Whenever inheritance tax comes up, there's always an argument that it's double taxation: you paid tax when you earned the income and you then pay it again when you die. I'd always nodded along with this because, even if I disagree that it's a bad thing, it seemed to be at least a real thing. But is it?
Most people pay tax on their money when they make it, so this seems like a sensible thing to claim. But how many people who have enough money to trigger the inheritance tax level made that money through work rather than investments? Investments are not taxed as they go up in value, only when you sell them. What would happen if we treated death as a realisation event for the purpose of capital gains tax and made any increase in value taxable at that point?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
@david_chisnall
VAT is double taxation, and a regressive one, since it impacts low-income families far more than high-income ones.
Inheritance tax favours the rich, because the poor have little to bequeath; the rich setup trusts and insurance schemes to circumvent it; and the middle class, who spends income into purchasing their home, then is punished for it.
What is needed:
(1) Delete VAT: it's absurd and hurts those with less means.
(2) Reform inheritance tax: no inheritance tax on at least one's home. Needs work to figure out details to keep it fair and sensible.
(3) Tax capital gains like income. Because it is income, just of the passive kind.
(4) Setup high tax for high income, like 90% for income above half a million or so. The prevent-billionaires tax bracket.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from albertcardona@mathstodon.xyz
@albertcardona @david_chisnall I like the current initiative being prepared in Switzerland: the inheritance tax to come into play over 50M.
https://iniziativa-per-il-futuro.ch/ (Italian)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from alex@social.alexschroeder.ch
@david_chisnall It seems to me that "you pay it again when you die" isn't actually the case. Because you can't: you're dead. Your heirs pay it: which then puts it firmly in the category of your heirs paying tax when they receive the income.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from benjamineskola@hachyderm.io
@david_chisnall That's more or less how Canada does it .... there's no inheritance tax but there is a final income tax as if all assets were sold.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PeterLudemann@mathstodon.xyz
@david_chisnall IMO, with a few exceptions (like working farms) Inheritance tax should be 100% on anything over say 50X the median annual income
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Njord@peoplemaking.games
@david_chisnall I like the thinking, but I think there's a bigger issue -- at least in the US.
Unrealized gains are not taxable -- for good reason -- and yet can be leveraged into getting a loan -- which isn't taxed and can be used for anything.
We are blinded by the idea of taxing income when we really need to figure out how to fairly tax unrealized but leveraged gains. Want a take out a loan that leverages unrealized gains? Pay 30% upfront sent to the gov.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from erock@fosstodon.org
@david_chisnall
Inheritance is a detriment to functioning society. Wealthy ppl ruin everything. I propose a 110% inheritance tax. Even without the inherited property and wealth, kids of the wealthy still benefit enormously from superior healthcare, nutrition, education, cultural experience, travel, etc.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from jeromio@triangletoot.party This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini