Aww, sounds like you're an American.
Well, I have news for you...
> my kids inherit what I've worked for
Almost certainly that will also be taken away by the US government by the time you die.
Well, I have news for you...
> my kids inherit what I've worked for
Almost certainly that will also be taken away by the US government by the time you die.
Should be 0. Death taxes are horrible.
We should want to live for our own ends, not for the sake of other people.
By that measure there should be no objection to eliminating inheritance altogether.
What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you.
We should not want that.
We should not want government-forced sacrifice instead of giving an inheritance to a beloved person according to our own choices.
I would argue that people who want to ban inheritance love their "brothers" (random and probably non-deserving strangers) too much, and love their children too little.
What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory.
What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian?
What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs.
Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
Recieving an unearned $11.70 million untaxed income for free is the opposite of "our own ends" and "sacrifice". It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time but want to make a special exception for yourself and your kids.
It's not the gov's job to prevent inequality, but rather to secure God-given negative rights. Or where do you think rights come from?
Which is why people do it.
I have seen no evidence that trusts can reduce inheritance taxes. It you have specific examples, I'd appreciate that. I've always been told by wealth management people that trusts are for managing inheritance, not for reducing taxes on it. Maybe I don't have good enough people.
Some of the articles online use a lot of weasel language. For example, consider: https://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-taxes-trusts-1...
It says:
"... An amount up to the estate tax exemption is placed into a trust ..."
Yeah - so not helpful!
Also says:
"... Shares of a privately held company that are assigned a low value are placed in the trust and allowed to grow, so that appreciation passes to the heirs tax-free..."
Yeah, but appreciation passes tax-free anyway. If your children inherit stocks from you, they get a cost basis step-up to the value of the stocks on the day of your death. The article is written as if this has something to do with the trust, but it doesn't.