God Save The King

[The Brain]

Inheritance tax is unsound.

Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.

Thankfully here in Socialist Sweden we're doing great without it.

Sweden is a cultural abyss. It's the evolutionary dead end of societies. And in a few generations will be a northern Sheikdom.

Sheik Yerbouti?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Inheritance tax is unsound.

Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.

I don't want to restart the argument I had with the forum's towering intellect (Martinus) years ago, but there are plenty of families with emotional attachments -to ignore financial dependency- to things like homes. I would NOT be fine with my childhood home coming under state ownership once my parents die. Fuck that communist BS.

I'd be fine with the heirs having first buy option in a closed process not open to outside bids. But they don't have any special right to just have it given to them for free.

[Tamas]

What inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?

[The Brain]

In Soviet America, state owns all.

[Syt]

What inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?

Pure devil's advocate argument: "What have your children contributed to your wealth? Meanwhile, hasn't the state provided the societal, legal, economic framework for you to be able to achieve your wealth in?"

[Valmy]

Inheritance tax is unsound.

Partially Agree. I don't mind a certain percentage of inheritance tax, like what we have here in the US, but the people who want 100% inheritance just hate individual and want all powerful institutions to dominate the peasants. I will agree to this proposition if every institution has to be dissolved every 60 years and all its assets distributed equally among the people. Then every corporation, every business, every university, every religious institution, every hospital everything must rebuild from zero every 60 years and ask for donations hat-in-hand. Because that makes about as much sense and just arbitrarily seizing all private property every lifetime. If you think it is some great injustice that children get inheritance then hey there is no law that says children should get an inheritance, you can give your property to wherever you want.

I just think it is disgusting how some of you think that institutional wealth can just grow forever unobstructed. While the private property get seized every couple decades. You cannot even develop a multi-generational scheme to get your family out of poverty. Nope! Fuck you individual citizen! It all belongs to your proper masters. And all in the name of some insane sense of "justice" and "fairness" that is neither and just serves to perpetuate poverty and subservience of individuals to the all powerful institutions of society.

If you want to tax like 60% of everything over $10 million or something, fine I get it. But seizing everything?

Besides the ultra-rich will have about a million ways to get out of it. They will just make a family corporation and hire all their relatives as employees or some shit. The only people who this would punish would be the middling types. As always.

[OttoVonBismarck]

What inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?

When you die, you don't have wealth, you are dead.

[HVC]

What inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?

Pure devil's advocate argument: "What have your children contributed to your wealth? Meanwhile, hasn't the state provided the societal, legal, economic framework for you to be able to achieve your wealth in?"

Plus if the state disposes of your assets Tamas will get those nice cheap houses he wants as supply increases

[Tamas]

What inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?

Pure devil's advocate argument: "What have your children contributed to your wealth? Meanwhile, hasn't the state provided the societal, legal, economic framework for you to be able to achieve your wealth in?"

Actually, I spent time of my childhood maintaining and cultivating the family land. And the state services are financed from taxes taken from the citizens. State services do not create obligations for the citizens, they are paid for already.

But this is a very academic debate. 100% (or even remotely close) inheritance task goes so much against the better instincts of humans that is not going to be enacted without violent rebellions against it.

[crazy canuck]

I think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences. 

I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.

The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes.  The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.

[The Brain]

I think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences. 

I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.

The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes.  The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.

What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.

[crazy canuck]

I think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences. 

I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.

The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes.  The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.

What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.

The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.

If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all.  However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Sweden has famously had very aggressive income taxes for ages. I think there was a situation in the 1960s where tax rates could actually get to 102% in Sweden. I think like in most of Communist Scandinavia that was toned down in the 90s and beyond, but top marginal rates and effective paid rates are much higher in Sweden than in say, America.

I think it is generally much harder to accrue wealth in Sweden than most countries. Obviously there have been a few odd Swedish billionaires, and plenty of ultra rich, but on a society wide level wealth inequality is not a significant problem in Sweden to begin with because they make it hard to get truly wealthy.

I generally am fine with people getting wealthy, even very wealthy, with their own efforts in their lifetimes, so take issue with Sweden's high income taxes. But I have little real sympathy for people who want to pass on intergenerational wealth. I do not want my children to inherit money from me, and I did no inherit anything from my parents. My wife came from a wealthy family and she did inherit some, and she actually also is not a big fan of perpetuating the practice.

[The Brain]

I think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences. 

I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.

The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes.  The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.

What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.

The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.

If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all.  However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.

You think Sweden is a country where people don't succeed on their own merits?

[Tamas]

I get that and again I am in favour of finding constructive ways of reducing inequality, but the kind of drastic inheritance task OvB was arguing for is one of the most drastic options imaginable.

And, BTW, a more mild inheritance task isn't that rare is it? I believe there is certainly a form of it in Hungary and England, but I can be wrong.

The kind of "take it away from you because I didn't have it growing up" is just monstrous, and I can't really see the difference between that and for example preventing talented people from seeking education focusing on their talent, e.g. if your kid is great at math, why not forbid them from any math specialisation? Their inherited ability will put them leaps and bonds beyond those not lucky enough to inherent such a potentially lucrative talent from their parents, so why make that inequality worse by leaning into it? Let's send the kids struggling with math to math school, and lets send the math genius to regular state school, so the playing field is more level.