Current Events > ITT: You explain why inheritance/estate tax shouldn't be taxed at like 95%

(+) Yeah! (+)

Spoiler alert: you can't

Everyone has the right to their own money they've (possibly) worked hard for. They have to right to that money to give their children the best lives possible while they are growing up, but once they're adults it's over tbh. Throws off the whole playing field.

---

ok

---

i to tend to forge there are any numbers between 40 and 95. And that the 40 only kicks in over 12 million dollars.

---

so what happens if i don't have any children iyo

---

Taxation is theft.

---

Because imagine someone with a 25k nest egg they saved for their kids. Imagine getting taxed on just that.

---

it should remain a progressive tax and the highest levels should have high percentages, just like income.

---

So if there is a family home, the home should be taxed 95% basically meaning there inheritor gets it taken by the state

inheritance tax is wrong. The shit was already taxed when the person got it in the first place. It's a double tax. Plus why should parents who have a natural desire to leave their legacy behind to the next of kin get punished for that? WTF did the state do to deserve millionaire bob's mansion?

It's already taxed at an absurdly high rate as is

Get off your communist high horse TC

TC gets upset when other people have money

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Because imagine someone with a 25k nest egg they saved for their kids. Imagine getting taxed on just that.

Okay maybe it doesn't kick in until over 50k or something but logically I don't see the big deal. The parents can use that money for themselves in other ways. There are plenty of kids that get nothing.

The Trent posted...

TC gets upset when other people have money

kayoticdreamz posted...

inheritance tax is wrong. The shit was already taxed when the person got it in the first place. It's a double tax. Plus why should parents who have a natural desire to leave their legacy behind to the next of kin get punished for that? WTF did the state do to deserve millionaire bob's mansion?

It's already taxed at an absurdly high rate as is

Get off your communist high horse TC

I assure you both I am not socialist. I fully believe in a market economy with a social safety net (basically what we have now) and I fully believe people earn the right to their own money for themselves, but inheritance is probably the biggest reason for major income inequality with no real justification for the person receiving the income.


---

TC, what's your opinion on things like Alimony? Surely if you think someone's child doesn't deserve their parent's money, someone's former relation doesn't deserve any either?

---

imagine a person busting their ass off to provide a better life to their kids

then uncle sam comes along should they pass away and distributes their estate to privileged well-connected bureaucrats and cronies claiming it's in the public interest

---

s0nicfan posted...

Alimony

There should be a limit obviously. Child support is different but still there should be a cap. There are plenty of individuals who completely live luxurious lives off their ex-spouses income payments.

---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

it should remain a progressive tax and the highest levels should have high percentages, just like income.

this, but the highest percentages should be taxed extremely high. Part of the reason for the wealth gap is we have a system where having money makes it easy to earn more money... and billionaires can just pass on their billions

---

If inheritance tax went to public assistance funds or similar, I'd be cool with it

I don't trust it to be allocated properly as general tax revenue, like most things

kayoticdreamz posted...

inheritance tax is wrong. The shit was already taxed when the person got it in the first place. It's a double tax. Plus why should parents who have a natural desire to leave their legacy behind to the next of kin get punished for that? WTF did the state do to deserve millionaire bob's mansion?

It's already taxed at an absurdly high rate as is

Get off your communist high horse TC

If the issue is double taxation, I'd think people would have an issue with a lot more other stuff. I'm sure some do, but inheritance tax seems on the low end for that concern.

I guess it depends on if you think money should be taxed when it "switches hands"?
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Inheritance tax should be a marginal tax rate that starts at 0 but gets up to 90% after a fairly high threshold.

Like you should be allowed to set your family up pretty damn well but your grandkids shouldnt be able to live entirely off of interest

if someone's inheritance is sufficient to live off of compounding interest, it's probably not in the form of liquid assets

not so easy to tax, and comes with economic externalities when attempted

---

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.

---

we need that 95% inheritance tax to help pay OT for police officers to idle their cars in parking lots

---

Estate tax currently doesn't kick in until $11.4 million and excludes property, The rate goes from 18-40% as you approach $1 million taxable. For example, if your estate is $15 million in cash, you end up with $13.632 million, or an effective tax rate of 10%.

At what level can you reasonably give your children a wealthy life, for the rest of their lives? If you died when they were born, at what point would their financial situation change compared to if you had simply stopped earning when they were born?

Some number ITT are ridiculously low. 50k is probably a good point for a college fund, but not for a lifetime of income. $1 million is probably too low, especially passing down businesses, stocks, etc. $5 million is probably a good starting point (again, look at effective tax rate), which is roughly where it was before 2018 when it doubled.

---

ChocoboMog123 posted...

50k is probably a good point for a college fund

NYU students pay like $56K a year.

---

Uncle Sam is one greedy pig. Cant a normal person inherit personal property without Uncle Sam getting a piece of it? Were already taxed up the ass

give me a break topic creator

---

That's pretty dumb. It'd make more sense to cap inheritance. I'm not saying I'm in favor of that either but it makes more sense that what you're saying.

---

Caution999 posted...

Uncle Sam is one greedy pig. Cant a normal person inherit personal property without Uncle Sam getting a piece of it? Were already taxed up the ass

give me a break topic creator

Yes you can as long as you're alive. The idea isn't about you, it's about income equality due to those who inherit things they did not earn.

---

DuranOfForcena posted...

this is the stupidest topic i've seen all week

---

it's funny how all the bootstraps guys drop that conviction when potentially faced with getting a smaller handout they did nothing to earn

---

TheMikh posted...

imagine a person busting their ass off to provide a better life to their kids

then uncle sam comes along should they pass away and distributes their estate to privileged well-connected bureaucrats and cronies claiming it's in the public interest

That's the only fair argument - for those who already worked hard for their kids. Perhaps this wouldn't be implemented for 20 years after announcement but then you have people trying overload inheritance before then.

---

Double taxation has always confused me for some reason when it comes to inheritance tax. I guess because in my head, the money is now someones income, so they pay taxes on it, like in any other situation. But that's probably too simplistic. I think I understand the corporate tax double taxation argument better
---

There should be no tax on inheritances or estates.

---

Say 5 people in a family who get inheritance money now have 70% of their needs in life satisfied. I think that's better than every single person in the country having their needs satisfied by an extra 0.00000001%

Compare that to the argument that rich people should be taxed more. If someone now has 10,000% of their needs in life satisfied, it's a lot more reasonable to ask that they pay a bigger % in taxes than someone who has 50% or 100% or even 1000% of their needs satisfied
---

We are already taxed plenty enough as it is for inheritance depending on your state.

Enough is enough. The incredible amount of taxes are why we left England to begin with.

next of kin gets the majority of property unless a will determines otherwise. There is already a fair inheritance tax; and in some states its already exorbitant.

---

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.


---

Caution999 posted...

We are already taxed plenty enough as it is for inheritance depending on your state.

Enough is enough. The incredible amount of taxes are why we left England to begin with.

next of kin gets the majority of property unless a will determines otherwise. There is already a fair inheritance tax; and in some states its already exorbitant.

Okay good point - let's lower individual income tax for those making under 500k a year or something and make up for it in inheritance tax.

Again, I don't see any reason why people should be given plenty of money/assets for simply being born to well-off parents. You can only argue for the parents who might've worked hard with plans to set up their future generations and for that I suggested not implementing this sort of a tax until around 20 years after announcement or so.

---

Nobody needs more than $10k in net worth. Any more than that should be seized by the government and redistributed to those of us unwilling to work.

---

Caution999 posted...

We are already taxed plenty enough as it is for inheritance depending on your state.

Enough is enough. The incredible amount of taxes are why we left England to begin with.

next of kin gets the majority of property unless a will determines otherwise. There is already a fair inheritance tax; and in some states its already exorbitant.

What makes inheritance tax different than other taxes though.
---

TaZa92 posted...

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.

Yeah but aftermarket sales of these expensive things functionally counts as income tax. So they would either have to sell them a little at a time or get taxed a lot.


---

emblem boy posted...

Double taxation has always confused me for some reason when it comes to inheritance tax. I guess because in my head, the money is now someones income, so they pay taxes on it, like in any other situation. But that's probably too simplistic. I think I understand the corporate tax double taxation argument better

The main idea is that money is used as an incentive. It shouldn't just be handed over from parents to children since the children did not actually do anything to earn it. As a result, you have massive undeserved income inequality from the start.

---

TaZa92 posted...

Again, I don't see any reason why people should be given plenty of money/assets for simply being born to well-off parents.

So basically you're salty af from envy
---

ITT: I hate rich people.

---

its income for the people getting it. so they are taxed

emblem boy posted...

Double taxation has always confused me for some reason when it comes to inheritance tax. I guess because in my head, the money is now someones income, so they pay taxes on it, like in any other situation. But that's probably too simplistic. I think I understand the corporate tax double taxation argument better

I mean double taxing inheritance is not logically inconsistent. When the money is earned it was applied a different tax than when it is inherited.

The real head scratcher is taxes on gifts. You can't just gift someone $15,000 for some reason. That's different from inheritance because I'm giving that money up while I'm still alive to use it.

---

Sounds like the kind of logic someone who wouldn't ever inherit anything would use.

TaZa92 posted...

emblem boy posted...

Double taxation has always confused me for some reason when it comes to inheritance tax. I guess because in my head, the money is now someones income, so they pay taxes on it, like in any other situation. But that's probably too simplistic. I think I understand the corporate tax double taxation argument better

The main idea is that money is used as an incentive. It shouldn't just be handed over from parents to children since the children did not actually do anything to earn it. As a result, you have massive undeserved income inequality from the start.

Not really what I'm talking about.
More that, what makes the inheritance that someone gets, different than any other type of income. If it's not different, why shouldn't it be taxed.
---

Esrac posted...

Sounds like the kind of logic someone who wouldn't ever inherit anything would use.

You should look up what Bill Gates is leaving his kids.

---

AlephZero posted...

Nobody needs more than $10k in net worth. Any more than that should be seized by the government and redistributed to those of us unwilling to work.

You're reading the entire topic wrong. I firmly believe in a market economy and people having the right to their own money without massive taxing.

What we're trying to solve here is people receiving money from their family that they themselves did not actually earn.

And I'll state this again because this will probably be your rebuttal: The only fair argument is for those who already worked hard for their kids. Perhaps this wouldn't be implemented for 20 years after announcement but then you have people trying overload inheritance before then so maybe there's a better method.

---