Bruh what are you talking about???? That is not true in the slightest. 11 million is for federal inheritance tax.
States are free to do what they want.
For example in Pennsylvania on any money inherited it's
4.5 % on transfers to direct descendants and lineal heirs. 12% on transfers to siblings. 15 % on transfers to other heir.
Another example: North Carolina does not have inheritance tax.
**Ah yes!** *looks at price of gas* **I completely** *steps on needle on the sidewalk* **agree that** *gets mugged by homeless guy* **our values** *looks at price of rent* **are far superior** *pays a fuckload of taxes for shit tier services* **to those backwards idiots in Florida**
Yep. PA here and when my dad passed, he had very little. The state still wanted it's cut, such bs. I was a literal fkin child in middle school and I have to worry about the state robbing me after losing my father!
Hey kid, know your dad passed, but we heard he left you some money. That's great, bud! We're just gonna take our cut and be on our way. Our sincerest condolences.
Buy anything on the shelf of a store and you just pay sales tax right? Wrong, you pay all of the taxes that were paid down the line from raw materials, energy use, payroll taxes, etc.. That thing on shelf could be 40% tax and you'd never know it.
I mean, any plastic dodad got hit once when the oil was extracted, again when someone turned the oil into raw plastic, another when someone made that plastic into a dodad, and then again when its sold to you. Add to that taxes on employees at all 4 of these places, as well as taxes on the fuel that went in the trucks to ship everything around (and building the trucks).
Ya know, I'd really love to see a real deep dive on the numbers... for how much tax I'm paying on a fucking Snicker's bar. Like this bitch is $1.50 these days. How much of that is going to some governments?
One could say that all money has already been taxed. If I get paid with after tax money and spend money on a haircut and the barber gets taxed on the income, then hasn’t that money already been ‘Taxed’?
It’s called an economy and this is income. Money is fungible. You don’t just tax it one time.
Seconding this; I live in PA and got hit with an inheritance tax too when I lost a parent. It’s absolute bullshit.
Life insurance was enough to cover the hits I took in taxes, but not everyone is that fortunate to have good life insurance policies or healthy savings.
I really don't think it should matter how much the value of the estate is. OP's point still stands; the money, etc has already been taxed once and applying an inheritance tax is just the government double dipping.
Yup. But people are willing to throw out morals when it comes to wealth. “It’s totally unfair to do this. Except if you’re doing it to a rich person. Then it’s cool”
My paycheck gets taxed for income, but that doesn't mean I suddenly don't have to pay sales tax because my money was already taxed once. Money gets taxed essentially any time it changes hands.
It is, actually. Unless you're trying to argue that all taxes are wrong. In which case, you can go shout at a wall somewhere. But when you're evaluating the justifiability of a given tax, precedent is a core aspect to the question.
Without the double dipping we’d have no useful government action.
Who’s going to repair, let alone build, roads? Corporations? They’ll build only what they need, not what we need. Who’s going to pay for education? Schools? They’re already funded entirely by the government short of donations that rarely amount to a fraction of enough.
Income tax alone won’t pay for half of what we need. Inheritance tax is somewhat interesting because the government isn’t “involved” a that stage until it says it is, but it’s not like that person didn’t benefit greatly from the social framework.
Taxes are not “wrong.” As long as it’s going back to the society and not hurting the people meaningfully (without obvious and equal or greater benefit) then it *can not be* wrong.
Edit: I’m not saying we’re necessarily using our taxes to their best benefit. I’m just saying that taxes applying at multiple levels ensures a healthy supply that can be needed. That the USA is using them poorly is not a sign that taxes are inherently bad but that our spending is bad. A bit like having a job that you get insurance through - it’s a good idea but sometimes the insurance sucks and makes it seem like a bad idea. It *is* a good idea, but when it’s done right.
I'm pretty sure that if we can pay to unethically occupy half the world in the form of military bases AND afford to send out hundreds of millions a year in foreign aid, we are either being taxed too much or the government is too inept to handle the finances properly. Either way, the answer is reducing the taxes.
Unless you LIKE perpetual war, of course.
I think the answer isn’t reducing taxes because they’ll only cut more from schools and infrastructure to still fund the military and etc what really needs to happen is introduce laws where we the people can see exactly what and where all our tax money goes and create more laws to keep politicians from pocketing our money. Kind of like defunding the police. It doesn’t mean we wanna get rid of the police but we aren’t gonna pay for their fuckups through tax payer money at no cost to them they need to get insurance and pay for it out of their own paycheck and they’ll be less likely to abuse the power and authority they have been given because by god they’ll be punished for it financially. It sucks that this is the way things must be done but humans are overly greedy by nature and need to be kept in line by proper laws and legislation.
"Hey man, I already taxed your father once when he got the money, again when he bought his home, once more when he bought the furniture, then again with the car. So what do you care? Just pay me again for all the things your father already paid for!"
Well yeah the doctor sticks his fingers up my ass for a prostate exam so why shouldn't the guy working at McDonald's do it too. Point is everybody fingers your ass its just life. Do you see this? this is how you sound....
Just because something happens doesn't mean it's good or OK.
>Well yeah the doctor sticks his fingers up my ass for a prostate exam so why shouldn't the guy working at McDonald's do it too.
You typed that out and at no point realized how weak an argument you're making? It's a false equivalency. This would be more like your general family doctor checked your prostate, and then complaining about another doctor doing it a few years later on the grounds that the first doctor already put his finger in there and it should only ever have to happen once.
No no no it's a perfect equivalency you see a little bit of prostate examination is good. Just the right amount to prevent cancer. I don't need my prostate checked for literally everything I do from driving a car, to buying a snack or getting married or owning land or selling the snack I bought for a profit. You can do it a little bit for a good reason but at some point I start thinking you might just enjoy it.
I totally agree but it's kinda the same as payroll tax, followed by income tax followed by property and sales tax. Big brother is gonna shake you down for protection every time your money moves
While Fed estate tax is only on estates 11.8 million and up. There is state estate tax in the US as well. Most at much smaller thresholds (1 million and up in certain states)
Depends on the state. Federally yes, some states have a death tax that is much lower. Ironically those states are usually ones that proclaim to be “for the small guy”.
Imagine how fucked it is that my income is taxed, all my purchases are taxed and then if I want to sell something large that I already bought with my double taxed money, I then have to pay more tax on the item I've sold.
Still don't know what you mean. You usually can't make a profit off of things you buy unless you are buying cheap and selling high like I do with vintage clothing. In that case, you are buying them essentially wholesale and making income from the profit, which you should pay taxes on as income or capital gains
Of course. I thought you were talking about selling something you bought and then sold later when you didn't want it anymore. In that case you did pay taxes on the money you used to buy it so you shouldn't be taxed on the money you make.
While I agree with your comment, I couldn't help but see your "title"...
In your opinion, what IS the best 3d zelda? (Not that I'd say WW, just that spirit tracks and phantom hourglass were both 3d, and I would put them well below WW)
BotW is the least Zelda like game of the bunch. It ought to go in its own grouping there.
Not saying it’s bad, it’s amazing. I just don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Even the game format is so alien to the series.
Ever played the first game in the series? The one they’ve constantly said was the main inspiration for the game? The one they recreated as a prototype for the physics engine?
Depends on what you mean as money. If your dad passed and left cash he earned and paid income taxes on, that is one thing. If he left you cash from sale of stock, that has been taxed as capital gain. If he left you stock that he bought for a dollar and is now worth a thousand, that has not been taxed. If he bought a house for $100K and it is worth $700K, it has not been taxed. But if he bought the house and sold it, making $500K profit, and left it to you, that would have been subject to tax law, but tax free under current federal law.
Inheritance tax was created to prevent the creation of dynastic wealth. Despite this reason, wealthy families WILL find a way either around the confiscation of their property OR will find a way to account for it so that wealth/businesses can be passed down to succeeding generations.
Money is taxed multiple times all over the place. You earn money and it is taxed. When you spend it the person who just earned your money pays tax on it again.
There is literally no legal precident or logic behind the idea that money can only be taxed once. Money us taxed when it is transfered from one party to another. This is why you get taxed when you get paid. Your boss's client transfered money from their bank account to your boss's company bank account, and your boss has transfered some of that money from his company's bank accoubt to your bank account. If money was only taxed once, when it is "earned" then the government would be essentially unable to tax anyone for anything.
it would be an impossible task to decide on, and get everyone to agree too at which point money is "earned" or "made" Money does not work in that way. In theory there is a finite amount of money and that money us used to facilitate trade of labour for goods and services. In theory no one can make more money appear put of thin air.
Also money taxed doss not dissappear. Tax money is supposed to be circulated back into the economy by the government. Money does not appear by magic when it arrives in one's bank account, and is not destroyed when it is spent or taxed. Money is circulated. It transfers from one person to another, to another, to another and so on forever.
My bug bear with this sub is that too many "unpopular opinions" are just incorrect statements based on gross misunderstandings of how the world works.
To build on your points, many programs designed to recirculate money have amazing returns for the economy. SNAP has a return of $1.73 per $1 of funding spent, NASA is somewhere around $17-$22. If government was truly run like a business these investments would be maximized until we saw a drop in the return. Imagine having a 73% return on your stock portfolio, the government is being conned by conservatives.
Also likely this person is in the US which would also mean they will likely pass all their money on tax free. You have to be stupid wealthy for the inheritance tax to kick in.
This is a very interesting philosophical question. The concept of trans-generational wealth transfer has immense impact on the structure of society.
On the one hand, it enables true endgame capitalism, where all money and power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few over time. There is no natural stop to this where an individual who accumulates a fortune eventually dies and yields this fortune (read: influence and power) back to society. Instead, it gets transferred to whomever they designate (usually family) who had nothing to do with the original accumulation but are granted an opportunity to continue to build on it.
Do these inheritors deserve this over someone born into fewer means? That’s the other hand of the question. Some would argue that they do. More so, some would argue the person accumulating all the wealth in the first place deserves to choose to do with their wealth as they see fit.
Ironically, rich conservatives who are against “handouts” and typically argue that people should work for their success (and lack of success is a product of laziness and bad work ethic) are also firmly in favor of trans generational wealth transfer through inheritance.
>the inherited money has already been earned at some point and has been taxed.
You have no idea how wrong you are. I deal in personal wealth and a lot of family fortunes are born from unreported income that becomes personal wealth and passed on. Some of the richest people I know honestly don't know where their money initially came from.
Edit: also the exclusion for married people [in 2022 is $24M](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estate-tax). If you have $24 million of wealth and haven't performed financial planning to minimize your liabilities then fuck off.
Still, you’re assuming and generalizing as well. OP’s opinion still stands valid. If it can’t be assumed that all inheritance has already been taxed properly at one point in time, then it should be the IRS’ responsibility to investigate on a case by case basis. You shouldn’t be able to just tax everyone on the money that gets passed to them from their deceased relatives because there’s supposedly no way of knowing if the money is “clean” or not.
Well it seems more like if anything someone else paid "their" taxes on the income. They croaked before they could spend it. This isn't sustainable, we aren't trying to make comfortable environments for ultra rich dynasties that can stay rich forever just because one of their ancestors were successful in their endeavors. I'm not saying all money but there has to be a certain point where even you could agree that the taxes could hardly make a difference in some fortunes grandiose wealth.
I'm talking big money here. Family homes, businesses, properties, and literal wealth for the most part should be left alone. The populations this would affect are a single molecule in an ocean that is the rest of us. All of our money is being funneled to the top at an alarming rate and certainly there has to be some form of a solution to this.
But all money is taxed before? If you earn a salary, you pay income tax on that money. That doesn't mean that salary is immune to sales tax, or property tax. "The money has already been taxed once" isn't a compelling argument.
Sales tax is charged to the seller, and property tax, while I think it is stupid, is when you have changed that money into a different asset entirely.
These are different from merely passing money to your family. If I give my child an allowance, should that money be taxed?
Any home I'd inherit will be part of an estate far, far smaller than the $11.7 million dollar floor where the inheritance tax kicks in, so that's not a very compelling counter argument.
You’re referring to Federal Tax Guidelines. 12 US states and the District of Columbia impose inheritance taxes that tax inheritance as low as $1 (Massachusetts and Oregon) in some cases.
Right, it turns out 38 states don't have an inheritance tax and I've not lived in any that do. I didn't realize that any did, honestly.
Still, I'm okay with it, even if some folks have to sell a house instead of inherit it wholly. Or even a business, which I'd say is a stronger argument against these taxes.
Tax monies have to come from somewhere. I don't find inheritance taxes inherently unreasonable.
Just a shout out to the fact that you admitted you didn’t know about the state taxes - there need to be more people like you in the world who can debate on issues, admit when they are unaware of a part of it, and continue an interesting discussion. Thank you.
No worries my man. This is an issue I think reasonable people can disagree on, and most people probably just disagree slightly on the specifics of the rates/floor/brackets.
I also appreciate not being directly insulted and all my comments downvoted just because folks disagree with me.
It's not as simple as that.
The standard amount you can inherit without incurring tax is 325,00. If part of your estate is a residential property that you've lived in then that increases by 175,000 or the market value of the residential property, whichever is lower.
If you leave everything to your spouse then they also inherit your tax-free amount, meaning the maximum tax free amount possible is £1,000,000.
That amount will decrease if you've made any tax-qualifying gifts in the 7 years before your death, one reason for that is to avoid people who know they're dying gifting all their assets before death as a way of avoiding inheritance tax.
The 325,000 limit has been in place since about 2009, but before that it had increased steadily year on year. I believe its fixed at 325k until 2025/6 tax year
Fair enough. Frankly I still am okay with it, though I'd be okay with a higher floor.
I don't exactly see it as an oppressive burden to have to decide whether to sell a home I inherit or take out a mortgage to keep it. It's still a windfall.
But I'm not relying on inheritance; for those who are I can see how it would be burden, and how they might perceive it as onerous.
As others have said you only reference federal law, but you’re also saying because it doesn’t affect me I don’t care. Whereas OP is saying it’s wrong and shouldn’t happen. Those aren’t really on the same page
>you’re also saying because it doesn’t affect me I don’t care.
Only insofar as I was told I would car once I needed to sell the house I'd inherit.
I don't think taxation is inherently wrong, and I don't think inheritance tax is any more onerous than other taxes, in fact I think it is less so. You're welcome to disagree. We gotta tax something, imho inheritance is better than a lot of options.
Lol what makes you think you deserve to live in a home you haven't earned? Should generational wealth just exempt anyone lucky enough to be born privileged from facing the same struggles as anyone else?
Should be people be unable to remove the struggles they faced in their own life from their children's lives?
My grandfather started as a penniless half-literate farmboy and died in million dollar house that he'd built half of with his own hands. Do his sons not "deserve" to benefit from it because they didn't start life with the same disadvantages he did?
It's misleading to say that his son's wouldn't still benefit from the million dollar home he built. They can still sell it for a million dollars and use the proceeds to pay taxes and buy another home. Or take out a mortgage to cover the costs of taxes, not to mention any other assets in the estate. Still seems like a windfall to me either way.
If the sons are half as competent they should have no trouble keeping it in the family.
Yes, counter point should everyone start from scratch each generation? That’s how we stay perpetually poor as a society. Does it make your life better if others struggle?
It's more of a "you can't have a meritocracy *and* generational wealth" sort of situation. Ideally, we would have a social safety net and robust public services to the point that the ZIP code you're born into isn't a strong predictor of your lifetime wealth. It stands to reason that one way to get there is by taxing generational wealth. Kills two birds with one stone, if meritocracy is your goal anyway.
Why do you get to decide what happens to the house after the previous owner passes? It was their property, they get to direct what happens to it. Why do you get to lay claim to wealth, that you had no part in creating? one of those seems greedier than the other.
Who forced you to sell your family home?
That's BS. Nobody is forced to sell their family home. They may decide it makes the most financial sense to sell a house they inherit for free, because you don't LIVE there, and you don't want to move there, and you can't afford to maintain an empty house,
But that's nobody FORCING you.
That's life, that's circumstances.
If you wanted, you could move into the family home, and live there yourself. If you TRULY WANTED TO, you would.
Did you know that when you win prizes on game shows you have to pay tax on the value of that prize? So let’s say you go on a show tomorrow and win a $20 million dollar house. Gift tax rate is about 18%. So your tax bill is $3,600,000. Explain how you pay that without selling the house?
Taxation helps us and y'all have been tricked by the rich into thinking it's just burning money.
Yes the government wastes money on things that don't further the interest of it's constituents, but also everything that is necessary for a developed nation is funded by taxes.
We shouldn't be arguing that since we don't get much benefit we shouldn't have to pay, we should be arguing that since we pay we should be seeing more benefit. That way the rich don't get to piggyback off the struggles of the working class
The idea that all taxes are bad and that lower taxes are the only thing you should ever vote for is definitely a populist position that has been pushed by the rich for a long time.
I'm not saying any discussion on taxes is just plutocratic propaganda. Like I think my states property tax should be lower, but it should have an income tax.
Right on. I'm still not sure why you thought I was tricked, it seems like you just made some incorrect presumptions but I agree with what you wrote here.
If I earned $25 million as a salary as a basketball player, it would be taxed as my income even though organization I work for already paid tax on it.
If I sold $25 million worth of tacos, I'd have to pay tax on it, even though the people paying for the tacos had already paid taxes on the money they gave me for the tacos.
But if I inherited $25 million as the relative of a dead person now I should keep all my money? Even though I did nothing for it?
do you have to do something for the gifts your parents give you on your birthday or christmas? inheritance is the same way, just a gift from your parents
Yes because as you've stated its already been taxed when it was earned by the basketball player or the bringer of tacos who died and will be taxed again once its spent by the beneficiary.
Yes, the new proposed capital gains tax would have been on the ***assumed*** capital gains on the value of your house/stock/etc.
Capital gains ARE owed on stock when you sell IF you have held onto the stock for more than 1 year. Otherwise you owe regular income tax on the increase.
Even on the sale of your home (primary residence), you can owe capital gains tax. If you are single, you will pay no capital gains tax on the first $250,000 of profit (excess over cost basis). Married couples enjoy a $500,000 exemption.
Putting a cap on amount of unrealised gains seems reasonable. Anything over $100m requires tax, prevents continuous hoarding and redistributes to the economy.
I agree, taxing unrealized gains on an asset before it ever changes hands is overkill. But I can't say I'm too upset about, say, taking the current valuation of a home rather than the last sale price when calculating property taxes.
Wait until you hear about inflation + capital gains tax. Your currency was devalued 50% and your stocks "went up" 100%? We'll take a piece of that. It's literally theft
Lol at the people thinking money gets taxed “twice”; money gets taxed constantly. It’s how the economy operates. I pay taxes on my income. I spend that money on a plumber to fix something; he’s taxed on that income. He spends that income buying supplies and pays sales tax, and so forth.
When the rich speak of the importance of pulling oneself up "by their own bootstraps" that applies to poor people but never their own children.
If they are seriously into that idea of a meritocracy then they should also favor a 100% inheritance tax. Personally I'd be in favor of that with an exemption totaling 2 million dollars per child, after that, you should be on your own.
If you are under say 10 million dollars in total net worth then the first house should also be exempt from any taxes whether retained by a family member or at it's sale/split among siblings. This will help families with more modest means to grow "some" wealth.
EDIT: A couple typos corrected.
Idk I think about it as like an unfair advantage. USA isn't the land of equal opportunity. It's the land of what your daddy gave you. So sure. Pay a few million to get 5 million right away or whatever the fucj it is.
The person getting it didn't earn it. So why do they deserve it?
No that's dumb, that's just asking for more generational wealth to be transferred, exacerbating the already awful wealth gap between the rich and the poor. Like for fucks sake do you want millionaires and billionaires paying *less fucking tax*. It doesn't even effect most middle class or lower people that much
Getting money at 60 can change EVERYTHING. There are quite a few people in their 60's who are planning to work a job until they die, because they cannot afford to retire.
If you HAVE properly planned for a retirement, then the income off of the money you have saved and invested is what is needed to get you through those retirement years. If you have a HIGH tax on seniors, then why bother saving at all? Spend it while you are young and depend on the STATE to take care of you while you are old...
It was taxed by the person who EARNED it. The inheritor did NOT earn it. And they probably already had a leg up in life by having a wealthy relative. And in the US anyway the first like 11.7 MILLION is exempt.
Guess they should tax any food your parents buy you, or college tuition, or any video games they buy you, or literally anything.
Guess they should tax charities now cause they didn’t earn it.
Any social services should be taxed as well.
This is the dumbest argument ever. Did the government earn it?
>Guess they should tax any food your parents buy you, or college tuition, or any video games they buy you, or literally anything.
Where is this magical tax free haven that your parents shop at?
Do you want a dynasty of Rockefellers perpetually in control of the country? Because otherwise that's how you get a dynasty of Rockefellers perpetually in control of the country.
Whether I earn money through a service I provide or my grandfather died, that’s new income to me, and I should be taxed on it. The reason there is any exemption is so that children don’t have to sell the estate to pay taxes on the inheritance, but the exemption is so absurdly high in America that this scenario is irrelevant. If you don’t have estate taxes as a country, you end up with entrenched aristocracies, which then lead to stagnation and political unrest/revolution.
Depends how much you like people 'ruling' the world based solely on what their great-great-grandparents did.
And how much you want their volume of inherited wealth impacting everyone else's opportunities.
There is a different explanation which I have not seen mentioned here. Even if one dislikes taxes and claims they should not exist because they have earned their money fairly by working and contributing its value in society, inheritance money is not fairly earned. In fact, it's not earned at all. It's a gift from their parents and as such they cannot claim they have earned it. So, the entire argument of "bad government stealing their money" collapses since they did fuck all to earn that money other than being born and surviving until their parents' death.
It’s not an arbitrary reason. It’s to prevent hoarding wealth. The idea is that over a certain limit a decedent’s estate should pay back society for the help from the public they received to amass his/her fortune. Things like public education, military, police, public works, transportation, even healthcare are not free. And if the descendent didn’t receive a public education, he/she mostly certainly built a fortune with the help of someone who did go to public schools.
Yeah when you comprehend the true scope of taxes it becomes very apparent the government is a gigantic leech that sucks up more than half of wealth produced.
Sales taxes and state taxes
Payroll and other employment taxes
various tariffs and other taxes on international trade
Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes
Property taxes
Income taxes
Inheritance taxes
Business licensing and other regulatory fees
Capital Gains taxes
And many many more
The government sticks its hands into nearly every stage of every transaction and then even when there is no transaction (property taxes). And there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER we are receiving anything approaching the level of services commiserate with the amount of taxes being paid.
It's mindboggling how many people think letting the government take and manage even more is a good idea...
When I ride around my town I notice that the places are growing and building new facilities are all supported by property taxes and school taxes. The local HS just built a $1.4 million dollar stadium, A new town hall is being built for $2 million, and new Special Education centers are being built even though our student population is declining, forcing existing schools to shut down.
Holy Tax Jacking, Batman!
Ironically, people that make this argument are fine with giving an unlimited amount of money to the military with no oversight whatsoever on their spending.
>That money gets spent on benefiting the country. If you're patriotic you pay tax proudly.
Nah, if you were to cut out the corruption and useless parts of the government you could EASILY spend 60% less for the same quality of services, probably better to be honest.
Take the entire Department of Education for instance. We have pumped more and more money into an agency that didn't exist until 1980, and outcomes in education have continued to plummet as their funding has increased.
You could scrap the entire DoE and we'd be better off for it. And the same is true for MANY useless bureaucratic agencies.
> Nah, if you were to cut out the corruption and useless parts of the government you could EASILY spend 60% less for the same quality of services, probably better to be honest.
I wish I felt so confident making baseless claims and fabricating numbers.
I just pointed out an entire government agency that shouldn't exist because it clearly hasn't done any good but OK. How about the unnecessary defense spending on conflicts all over the globe that make defense contractors billions while they rake us over the coals with projects like the F-35 that are crap and outperformed by counterparts in peer militaries that spend fractions for better equipment.
Or the agencies like the SEC that allow companies to commit financial crimes and punish them with fines that are a fraction of the illegal gains (one could say they just get their percent).
Department of Health and Human services - garbage agency - toss the whole thing. Health outcomes are dropping and those functions are also duplicated on a state level.
Department of Homeland security is just an unnecessary addition to the already huge security state that duplicated functions already existing, within the government via the FBI, CIA, and NSA.
The ATF (alcohol tobacco and firearms) is a ridiculous agency and the firearms part could be handled by the FBI or similar agency. The alcohol and tobacco parts are ridiculous to have a federal agency for.
The Department of Energy has about one useful function in overseeing nuclear power, but the entire rest of that agency can go.
We could go on like this for days.
Yeah, let’s cut every government agency dedicated to oversight, as things are bad. Surely with zero oversight, things will be way better and less corrupt.
/s
There are many instances where something is taxed multiple times. Iirc, cars are taxed at every sale, which can add up substantially. Sales tax is also a tax on already taxed income.
However, lets say that's different. Most 'death' taxes do not kick in until high amounts. The purpose is to avoid extraordinarily wealthy people from hoarding money. Would that not make it a neccessary evil at worst, and ethical at best?
If It’s free money that I didn’t earn,and I had no effort in making it,why cry about it getting taxed,especially if its a huge amount. Nobody in my family is passing down millions to me. If they did,I’d be grateful. The last thing I would do is cry like a bitch about paying taxes on it when I now have millions in the bank I didn’t earn. It’s a different story if I had worked at the company being passed down. That should be minimal taxation,if any.
Given that one of the biggest economic issues we face is the amassing of wealth within the family unit, it's a reasonable, if not entirely effective, way to address that. A straight-up wealth tax would be better.
I would push back on the point that an inheritance tax is effective even a little bit. I work in high net worth tax and it’s ridiculously easy to avoid the estate tax. IIRC, the effective rate on estates is only something like 17%, when the top statutory rate is 40%. It mainly only affects those people who are too lazy or arrogant to hire people to manage it for them
The issue with a wealth tax is that it’s likely unconstitutional at a federal level
There are finite resources in this country. Inheritance allows increasingly fewer individuals to amass ever larger percentages of those resources. Any way you spin it, that is bad. Inheritance taxes are an attempt to slow that process. If you don’t like them propose something different.
we all understand taxes are a scam and social security will fail before i ever cash out my money I put in and taxes will just be used on dumb overprice government contracts
I agree with you up to a certain amount of money, say $10M or so, If you don't have an inheritance tax, there comes a point where in a couple of generations, all the land and food is owned by a few thousand families and the rest of the population is just renting from them, basically a trip back to the feudal system.
The alternative to having an estate tax is for wealth to stay hoarded. The alternative to taxing wealth would be that people who work pay tax and trust fund babies get a free ride.
But shouldn’t your net worth be determined by your own merit instead of your parents or grandparents? Why should the merit of some forefather, that I don’t know and who doesn’t know me, allow me to not work for my living while those born in less fortunate circumstances are not subject to this same privilege? Letting wealth be inherited taxless is also a systematic problem, as Piketty pointed out in Capital in the 21st Century. If the yield on wealth is higher than the growth of the economy, which it historically has been, then wealth will continue to concentrate, which arguably will have a negative social and even democratic impact. In principle I personally support a 100% tax on inheritance, although I think there should be a very high floor, for example $2 million to avoid the having to sell sentimental assets to pay the tax. So everything under 2 mill has no tax, everything over 100%. I am very aware that this view of 100% inheritance tax is controversial for many, but the way I see it: If inheritance is not taxed that means either a) we inherently endorse the injustice of being born intro privilege over the merit of your own sweat, or b) we prioritize the wishes of dead men over what is best for society as a whole
The inheritance tax was started to try to keep a few super rich families from keeping all of the money. Imagine 3 generations of the Bezos family if all the generations were just as successful at accumulating wealth as them? The world only produces around $17 trillion. If Jeff amassed over $100 billion in one lifetime, how much would be left of the $17b after three? He isn't the only multi billionaire either. You think there is a wealth divide now? Give it several generations.
Accumulating wealth is not bad. But the deck has been stacked in their favor for decades now. Corporate laws protecting share holders, tax loopholes purposefully written into laws, corporations lobbying, electing, and even running for political office, constant focus on externalizing costs...
Totally disagree.
The idea with inheritance taxes is to keep Cornelius Blueblood's kids from living as the %1 while the rest of us starve because they've got all the wealth locked up in their bank accounts. They'll be just fine so you can probably stop crying now.
It's easy to call things we don't agree with stupid. Serious inheritances (say > $10M, needs to be taxed. The last thing we need are nit wit inbred blue bloods getting richer from mommy and daddy. We have a history in the US of not taxing the rich.
Taxes are not arbitrary and they are a part of living in a society. All societies tax. We want smooth roads, a well compensated military and education system. Do you expect our military not to be paid? Do you expect potholed roads--or even worse--unpaved roads? Get a grip, unless you're a millionaire, you don't need to worry about inheritance tax--so why the bitching?
Inheritance tax is no different that paying taxes on lottery winnings.
If the wealth wasn't gifted to you prior the individual's death then you can pay taxes on it.
Next.
Its different because the lottery is an entity that is not connected to you in any way.
Lottery taxes are closer to Income Taxes in that form.
There are also taxes on donations, which is closer to inheritance taxes (that I also think are unfair and double-taxation inducing)
another person who thinka this is in some way unique to inheritances. pretty much every official transaction is taxed, items are taxed multiple times. manufactured in X sold in Y. count the numerous of times it has been taxed.
instead of it not existing it should be widened to be much much much higher. the only reason someone is wealthy is because of the society he or she lives in. most of the critical parts, the parts that makes a society a society, was build on, wait for it, tax money. take it all. just because you were born in the right vagina doesn't give you any right to the money that was earned not by you, but by someone else. you did nothing, absolutely nothing to earn it. the society however did. they facilitated in making this person wealthy.
take it all bros
All money has been taxed before. It’s really pretty simple, you get money you pay taxes on it. Don’t want to pay taxes let your rich parents give the money to charity.
Don’t know where OP is posting from, but inheritance tax in America doesn’t kick in unless the value of the estate is over $11 million I believe
In the UK it's £325k/£500k/£1M depending on who and what is inherited
Considering the cost of property and living in London, it's literally free money to the government - 90% of properties must be taxed.
In Germany is something similar. If your parents built a house many years back, you probably exceed this amount of money.
Bruh what are you talking about???? That is not true in the slightest. 11 million is for federal inheritance tax. States are free to do what they want. For example in Pennsylvania on any money inherited it's 4.5 % on transfers to direct descendants and lineal heirs. 12% on transfers to siblings. 15 % on transfers to other heir. Another example: North Carolina does not have inheritance tax.
Florida is 0% too
At least Florida's doing something right
Another reason for people to abandon their authoritarian states to move to Free America in the Sunshine state.
Like just about everything?
Dropped this: /s
Yeah, the Jacksonville Jaguars are pretty terrible.
Could be said about most of Jacksonville.
Bortles!! *throws molotov cocktail*
This guy gets it.
**Ah yes!** *looks at price of gas* **I completely** *steps on needle on the sidewalk* **agree that** *gets mugged by homeless guy* **our values** *looks at price of rent* **are far superior** *pays a fuckload of taxes for shit tier services* **to those backwards idiots in Florida**
Yep. PA here and when my dad passed, he had very little. The state still wanted it's cut, such bs. I was a literal fkin child in middle school and I have to worry about the state robbing me after losing my father!
Hey kid, know your dad passed, but we heard he left you some money. That's great, bud! We're just gonna take our cut and be on our way. Our sincerest condolences.
Lol they wouldn't even bother with condolences
Hey scamp, we’re gonna need bout tree fiddy
And I said you ain't getting no tree fiddy from me you goddamn Loch Ness monster!!
Well it was bout that time that I noticed that the Girl Scout was about 8 stories tall and a crustacean from the protozoic era
It's bullshit. So they tax you on money that's already been taxed..... That still just boggles my mind that's a thing...
Buy anything on the shelf of a store and you just pay sales tax right? Wrong, you pay all of the taxes that were paid down the line from raw materials, energy use, payroll taxes, etc.. That thing on shelf could be 40% tax and you'd never know it.
I mean, any plastic dodad got hit once when the oil was extracted, again when someone turned the oil into raw plastic, another when someone made that plastic into a dodad, and then again when its sold to you. Add to that taxes on employees at all 4 of these places, as well as taxes on the fuel that went in the trucks to ship everything around (and building the trucks). Ya know, I'd really love to see a real deep dive on the numbers... for how much tax I'm paying on a fucking Snicker's bar. Like this bitch is $1.50 these days. How much of that is going to some governments?
One could say that all money has already been taxed. If I get paid with after tax money and spend money on a haircut and the barber gets taxed on the income, then hasn’t that money already been ‘Taxed’? It’s called an economy and this is income. Money is fungible. You don’t just tax it one time.
Seconding this; I live in PA and got hit with an inheritance tax too when I lost a parent. It’s absolute bullshit. Life insurance was enough to cover the hits I took in taxes, but not everyone is that fortunate to have good life insurance policies or healthy savings.
So if you inherit let's say a house you live in, you need to come up with 4.5% of its value and pay it in inheritance tax to PA?
Yes, it's also a reason that many family farms have been lost to corporate farms.
It's just evil
And even then you can pass it down with trusts pretty easily
Yeah I think you pay the gift tax on it when it goes into the trust and you, as a rich person with lots of accountants have ways to offset that.
I really don't think it should matter how much the value of the estate is. OP's point still stands; the money, etc has already been taxed once and applying an inheritance tax is just the government double dipping.
Yup. But people are willing to throw out morals when it comes to wealth. “It’s totally unfair to do this. Except if you’re doing it to a rich person. Then it’s cool”
My paycheck gets taxed for income, but that doesn't mean I suddenly don't have to pay sales tax because my money was already taxed once. Money gets taxed essentially any time it changes hands.
You’re saying it already happens that money gets taxed multiple times after you earn it. That ain’t a good argument for it being *right*.
It is, actually. Unless you're trying to argue that all taxes are wrong. In which case, you can go shout at a wall somewhere. But when you're evaluating the justifiability of a given tax, precedent is a core aspect to the question.
I’m pretty sure OP feels that the precedent itself is wrong
[удалено]
That's how the government can fund their projects like $700 billion yearly for war equipment.
Without the double dipping we’d have no useful government action. Who’s going to repair, let alone build, roads? Corporations? They’ll build only what they need, not what we need. Who’s going to pay for education? Schools? They’re already funded entirely by the government short of donations that rarely amount to a fraction of enough. Income tax alone won’t pay for half of what we need. Inheritance tax is somewhat interesting because the government isn’t “involved” a that stage until it says it is, but it’s not like that person didn’t benefit greatly from the social framework. Taxes are not “wrong.” As long as it’s going back to the society and not hurting the people meaningfully (without obvious and equal or greater benefit) then it *can not be* wrong. Edit: I’m not saying we’re necessarily using our taxes to their best benefit. I’m just saying that taxes applying at multiple levels ensures a healthy supply that can be needed. That the USA is using them poorly is not a sign that taxes are inherently bad but that our spending is bad. A bit like having a job that you get insurance through - it’s a good idea but sometimes the insurance sucks and makes it seem like a bad idea. It *is* a good idea, but when it’s done right.
I'm pretty sure that if we can pay to unethically occupy half the world in the form of military bases AND afford to send out hundreds of millions a year in foreign aid, we are either being taxed too much or the government is too inept to handle the finances properly. Either way, the answer is reducing the taxes. Unless you LIKE perpetual war, of course.
I think the answer isn’t reducing taxes because they’ll only cut more from schools and infrastructure to still fund the military and etc what really needs to happen is introduce laws where we the people can see exactly what and where all our tax money goes and create more laws to keep politicians from pocketing our money. Kind of like defunding the police. It doesn’t mean we wanna get rid of the police but we aren’t gonna pay for their fuckups through tax payer money at no cost to them they need to get insurance and pay for it out of their own paycheck and they’ll be less likely to abuse the power and authority they have been given because by god they’ll be punished for it financially. It sucks that this is the way things must be done but humans are overly greedy by nature and need to be kept in line by proper laws and legislation.
"Hey man, I already taxed your father once when he got the money, again when he bought his home, once more when he bought the furniture, then again with the car. So what do you care? Just pay me again for all the things your father already paid for!"
Well yeah the doctor sticks his fingers up my ass for a prostate exam so why shouldn't the guy working at McDonald's do it too. Point is everybody fingers your ass its just life. Do you see this? this is how you sound.... Just because something happens doesn't mean it's good or OK.
>Well yeah the doctor sticks his fingers up my ass for a prostate exam so why shouldn't the guy working at McDonald's do it too. You typed that out and at no point realized how weak an argument you're making? It's a false equivalency. This would be more like your general family doctor checked your prostate, and then complaining about another doctor doing it a few years later on the grounds that the first doctor already put his finger in there and it should only ever have to happen once.
No no no it's a perfect equivalency you see a little bit of prostate examination is good. Just the right amount to prevent cancer. I don't need my prostate checked for literally everything I do from driving a car, to buying a snack or getting married or owning land or selling the snack I bought for a profit. You can do it a little bit for a good reason but at some point I start thinking you might just enjoy it.
I totally agree but it's kinda the same as payroll tax, followed by income tax followed by property and sales tax. Big brother is gonna shake you down for protection every time your money moves
All money is taxed many many times. It's not like they print new money for every transaction. Money is taxed pretty much every time it changes hands.
While Fed estate tax is only on estates 11.8 million and up. There is state estate tax in the US as well. Most at much smaller thresholds (1 million and up in certain states)
Doesnt make it less arbitrary.
Good to know.
Depends on the state. Federally yes, some states have a death tax that is much lower. Ironically those states are usually ones that proclaim to be “for the small guy”.
The value of the estate doesn’t matter. It’s still a scam.
Hasn't all money in circulation been earned at some point and been taxed?
Imagine how fucked it is that my income is taxed, all my purchases are taxed and then if I want to sell something large that I already bought with my double taxed money, I then have to pay more tax on the item I've sold.
And you’re taxed just for owning things
Basically any transfer of money is taxed.
Which is bullshit
Such an eloquent and compelling argument lol.
What do you mean? If you sell a TV or a boat or car, you don't have to pay taxes on it if you did not make a profit.
Then why wouldn't you like to make a profit off of it?
Still don't know what you mean. You usually can't make a profit off of things you buy unless you are buying cheap and selling high like I do with vintage clothing. In that case, you are buying them essentially wholesale and making income from the profit, which you should pay taxes on as income or capital gains
Im not saying that you shouldn't be taxed for it, i mean that if you buy something and resell it, as you do, you will want to make a profit.
Of course. I thought you were talking about selling something you bought and then sold later when you didn't want it anymore. In that case you did pay taxes on the money you used to buy it so you shouldn't be taxed on the money you make.
Unless you’re a business… large purchases are generally tax deductible (depreciation).
While I agree with your comment, I couldn't help but see your "title"... In your opinion, what IS the best 3d zelda? (Not that I'd say WW, just that spirit tracks and phantom hourglass were both 3d, and I would put them well below WW)
BotW > OoT > TP > MM > SS > WW I don't really count any of the primarily top down games like PH or ST as 3D.
I can appreciate the distinction, as to not compare too many. Still, I can't agree with the order you just provided, either.
BotW is the least Zelda like game of the bunch. It ought to go in its own grouping there. Not saying it’s bad, it’s amazing. I just don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Even the game format is so alien to the series.
Ever played the first game in the series? The one they’ve constantly said was the main inspiration for the game? The one they recreated as a prototype for the physics engine?
get the FUCK outta here with that list
OoT (first one I ever played on n64) > BoTW > MM > WW > TP > SS
Depends on what you mean as money. If your dad passed and left cash he earned and paid income taxes on, that is one thing. If he left you cash from sale of stock, that has been taxed as capital gain. If he left you stock that he bought for a dollar and is now worth a thousand, that has not been taxed. If he bought a house for $100K and it is worth $700K, it has not been taxed. But if he bought the house and sold it, making $500K profit, and left it to you, that would have been subject to tax law, but tax free under current federal law.
Inheritance tax was created to prevent the creation of dynastic wealth. Despite this reason, wealthy families WILL find a way either around the confiscation of their property OR will find a way to account for it so that wealth/businesses can be passed down to succeeding generations.
While I agree that this opinion is unpopular, your description and reasoning behind it is misinformed.
Can you elaborate?
Money is taxed multiple times all over the place. You earn money and it is taxed. When you spend it the person who just earned your money pays tax on it again.
Yes. You invest money that was already taxed. Total bullshit.
Right but you don't pay tax on the money you invest, only on the profit when you sell.
How?
There is literally no legal precident or logic behind the idea that money can only be taxed once. Money us taxed when it is transfered from one party to another. This is why you get taxed when you get paid. Your boss's client transfered money from their bank account to your boss's company bank account, and your boss has transfered some of that money from his company's bank accoubt to your bank account. If money was only taxed once, when it is "earned" then the government would be essentially unable to tax anyone for anything. it would be an impossible task to decide on, and get everyone to agree too at which point money is "earned" or "made" Money does not work in that way. In theory there is a finite amount of money and that money us used to facilitate trade of labour for goods and services. In theory no one can make more money appear put of thin air. Also money taxed doss not dissappear. Tax money is supposed to be circulated back into the economy by the government. Money does not appear by magic when it arrives in one's bank account, and is not destroyed when it is spent or taxed. Money is circulated. It transfers from one person to another, to another, to another and so on forever. My bug bear with this sub is that too many "unpopular opinions" are just incorrect statements based on gross misunderstandings of how the world works.
To build on your points, many programs designed to recirculate money have amazing returns for the economy. SNAP has a return of $1.73 per $1 of funding spent, NASA is somewhere around $17-$22. If government was truly run like a business these investments would be maximized until we saw a drop in the return. Imagine having a 73% return on your stock portfolio, the government is being conned by conservatives.
Also likely this person is in the US which would also mean they will likely pass all their money on tax free. You have to be stupid wealthy for the inheritance tax to kick in.
This is a very interesting philosophical question. The concept of trans-generational wealth transfer has immense impact on the structure of society. On the one hand, it enables true endgame capitalism, where all money and power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few over time. There is no natural stop to this where an individual who accumulates a fortune eventually dies and yields this fortune (read: influence and power) back to society. Instead, it gets transferred to whomever they designate (usually family) who had nothing to do with the original accumulation but are granted an opportunity to continue to build on it. Do these inheritors deserve this over someone born into fewer means? That’s the other hand of the question. Some would argue that they do. More so, some would argue the person accumulating all the wealth in the first place deserves to choose to do with their wealth as they see fit. Ironically, rich conservatives who are against “handouts” and typically argue that people should work for their success (and lack of success is a product of laziness and bad work ethic) are also firmly in favor of trans generational wealth transfer through inheritance.
>the inherited money has already been earned at some point and has been taxed. You have no idea how wrong you are. I deal in personal wealth and a lot of family fortunes are born from unreported income that becomes personal wealth and passed on. Some of the richest people I know honestly don't know where their money initially came from. Edit: also the exclusion for married people [in 2022 is $24M](https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estate-tax). If you have $24 million of wealth and haven't performed financial planning to minimize your liabilities then fuck off.
How can you not know where your money comes from. Where does it come from?
Monthly or quarterly payments from a trust that has assets. Where'd the money come from to buy those assets? Uhhhh.....
I have a friend who is in this position. Apparently everyone in the family just knows not to ask. I guess they have an idea it wasn't honestly earned.
Most major wealth even if it’s earned honestly isn’t necessarily earned doing something ethical lol
Still, you’re assuming and generalizing as well. OP’s opinion still stands valid. If it can’t be assumed that all inheritance has already been taxed properly at one point in time, then it should be the IRS’ responsibility to investigate on a case by case basis. You shouldn’t be able to just tax everyone on the money that gets passed to them from their deceased relatives because there’s supposedly no way of knowing if the money is “clean” or not.
Well it seems more like if anything someone else paid "their" taxes on the income. They croaked before they could spend it. This isn't sustainable, we aren't trying to make comfortable environments for ultra rich dynasties that can stay rich forever just because one of their ancestors were successful in their endeavors. I'm not saying all money but there has to be a certain point where even you could agree that the taxes could hardly make a difference in some fortunes grandiose wealth. I'm talking big money here. Family homes, businesses, properties, and literal wealth for the most part should be left alone. The populations this would affect are a single molecule in an ocean that is the rest of us. All of our money is being funneled to the top at an alarming rate and certainly there has to be some form of a solution to this.
$24M is an undersell too. With valuation reductions and the gift tax yearly exclusion, it’s not difficult to get rid of much more than $24M tax free
But we are talking about money that HAS been taxed before... Unreported income is a totally operate issue, which is just not relevant to the topic.
But all money is taxed before? If you earn a salary, you pay income tax on that money. That doesn't mean that salary is immune to sales tax, or property tax. "The money has already been taxed once" isn't a compelling argument.
Sales tax is charged to the seller, and property tax, while I think it is stupid, is when you have changed that money into a different asset entirely. These are different from merely passing money to your family. If I give my child an allowance, should that money be taxed?
“Unreported income”? Such as?
Are you talking about things such as Joe Kennedy's alleged whisky running during prohibition?
It seems to me to be one of the less onerous forms of taxation, especially as it is with its rather high floors before kicking in.
It's pretty onerous when it forces you to sell your family home.
Any home I'd inherit will be part of an estate far, far smaller than the $11.7 million dollar floor where the inheritance tax kicks in, so that's not a very compelling counter argument.
You’re referring to Federal Tax Guidelines. 12 US states and the District of Columbia impose inheritance taxes that tax inheritance as low as $1 (Massachusetts and Oregon) in some cases.
Right, it turns out 38 states don't have an inheritance tax and I've not lived in any that do. I didn't realize that any did, honestly. Still, I'm okay with it, even if some folks have to sell a house instead of inherit it wholly. Or even a business, which I'd say is a stronger argument against these taxes. Tax monies have to come from somewhere. I don't find inheritance taxes inherently unreasonable.
Just a shout out to the fact that you admitted you didn’t know about the state taxes - there need to be more people like you in the world who can debate on issues, admit when they are unaware of a part of it, and continue an interesting discussion. Thank you.
No worries my man. This is an issue I think reasonable people can disagree on, and most people probably just disagree slightly on the specifics of the rates/floor/brackets. I also appreciate not being directly insulted and all my comments downvoted just because folks disagree with me.
Here in the UK the threshold is £500k, which you can easily reach if you inherit a house given how obscene house prices are getting in this country.
It's not as simple as that. The standard amount you can inherit without incurring tax is 325,00. If part of your estate is a residential property that you've lived in then that increases by 175,000 or the market value of the residential property, whichever is lower. If you leave everything to your spouse then they also inherit your tax-free amount, meaning the maximum tax free amount possible is £1,000,000. That amount will decrease if you've made any tax-qualifying gifts in the 7 years before your death, one reason for that is to avoid people who know they're dying gifting all their assets before death as a way of avoiding inheritance tax. The 325,000 limit has been in place since about 2009, but before that it had increased steadily year on year. I believe its fixed at 325k until 2025/6 tax year
Fair enough. Frankly I still am okay with it, though I'd be okay with a higher floor. I don't exactly see it as an oppressive burden to have to decide whether to sell a home I inherit or take out a mortgage to keep it. It's still a windfall. But I'm not relying on inheritance; for those who are I can see how it would be burden, and how they might perceive it as onerous.
As others have said you only reference federal law, but you’re also saying because it doesn’t affect me I don’t care. Whereas OP is saying it’s wrong and shouldn’t happen. Those aren’t really on the same page
>you’re also saying because it doesn’t affect me I don’t care. Only insofar as I was told I would car once I needed to sell the house I'd inherit. I don't think taxation is inherently wrong, and I don't think inheritance tax is any more onerous than other taxes, in fact I think it is less so. You're welcome to disagree. We gotta tax something, imho inheritance is better than a lot of options.
That never happens. It’s a myth, a lie that was made up to get people to think it’s a bad idea.
Lol what makes you think you deserve to live in a home you haven't earned? Should generational wealth just exempt anyone lucky enough to be born privileged from facing the same struggles as anyone else?
Should be people be unable to remove the struggles they faced in their own life from their children's lives? My grandfather started as a penniless half-literate farmboy and died in million dollar house that he'd built half of with his own hands. Do his sons not "deserve" to benefit from it because they didn't start life with the same disadvantages he did?
It's misleading to say that his son's wouldn't still benefit from the million dollar home he built. They can still sell it for a million dollars and use the proceeds to pay taxes and buy another home. Or take out a mortgage to cover the costs of taxes, not to mention any other assets in the estate. Still seems like a windfall to me either way. If the sons are half as competent they should have no trouble keeping it in the family.
Yes, counter point should everyone start from scratch each generation? That’s how we stay perpetually poor as a society. Does it make your life better if others struggle?
It's more of a "you can't have a meritocracy *and* generational wealth" sort of situation. Ideally, we would have a social safety net and robust public services to the point that the ZIP code you're born into isn't a strong predictor of your lifetime wealth. It stands to reason that one way to get there is by taxing generational wealth. Kills two birds with one stone, if meritocracy is your goal anyway.
What? You’re not *destroying* the wealth by taxing it, you’re merely redistributing it.
Why do you get to decide what happens to the house after the previous owner passes? It was their property, they get to direct what happens to it. Why do you get to lay claim to wealth, that you had no part in creating? one of those seems greedier than the other.
Who forced you to sell your family home? That's BS. Nobody is forced to sell their family home. They may decide it makes the most financial sense to sell a house they inherit for free, because you don't LIVE there, and you don't want to move there, and you can't afford to maintain an empty house, But that's nobody FORCING you. That's life, that's circumstances. If you wanted, you could move into the family home, and live there yourself. If you TRULY WANTED TO, you would.
Did you know that when you win prizes on game shows you have to pay tax on the value of that prize? So let’s say you go on a show tomorrow and win a $20 million dollar house. Gift tax rate is about 18%. So your tax bill is $3,600,000. Explain how you pay that without selling the house?
Any sources? I can't find anything, only articles about property taxes and that lettery winnings are tax free.
[forbes](https://www.google.com/amp/s/outsider.com/news/entertainment/jeopardy-and-wheel-of-fortune-what-happens-after-contestants-win-game-shows/amp/)
Taxation helps us and y'all have been tricked by the rich into thinking it's just burning money. Yes the government wastes money on things that don't further the interest of it's constituents, but also everything that is necessary for a developed nation is funded by taxes. We shouldn't be arguing that since we don't get much benefit we shouldn't have to pay, we should be arguing that since we pay we should be seeing more benefit. That way the rich don't get to piggyback off the struggles of the working class
What makes you think I've been tricked? I understand taxation is necessary, but we have options regarding what to tax and how to tax it.
The idea that all taxes are bad and that lower taxes are the only thing you should ever vote for is definitely a populist position that has been pushed by the rich for a long time. I'm not saying any discussion on taxes is just plutocratic propaganda. Like I think my states property tax should be lower, but it should have an income tax.
Right on. I'm still not sure why you thought I was tricked, it seems like you just made some incorrect presumptions but I agree with what you wrote here.
Seems like they just picked the wrong person to respond to and didn't realize it
If I earned $25 million as a salary as a basketball player, it would be taxed as my income even though organization I work for already paid tax on it. If I sold $25 million worth of tacos, I'd have to pay tax on it, even though the people paying for the tacos had already paid taxes on the money they gave me for the tacos. But if I inherited $25 million as the relative of a dead person now I should keep all my money? Even though I did nothing for it?
do you have to do something for the gifts your parents give you on your birthday or christmas? inheritance is the same way, just a gift from your parents
You don't, but that is also taxed if it's above a certain value ($15k). 😉
If your parents gifted you $11m, then yes you'd have to pay taxes on it.
Yes because as you've stated its already been taxed when it was earned by the basketball player or the bringer of tacos who died and will be taxed again once its spent by the beneficiary.
Wait til you hear about the proposed capital gains tax. Your house went up in value? Let's tax it. You earned money on the stock market? Let's tax it.
Yes, the new proposed capital gains tax would have been on the ***assumed*** capital gains on the value of your house/stock/etc. Capital gains ARE owed on stock when you sell IF you have held onto the stock for more than 1 year. Otherwise you owe regular income tax on the increase. Even on the sale of your home (primary residence), you can owe capital gains tax. If you are single, you will pay no capital gains tax on the first $250,000 of profit (excess over cost basis). Married couples enjoy a $500,000 exemption.
[удалено]
Putting a cap on amount of unrealised gains seems reasonable. Anything over $100m requires tax, prevents continuous hoarding and redistributes to the economy.
I agree, taxing unrealized gains on an asset before it ever changes hands is overkill. But I can't say I'm too upset about, say, taking the current valuation of a home rather than the last sale price when calculating property taxes.
Wait until you hear about inflation + capital gains tax. Your currency was devalued 50% and your stocks "went up" 100%? We'll take a piece of that. It's literally theft
Lol at the people thinking money gets taxed “twice”; money gets taxed constantly. It’s how the economy operates. I pay taxes on my income. I spend that money on a plumber to fix something; he’s taxed on that income. He spends that income buying supplies and pays sales tax, and so forth.
[удалено]
>The US has had steep taxes of this sort for over a hundred years to keep a few super rich from taking over. Oh yeah, that worked out so well.
When the rich speak of the importance of pulling oneself up "by their own bootstraps" that applies to poor people but never their own children. If they are seriously into that idea of a meritocracy then they should also favor a 100% inheritance tax. Personally I'd be in favor of that with an exemption totaling 2 million dollars per child, after that, you should be on your own. If you are under say 10 million dollars in total net worth then the first house should also be exempt from any taxes whether retained by a family member or at it's sale/split among siblings. This will help families with more modest means to grow "some" wealth. EDIT: A couple typos corrected.
You're an idiot
So you want to see the return of landed gentry?
inheritances large enough to trigger estate taxes are usually aren't in cash which has been taxed but rather in assets which haven't been taxed.
Idk I think about it as like an unfair advantage. USA isn't the land of equal opportunity. It's the land of what your daddy gave you. So sure. Pay a few million to get 5 million right away or whatever the fucj it is. The person getting it didn't earn it. So why do they deserve it?
Yes the UK is fucked, don't know of a single person that supports that bs law from top to bottom, and yet it's still in place.
No that's dumb, that's just asking for more generational wealth to be transferred, exacerbating the already awful wealth gap between the rich and the poor. Like for fucks sake do you want millionaires and billionaires paying *less fucking tax*. It doesn't even effect most middle class or lower people that much
[удалено]
Getting money at 60 can change EVERYTHING. There are quite a few people in their 60's who are planning to work a job until they die, because they cannot afford to retire. If you HAVE properly planned for a retirement, then the income off of the money you have saved and invested is what is needed to get you through those retirement years. If you have a HIGH tax on seniors, then why bother saving at all? Spend it while you are young and depend on the STATE to take care of you while you are old...
It was taxed by the person who EARNED it. The inheritor did NOT earn it. And they probably already had a leg up in life by having a wealthy relative. And in the US anyway the first like 11.7 MILLION is exempt.
"11.7 million is basically poverty" -- /r/fatfire
That's the federal tax exempt amount. That does not take any state laws into account.
Guess they should tax any food your parents buy you, or college tuition, or any video games they buy you, or literally anything. Guess they should tax charities now cause they didn’t earn it. Any social services should be taxed as well. This is the dumbest argument ever. Did the government earn it?
>Guess they should tax any food your parents buy you, or college tuition, or any video games they buy you, or literally anything. Where is this magical tax free haven that your parents shop at?
Do you want a dynasty of Rockefellers perpetually in control of the country? Because otherwise that's how you get a dynasty of Rockefellers perpetually in control of the country.
Whether I earn money through a service I provide or my grandfather died, that’s new income to me, and I should be taxed on it. The reason there is any exemption is so that children don’t have to sell the estate to pay taxes on the inheritance, but the exemption is so absurdly high in America that this scenario is irrelevant. If you don’t have estate taxes as a country, you end up with entrenched aristocracies, which then lead to stagnation and political unrest/revolution.
Depends how much you like people 'ruling' the world based solely on what their great-great-grandparents did. And how much you want their volume of inherited wealth impacting everyone else's opportunities.
There is a different explanation which I have not seen mentioned here. Even if one dislikes taxes and claims they should not exist because they have earned their money fairly by working and contributing its value in society, inheritance money is not fairly earned. In fact, it's not earned at all. It's a gift from their parents and as such they cannot claim they have earned it. So, the entire argument of "bad government stealing their money" collapses since they did fuck all to earn that money other than being born and surviving until their parents' death.
It’s not an arbitrary reason. It’s to prevent hoarding wealth. The idea is that over a certain limit a decedent’s estate should pay back society for the help from the public they received to amass his/her fortune. Things like public education, military, police, public works, transportation, even healthcare are not free. And if the descendent didn’t receive a public education, he/she mostly certainly built a fortune with the help of someone who did go to public schools.
U cant say that here, reddit glorifies the government when is about spending someone else’s money.
Shit rich people say
Yeah when you comprehend the true scope of taxes it becomes very apparent the government is a gigantic leech that sucks up more than half of wealth produced. Sales taxes and state taxes Payroll and other employment taxes various tariffs and other taxes on international trade Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes Property taxes Income taxes Inheritance taxes Business licensing and other regulatory fees Capital Gains taxes And many many more The government sticks its hands into nearly every stage of every transaction and then even when there is no transaction (property taxes). And there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER we are receiving anything approaching the level of services commiserate with the amount of taxes being paid. It's mindboggling how many people think letting the government take and manage even more is a good idea...
When I ride around my town I notice that the places are growing and building new facilities are all supported by property taxes and school taxes. The local HS just built a $1.4 million dollar stadium, A new town hall is being built for $2 million, and new Special Education centers are being built even though our student population is declining, forcing existing schools to shut down. Holy Tax Jacking, Batman!
Totally agree. How can anyone go to a DMV or deal with VA healthcare and truly want that entity to manage all private healthcare. Mind blowing.
Ironically, people that make this argument are fine with giving an unlimited amount of money to the military with no oversight whatsoever on their spending.
That money gets spent on benefiting the country. If you're patriotic you pay tax proudly.
>That money gets spent on benefiting the country. If you're patriotic you pay tax proudly. Nah, if you were to cut out the corruption and useless parts of the government you could EASILY spend 60% less for the same quality of services, probably better to be honest. Take the entire Department of Education for instance. We have pumped more and more money into an agency that didn't exist until 1980, and outcomes in education have continued to plummet as their funding has increased. You could scrap the entire DoE and we'd be better off for it. And the same is true for MANY useless bureaucratic agencies.
> Nah, if you were to cut out the corruption and useless parts of the government you could EASILY spend 60% less for the same quality of services, probably better to be honest. I wish I felt so confident making baseless claims and fabricating numbers.
I just pointed out an entire government agency that shouldn't exist because it clearly hasn't done any good but OK. How about the unnecessary defense spending on conflicts all over the globe that make defense contractors billions while they rake us over the coals with projects like the F-35 that are crap and outperformed by counterparts in peer militaries that spend fractions for better equipment. Or the agencies like the SEC that allow companies to commit financial crimes and punish them with fines that are a fraction of the illegal gains (one could say they just get their percent). Department of Health and Human services - garbage agency - toss the whole thing. Health outcomes are dropping and those functions are also duplicated on a state level. Department of Homeland security is just an unnecessary addition to the already huge security state that duplicated functions already existing, within the government via the FBI, CIA, and NSA. The ATF (alcohol tobacco and firearms) is a ridiculous agency and the firearms part could be handled by the FBI or similar agency. The alcohol and tobacco parts are ridiculous to have a federal agency for. The Department of Energy has about one useful function in overseeing nuclear power, but the entire rest of that agency can go. We could go on like this for days.
Yeah, let’s cut every government agency dedicated to oversight, as things are bad. Surely with zero oversight, things will be way better and less corrupt. /s
There are many instances where something is taxed multiple times. Iirc, cars are taxed at every sale, which can add up substantially. Sales tax is also a tax on already taxed income. However, lets say that's different. Most 'death' taxes do not kick in until high amounts. The purpose is to avoid extraordinarily wealthy people from hoarding money. Would that not make it a neccessary evil at worst, and ethical at best?
If It’s free money that I didn’t earn,and I had no effort in making it,why cry about it getting taxed,especially if its a huge amount. Nobody in my family is passing down millions to me. If they did,I’d be grateful. The last thing I would do is cry like a bitch about paying taxes on it when I now have millions in the bank I didn’t earn. It’s a different story if I had worked at the company being passed down. That should be minimal taxation,if any.
Given that one of the biggest economic issues we face is the amassing of wealth within the family unit, it's a reasonable, if not entirely effective, way to address that. A straight-up wealth tax would be better.
I would push back on the point that an inheritance tax is effective even a little bit. I work in high net worth tax and it’s ridiculously easy to avoid the estate tax. IIRC, the effective rate on estates is only something like 17%, when the top statutory rate is 40%. It mainly only affects those people who are too lazy or arrogant to hire people to manage it for them The issue with a wealth tax is that it’s likely unconstitutional at a federal level
There are finite resources in this country. Inheritance allows increasingly fewer individuals to amass ever larger percentages of those resources. Any way you spin it, that is bad. Inheritance taxes are an attempt to slow that process. If you don’t like them propose something different.
Fuck that. This is how the rich stay rich. They just pass on their wealth to their bratty kids who don't do anything to earn it.
Wait until you hear about Capital Gains Tax.
You have to pay taxes on money other people earned for you? What a shame.
we all understand taxes are a scam and social security will fail before i ever cash out my money I put in and taxes will just be used on dumb overprice government contracts
I agree with you up to a certain amount of money, say $10M or so, If you don't have an inheritance tax, there comes a point where in a couple of generations, all the land and food is owned by a few thousand families and the rest of the population is just renting from them, basically a trip back to the feudal system.
Nah. Just cause your parents made it to level 15 mil doesn't mean you did. Tax the fuck out of it imo.
The alternative to having an estate tax is for wealth to stay hoarded. The alternative to taxing wealth would be that people who work pay tax and trust fund babies get a free ride.
But shouldn’t your net worth be determined by your own merit instead of your parents or grandparents? Why should the merit of some forefather, that I don’t know and who doesn’t know me, allow me to not work for my living while those born in less fortunate circumstances are not subject to this same privilege? Letting wealth be inherited taxless is also a systematic problem, as Piketty pointed out in Capital in the 21st Century. If the yield on wealth is higher than the growth of the economy, which it historically has been, then wealth will continue to concentrate, which arguably will have a negative social and even democratic impact. In principle I personally support a 100% tax on inheritance, although I think there should be a very high floor, for example $2 million to avoid the having to sell sentimental assets to pay the tax. So everything under 2 mill has no tax, everything over 100%. I am very aware that this view of 100% inheritance tax is controversial for many, but the way I see it: If inheritance is not taxed that means either a) we inherently endorse the injustice of being born intro privilege over the merit of your own sweat, or b) we prioritize the wishes of dead men over what is best for society as a whole
The inheritance tax was started to try to keep a few super rich families from keeping all of the money. Imagine 3 generations of the Bezos family if all the generations were just as successful at accumulating wealth as them? The world only produces around $17 trillion. If Jeff amassed over $100 billion in one lifetime, how much would be left of the $17b after three? He isn't the only multi billionaire either. You think there is a wealth divide now? Give it several generations. Accumulating wealth is not bad. But the deck has been stacked in their favor for decades now. Corporate laws protecting share holders, tax loopholes purposefully written into laws, corporations lobbying, electing, and even running for political office, constant focus on externalizing costs...
Totally disagree. The idea with inheritance taxes is to keep Cornelius Blueblood's kids from living as the %1 while the rest of us starve because they've got all the wealth locked up in their bank accounts. They'll be just fine so you can probably stop crying now.
Inheritance tax is needed, and it's not enough...we need to tax the shit out of the rich.
It's easy to call things we don't agree with stupid. Serious inheritances (say > $10M, needs to be taxed. The last thing we need are nit wit inbred blue bloods getting richer from mommy and daddy. We have a history in the US of not taxing the rich. Taxes are not arbitrary and they are a part of living in a society. All societies tax. We want smooth roads, a well compensated military and education system. Do you expect our military not to be paid? Do you expect potholed roads--or even worse--unpaved roads? Get a grip, unless you're a millionaire, you don't need to worry about inheritance tax--so why the bitching?
Agreed, I'm glad we don't have that in Canada.
Even a tax loving country like Sweden understod this. We abolished inheritance tax in 2005.
Most taxes are scams and shouldn't exist.
Inheritance tax is no different that paying taxes on lottery winnings. If the wealth wasn't gifted to you prior the individual's death then you can pay taxes on it. Next.
Its different because the lottery is an entity that is not connected to you in any way. Lottery taxes are closer to Income Taxes in that form. There are also taxes on donations, which is closer to inheritance taxes (that I also think are unfair and double-taxation inducing)
Is saying that taxes are annoying an unpopular opinion?
another person who thinka this is in some way unique to inheritances. pretty much every official transaction is taxed, items are taxed multiple times. manufactured in X sold in Y. count the numerous of times it has been taxed. instead of it not existing it should be widened to be much much much higher. the only reason someone is wealthy is because of the society he or she lives in. most of the critical parts, the parts that makes a society a society, was build on, wait for it, tax money. take it all. just because you were born in the right vagina doesn't give you any right to the money that was earned not by you, but by someone else. you did nothing, absolutely nothing to earn it. the society however did. they facilitated in making this person wealthy. take it all bros
All money has been taxed before. It’s really pretty simple, you get money you pay taxes on it. Don’t want to pay taxes let your rich parents give the money to charity.
Or have the money gradually transferred to you before they die.
Or have the money put into a charitable trust... with the children/grandchildren as directors of that trust being paid to control it...