European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 248

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?

On August 28 2015 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:

Assets is a tricky situation. I certainly would not say that children should have to pay money to the state for the reasons mentioned. My argument was based on money which is easier to regulate. I would leave it to people much more knowledgeable then myself to come up with a solution for non-liquids.

On August 28 2015 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:

Assets is a tricky situation. I certainly would not say that children should have to pay money to the state for the reasons mentioned. My argument was based on money which is easier to regulate. I would leave it to people much more knowledgeable then myself to come up with a solution for non-liquids.

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.

On August 28 2015 06:06 cLutZ wrote:


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 06:10 cLutZ wrote:


Then people would just buy a bunch of art and gold bars when they think they are going to die. Its a non-solution.

On August 28 2015 06:11 Gorsameth wrote:

See that is something I don't get my head around. Say I am old and will probably die within a decade or 2. I have 500k and a nice house. I would be perfectly fine living off the 500k and when I die see half of the remainder go to my children and the other half to the state.
My children will still get a very nice sum of money and it wasn't like i was going to use any of it anyway. I am dead after all.

(And if their rich enough to not care about getting 100k+ then I give even less about the money)

On August 28 2015 06:11 Gorsameth wrote:

See that is something I don't get my head around. Say I am old and will probably die within a decade or 2. I have 500k and a nice house. I would be perfectly fine living off the 500k and when I die see half of the remainder go to my children and the other half to the state.
My children will still get a very nice sum of money and it wasn't like i was going to use any of it anyway. I am dead after all.

(And if their rich enough to not care about getting 100k+ then I give even less about the money)

On August 28 2015 08:29 GoTuNk! wrote:


You are a just saying how you think you would feel about it. I'm quite sure, if you actually were on that situation, and how you made your money might make your hipothetical answer different.

For "rich" people it's not about the money. It's about not letting the government take away their hard earned work.

As a current entrepreneur (I have 2 businesses) both the taxes I have to pay and the legal burden I have to face are overwhelming.

My crossfit Gym has 4 owners (I'm one), 2 of which work like 60 hours a month for 220 USD atm (the coaches) and have been for the last year because we basically break even and are betting on keep growing. We have to pay 19% sales tax on every membership, which adds up to 1 to 3k USD every month. With that money we could have way bettter equipment, do proper marketing, and pay my 2 friends a livable wage (you need way less money in Chile than US/Europe to live properly)


My friends have to deal with their family supporting them, while they are running a business that might or might not flourish. I'm in the same boat. Being broke all the time, their parents giving them shit about it (get a "real" job), not being able to take their gf's out, etc.

The amount of damage taxes do is brutal, but armchair economists and social justice warriors simply do not see it. They think 10/20/30 sales tax is reasonable, when it's not. How governments waste money is ridiculous and a burden to hard working people.

On August 28 2015 08:29 GoTuNk! wrote:


You are a just saying how you think you would feel about it. I'm quite sure, if you actually were on that situation, and how you made your money might make your hipothetical answer different.

For "rich" people it's not about the money. It's about not letting the government take away their hard earned work.

As a current entrepreneur (I have 2 businesses) both the taxes I have to pay and the legal burden I have to face are overwhelming.

My crossfit Gym has 4 owners (I'm one), 2 of which work like 60 hours a month for 220 USD atm (the coaches) and have been for the last year because we basically break even and are betting on keep growing. We have to pay 19% sales tax on every membership, which adds up to 1 to 3k USD every month. With that money we could have way bettter equipment, do proper marketing, and pay my 2 friends a livable wage (you need way less money in Chile than US/Europe to live properly)


My friends have to deal with their family supporting them, while they are running a business that might or might not flourish. I'm in the same boat. Being broke all the time, their parents giving them shit about it (get a "real" job), not being able to take their gf's out, etc.

The amount of damage taxes do is brutal, but armchair economists and social justice warriors simply do not see it. They think 10/20/30 sales tax is reasonable, when it's not. How governments waste money is ridiculous and a burden to hard working people.

On August 28 2015 08:40 dismiss wrote:

Good job, you have failed to understand how taxes work and the countless ways they benefit you as well as your business. Setting things like basic human decency aside, think about this, how many customers would you lose if no one could afford medical care? How many because your gym isn't connected via proper roads and public transit. How does the water and electricity get there? Do you think these things are conjured up out of thin air?
No business rakes in the dosh right away. Many don't ever get to achieve sustained profitability, that's how things go in a competitive economy.

On August 28 2015 08:58 GoTuNk! wrote:


Huh? The government could do that with 5% income tax, current levels are totally unreasonable. Public health care is atrocious, most people go private with insurance (80% of the population, at least). We pay water and electric bills separately? I have a finance major, a profitable 4 year old business and recently purchased a crossfit gym, I understand how a competitive economy works way better than you do.

Because I do, the idea that business go bankrupt because of high taxes, and worse, bad legislation, is horrible to me. Financially and ethically. I didn't mention the our accountant's 100 USD/month wage and 500 USD payment for the anual balance. All that shit slowly eats away our margins. We also pay taxes on the cleaning lady's wage.

Thanks for your support, but don't worry, we are moving to a bigger, cheaper location to acomodate our goal of 300 students for a profitable business pretty soon. We provide exelent coaching, motivation, and have changed for good many people's life.That said, the grind could have been a lot easier.

On August 28 2015 09:11 dismiss wrote:

Okay, so we have established that your countries infrastructure is not that great, yet the government, which is running a deficitary is supposed to make do with a slashed budget? You also fail to address the point of infrastructure, you may pay your water bill to a private company even, but where do you think the funds for water lines, reservoirs, a canalisation, etc came from? I could go on, what in case your fancy new building catches fire? Are you paying for a private fire brigade to come over and put it out? Maybe you want them to stop in front of your office and negotiate a higher price while your hard work is burning to the ground, too. I mean you are studying business after all, so feel free to go ahead and explain.

Again this all is disregarding all the people in help of need and social security support. Do you just want them to die in the streets?

On August 28 2015 09:25 GoTuNk! wrote:


My point is that those activities do not need to be performed by the government and that the private sector would do it more efficiently. Rising wages, education, health care, etc etc have been improving way before the government intervened them.

I believe in taxes to fund government functioning, justice, defense (cops included) and few other stuff (like help to disabled people or families of mentally challenged who cannot really work). That can be achieved with 10% of the current government budget.

Firefighters are volunteers. Our renter pays for insurance; we also pay private security (24/7 alarm and support).

We do not need big governments to protect the poor. The poor exist because of big governments.

On August 28 2015 09:25 GoTuNk! wrote:


My point is that those activities do not need to be performed by the government and that the private sector would do it more efficiently. Rising wages, education, health care, etc etc have been improving way before the government intervened them.

I believe in taxes to fund government functioning, justice, defense (cops included) and few other stuff (like help to disabled people or families of mentally challenged who cannot really work). That can be achieved with 10% of the current government budget (5%?)

Firefighters are volunteers. Our renter pays for insurance; we also pay private security (24/7 alarm and support).

We do not need big governments to protect the poor. The poor exist because of big governments.

Charity would take care of the few that really need it, as it did before and does now.

The argument that we need big governments to protect the poor, is as unsound, as we need anti drug laws to protect people from drugs. The solution is WAY WORSE than the disease.

On August 28 2015 09:36 GoTuNk! wrote:
Huh? Luxemburg, Qatar and Singapore (developing country 25 years ago) top all the lists.
GDP is an incomplete measure.

Look up on Singapore, those right wing nuts.

I didn't look up the numbers, but I was referring to the income tax; most of Chile's government income is from natural resource taxes, with which I'm ok, to a reasonable extent.

That said, military spending =/= spending on defense, so your point is moot.

On August 28 2015 09:28 dismiss wrote:

Okay, so you're basically some crazy right win nut, that's cool too. Our filthy socialist countries appear to be winning in your all important competition for money though. ;P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

By the way, Chile spent over 10% of their budget on defense alone, but I am sure all these things could be accomplished with 10%. Way to put your finance degree to work.