Comment

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 ⁨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:

upon death, all wealth is tabulated, and all real property is given a valuation by the local tax authority
taxes are evaluated to determine how much gift tax exclusion still remains, and the will is consulted to determine how much each heir gets
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)
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

Sort:hotnew top

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:

Every asset is valuated

Based on the existing (or non existing) testament everything is distributed

the receivers or the personal responsible for distributing everything does a tax filing

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
- sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  Again taxing anything for 100% is stealing, you can do 60-70% though.
  
  Sure, if you start with the assumption that things like property and wealth can truly be owned. I personally think 60-70% tax is stealing under that assumption, and that inheritance (and gifts) should be treated like any other income.
  
  But I’m starting from a different assumption that property is leased from society generally, and you only really own the value you create personally. When you die, there is no longer any legitimate owner so it must be redistributed.
  
  I believe everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed, and that doesn’t work if kids can just ride their parents’ coattails. There will always be some of that with parents using their connections to help their kids get ahead, but inheriting a fortune completely kills any need to actually compete to succeed.
  
  If we want a meritocratic society, we need to kill as much nepotism as we can. This article makes similar claims but from a little different perspective.
  
  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.
  
  Agreed, but without the “thrive” bit. I think we need something like universal basic income to ensure everyone is above the poverty line, but that should be the extent of it. Along with this, I think we should eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide what’s fair.
  
  However, this is completely separate from inheritance. I don’t think the government should use that money for any purpose, it should strictly be redistributed if the person who died didn’t choose any charities or whatever to donate to. The government should also give it to any survivors first if there’s no will, up to the limit.
  
  I don’t see it as a tax because the government isn’t taking that money, it’s merely facilitating redistribution.
  
  passing companies down
  
  Passing down shares would be subject to the same inheritance rules.
  
  source