Should every generation have to "start over"?

[crazy canuck]

I can't see how my boys lives would be meaningfully improved if, in their 50s, they get a hundred thousand or two from me when I die.

Why, because they are going to be rolling in cash and so and extra couple hundred thousand won't matter.  Hell, I could use a couple hundred K easily.

Of course they could.

But I could also use the $300-$600K in my retirement.

But I said "meaningfully improved".  If my parents died today and I received $100k, would much change?  Not really.  I'd pay down the mortgage, chopping several years off of it.  Which would be nice, but not substantially alter my life.

I am taking steps to give my boys a good shot at life - saving for their education, and timing the house payments to be over by the time post-secondary starts so I can help pay for it.  But I don't see a straight cash inheritance (unless it's huge) making that much difference.

That 100k would save your kids from having to go to the UofM

[crazy canuck]

I agree that front-loading the spending is probably more efficient, yeah.

Spend more on education and on raising them, and to help them during the early years when they're trying to establish themselves in their lives and careers.

Spending $100K, say, so they can graduate university debt-free or so they can make a down-payment for a slightly bigger/nicer place when (if) they buy their first home is likely to be more useful than adding $100K+interest to their assets 30-40 (or more) years later. It also has the advantage that you get to see and enjoy the kids benefitting from the fruits of your labour.

The theory is that if BB gets money he doesnt really need he will spend it on his kids.  That is what I was getting at with me being able to use another 200k right about now given that age and stage of my kids.

And, if I understand MiM correctly, that is the kind of intergenerational help he is talking about.

[Valmy]

Every parent leaves a rich legacy

I never said it would be a good one.

[Ideologue]

I get the feeling Mimsy is talking about a family patrimony that grows (or at least maintains) with each generation, rather than a pot of money you can put up your nose at age 18.

Yes. I'm talking about a family legacy that keeps on being there and many generations can count on it. Not necessarily something grandiose, but maybe a nest egg of some kind that the various people who need to can fall back on it and not starve or be homeless. It could be a bank account I guess, but I was really thinking more like an old farm or maybe a business in the family or something. Some kind of thing that people can build over time.

That's why I'm not, grumbler, in favor of inheritance tax on any property worth less than (insert a pretty high value here and index to inflation) and never on any farmland not under ownership or control of a publicly-traded entity.

That stuff may sound like a nice way to redistribute, but what actually happens is the little guy gets his land redistributed to who can pay when the taxes are due, and that's Monsanto, Blackstone Capital or Goldman Sachs.

When corporations die, their estates should be taxed at 100%.

[crazy canuck]

When corporations die, their estates should be taxed at 100%.

[Ideologue]

Are there no workhouses?





People do almost anything to avoid a pauper's funeral.

I want to be left to rot in the street.

[Jacob]

I agree that front-loading the spending is probably more efficient, yeah.

Spend more on education and on raising them, and to help them during the early years when they're trying to establish themselves in their lives and careers.

Spending $100K, say, so they can graduate university debt-free or so they can make a down-payment for a slightly bigger/nicer place when (if) they buy their first home is likely to be more useful than adding $100K+interest to their assets 30-40 (or more) years later. It also has the advantage that you get to see and enjoy the kids benefitting from the fruits of your labour.

The theory is that if BB gets money he doesnt really need he will spend it on his kids.  That is what I was getting at with me being able to use another 200k right about now given that age and stage of my kids.

And, if I understand MiM correctly, that is the kind of intergenerational help he is talking about.

So the inheritance is left for the children but is likely going to be spent on the grandchildren? That makes sense too.

[Norgy]

The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!

[grumbler]

The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!

That is why an estate tax works so well.  Nobody owns an estate.  No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead.  No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.

[Barrister]

The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!

That is why an estate tax works so well.  Nobody owns an estate.  No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead.  No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.

Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way.

[grumbler]

Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way.

So what?  There are a lot of people who see it that people like you or I are useless employees doing a job that shouldn't be done.  Big whoop.

[crazy canuck]

The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!

That is why an estate tax works so well.  Nobody owns an estate.  No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead.  No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.

Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way.

But those are the people who for one reason or another didnt deplete the estate through inter vivos gifts and so they get what they deserve.

[Barrister]

The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!

That is why an estate tax works so well.  Nobody owns an estate.  No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead.  No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.

Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way.

But those are the people who for one reason or another didnt deplete the estate through inter vivos gifts and so they get what they deserve.

I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.

[Valmy]

I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.

So if you are rich enough, you just go to Canada or wherever and take care of it that way.  Only the middle classes would have their estates taxed.  You know, like how most of this stuff tends to go.

[crazy canuck]

The problem with inheritance is that it mostly reinforces social inequity. Then again, taxing it seems unfair. Being taxed because your parent died? Nice one, over-reaching intrusive government!

That is why an estate tax works so well.  Nobody owns an estate.  No one gets taxed because they died, because they are dead.  No one gets taxed because their parents died, because only the estate is taxed.

Except no one, neither the beneficiary of the estate, or the testator pondering the distribution of their estate, see it that way.

But those are the people who for one reason or another didnt deplete the estate through inter vivos gifts and so they get what they deserve.

I started to post something similar to grumbles early on but apparently the US, unlike Canada, does tax gifts.

I am pretty sure the Americans have their fair share of ways to avoid the tax.