• 1 Post
  • 616 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 20th, 2025

help-circle


  • Vinstaal0@feddit.nltoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I believe in some amount of exclusion for gifts (say in the million to tens of millions),

    You don’t need to gift away millions of euro’s let’s be honest.

    Like I explained to you, if you want taxes to be effective they have to be based on something and be kinda fair. If you inheritence tax is 100% that means that every euro is taxed for a lot more than 100%.

    Gifts just before deaths are often considered to be inheritance as well in some tax systems like NL fyi.

    local tax authority You realise that most tax authorities have a lack of staff to be able to do it? Most people wouldn’t want to work at a tax office anyway

    Basically how it works in NL currently:

    1. Every asset is valuated
    2. Based on the existing (or non existing) testament everything is distributed
    3. the receivers or the personal responsible for distributing everything does a tax filing
    4. Within 3 years of receiving the tax filing the government sends out a letter for the tax to be paid which is calculated with certain percentages depending on who is the receiver and the first x is also free from tax. Here you check the percentages etc: https://www.consumentenbond.nl/erven-schenken/erfbelasting

    There is also a special occasion when one of the parents die, then the remaining parent is in debt to the children until they die.

    And exception for anything more than 1m euro is absolute bullshit. 140-150k is more than enough for most. Again taxing anything for 100% is stealing, you can do 60-70% though.

    Most rich people don’t deal with a lot of inheritence tax anyway. Most of the companies and very expensive assets will be passed down before they die. This will become even more if a 100% tax is introduced.

    I don’t see permanent ownership of real property as being legitimate Why shouldn’t somebody be able to own their house? There are people who have legally bought the ground (or they pay rent for it) and they bought their own house. Why shouldn’t they be able to own that and why shouldn’t the childeren be able to live in that?

    I don’t sign up for the extreme taxation people like you want to introduce, because it will give people more incentive to do everything to not pay it. it will also get people to push more against the system. I have seen it time and time again with different taxes, considering I work at an accounting firm.

    Instead we should have a good system of social security which means everybody has a basis income which should allow them to properly survive and thrive a bit. You will still have some people struggling one way or another with something like a universal basic income, but there is basically no way of stopping it but it will be vastly reduced.

    Edit: there are a ton of ways of passing on wealth from one generation to another and with absurd levels of wealth is basically always goes in the form of passing companies down and there will always be at least one country where this is possible in a way you pay very little to no tax over it. Even if you keep it in the same countries you can often easily pass the company down, especially if the person who is inheriting it is working in that company. Why would not be actual value that somebody is allowed to inherited There is a real issue with that people keep pushing their taxes forward. Like Musk being able to take loans with their stocks as collateral instead of dividing money out, paying taxes over that and using that. There are ton more of examples like that, that are a way bigger issue.



  • Which goes through the government.

    Again if you want more income for those at the bottom you want efficient tax methods and 100% is not an efficient tax method since people will do EVERYTHING they can to avoid it. If people can accept a tax rate, they will pay it. Well a lot more people will pay it.




  • You still wouldn’t want to do any taxation at 100%, make it 70 or 80% sure, but 100% is just bullshit and 70-80% will be enough. The way to get people to accept higher taxes is to explain it to hem. People will also do everything in their power to not pay that 100% tax, including just stopping their Dang business for that year if corporate income would be taxed at 100%

    The spousal thing is generally solved in the world by giving an exception, in NL it’s like the first 800k is tax-free when your legal spouse dies.

    Money inside companies is just money that will be taxed at a later date, the issue is that billionaires in the US put their stocks up as collateral taking out loans. It would be taxed again if they dividend it out or pay themselves somewhat of a wage.

    The issue with companies is that evaluating them is something that you just cannot easily do every year for the tax report, unless you just go look at the equity = company value. We do have some designation for small, median and large companies based on revenue, balance total and FTE count, well at least in NL it is based on those 3.

    Small companies need some tax breaks and larger companies don’t, but a lot of companies are split up to multiple different companies to be able to benefit from tax breaks.

    Property should be community owned and exclusivity agreements should be temporary (i.e. real estate should be owned until death).

    Owning a single property is not the issue, every family should be able to own one. It’s the fact that people own multiple properties. You want to make it so it is not a good financial decision to own multiple properties, either you as a business or you as a person.

    generational wealth shouldn’t be a thing. You mean massive amount of generational wealth, but in my example that kid that lost his parents should still inherent that house right?

    Just increase the inheritance tax for everything after a mil or so. It’s still a couple taxation, but hey



  • Vinstaal0@feddit.nltoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    You can be as wealthy as you want, but once you die, it all goes back to the common pot.

    So that 18-year-old that loses both his parents will inherent nothing? So he would have to live on the street or something? Or that women who lose their husband, so inheriting the other half of their combined income? Which will cause her to lose the house etc?

    Inheriting a couple 100k or even a mill isn’t really the issue. Do tax it, yes, but 100% tax on anything is unreasonable, or at least if that happens at once. That’s why we have multiple different taxes.


  • Vinstaal0@feddit.nltoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    100% taxing anything is just an unrealistic goal and not even needed. Going to 70-80% on income tax is enough. .Well that and fix the loan structure countries like the US has, make them unable to use stocks for colleteral for -loans. Musks wants another loan? Make him increase his salary or dividend it out and tax that with 70-80%.

    If something is taxed