Comment on If AI takes most of our jobs, money as we know it will be over. What then?

• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Yes, it goes through the government and is technically a tax, my point is that it’s not funding the government.

  The point isn’t to be an effective way to redistribute money, the point is to ensure the winners earned it as much as possible. When someone “succeeds” entirely because of their parents’ wealth, we run into the same issues as we had under kings where those at the top feel like they “deserve” to be there without actually earning it. If rich people decide to donate it all to causes they support instead of having it be redistributed, that’s totally fine, because the point isn’t to help the poor, it’s to prevent generational wealth from determining winners and losers.

  source

  • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Like I said, 100% tax is just stealing.

    It’s not an issue to actually tax the rich, but the first x schould be tax free and after that a bracket should be low tax until y and then you can charge z percentage above that, but it cannot be 100% tax.

    source

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Sure, if you recognize generational wealth as being legitimate, taking that away is stealing.

      I’m arguing that you only own the value you create. Inheriting wealth doesn’t create value, so it’s not really yours. I do think there’s a legitimate argument for taking care of your family after you die, hence why I believe in some amount of exclusion for gifts (say in the million to tens of millions), because there are absolutely cases where it’s necessary (i.e. if you have a special needs child or something) and that’s not really the government’s business. However, I do think the excess should be returned back to society, either through charitable donations or a direct redistribution.

      Here’s how I see it happening:

      1. upon death, all wealth is tabulated, and all real property is given a valuation by the local tax authority
      2. taxes are evaluated to determine how much gift tax exclusion still remains, and the will is consulted to determine how much each heir gets
      3. heirs get first dibs on real property from 1, and then the rest is handed out as the estate is liquidated (real property is auctioned)
      4. any remaining real property after the gift tax exclusion (or the will’s terms have been meted out, whichever is less) goes to the state for redistribution; none of this money can be used for funding the government, it can only be used for direct costs of redistribution

      I don’t see permanent ownership of real property as being legitimate, and I don’t think inheritances are legitimate, because that promotes dynasties. The average person will be well below the gift tax exemption, so children of wealthy parents will absolutely have a step up over other people, but they won’t automatically be filthy rich.

      source

      • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I believe in some amount of exclusion for gifts (say in the million to tens of millions),

        You don’t need to gift away millions of euro’s let’s be honest.

        Like I explained to you, if you want taxes to be effective they have to be based on something and be kinda fair. If you inheritence tax is 100% that means that every euro is taxed for a lot more than 100%.

        Gifts just before deaths are often considered to be inheritance as well in some tax systems like NL fyi.

        local tax authority You realise that most tax authorities have a lack of staff to be able to do it? Most people wouldn’t want to work at a tax office anyway

        Basically how it works in NL currently:

        1. Every asset is valuated
        2. Based on the existing (or non existing) testament everything is distributed
        3. the receivers or the personal responsible for distributing everything does a tax filing
        4. Within 3 years of receiving the tax filing the government sends out a letter for the tax to be paid which is calculated with certain percentages depending on who is the receiver and the first x is also free from tax. Here you check the percentages etc: www.consumentenbond.nl/…/erfbelasting

        There is also a special occasion when one of the parents die, then the remaining parent is in debt to the children until they die.

        And exception for anything more than 1m euro is absolute bullshit. 140-150k is more than enough for most. Again taxing anything for 100% is stealing, you can do 60-70% though.

        Most rich people don’t deal with a lot of inheritence tax anyway. Most of the companies and very expensive assets will be passed down before they die. This will become even more if a 100% tax is introduced.

        I don’t see permanent ownership of real property as being legitimate Why shouldn’t somebody be able to own their house? There are people who have legally bought the ground (or they pay rent for it) and they bought their own house. Why shouldn’t they be able to own that and why shouldn’t the childeren be able to live in that?

        I don’t sign up for the extreme taxation people like you want to introduce, because it will give people more incentive to do everything to not pay it. it will also get people to push more against the system. I have seen it time and time again with different taxes considering I work at an accounting firm.

        Instead we should have a good system of social security which means everybody has a basis income which should allow them to properly survive and thrive a bit. You will still have some people struggling one way or another with something like a universal basic income, but there is basically no way of stopping it but it will be vastly reduced.

        source

        • -> View More Comments