LogFAQs > #936549086

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	ITT: You explain why inheritance/estate tax shouldn't be taxed at like 95%
TaZa92 03/31/20 4:40:56 PM #37:	Tyranthraxus posted... Liquid Inheritance should be taxed at 100% over 10 million dollars on a per recipient basis and taxed at 0% after 10 million. Invested inheritance shouldn't be taxed at all (homes, cars, jewelry, etc) "Oh no someone will dodge the tax by buying a bunch of expensive shit right before they die" That's basically the intended outcome. It's good that would cause more consumerism, but then you have descendants who inherit extremely valuable assets (particularly gold/jewelry) which they can just sell off and be filthy rich without actually earning it and you're back in the same boat of undeserved income inequality so there should be a way to tax certain assets as well. --- hi <cite>TaZa92 posted [p:936549086] in ITT: You e... [t:78526872]...</cite> <quote>Tyranthraxus posted... </cite> <quote>Liquid Inheritance should be taxed at 100% over 10 million dollars on a per recipient basis and taxed at 0% after 10 million. Invested inheritance shouldn't be taxed at all (homes, cars, jewelry, etc) "Oh no someone will dodge the tax by buying a bunch of expensive shit right before they die" That's basically the intended outcome.</quote> It's good that would cause more consumerism, but then you have descendants who inherit extremely valuable assets (particularly gold/jewelry) which they can just sell off and be filthy rich without actually earning it and you're back in the same boat of undeserved income inequality so there should be a way to tax certain assets as well. --- hi</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1