And basically they do not want to die piss poor, what they do is spend $500k on a perishable luxury, like a boat or RV instead of leaving it in the estate, even though they would rather just give their kids 500k. Or they set up weird vanity charities, or start "businesses" that really just employ their kids because the income tax rate is lower than the inheritance rate.
I think the idea of an inheritance tax is stupid, but if you are going to have it, it should be low such that it just kind of skims off a bit of money not how nearly every one in the modern world is: basically a punishment for dying.
On August 28 2015 05:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 05:33 Velr wrote:
ROFL.. Clutz. So your Parents would rather die piss poor than to "just" leave "most" of their assets to you? Wow... Just wow.
I work in the legal field and deal with probate all the time. They give it away to family members to spend on houses or other investments. Or they pay for college when maybe loans or a cheaper school would be been better. I can't tell you the number of estates that are just made of all debt because people do things with their money to avoid losing a huge amount of it to the government. Its not that they don't give it to their family, its that they spend it when they think they might pass away.
Basically this. Its one of the least sane ways of raising tax revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
