The pandemic revives interest in a morbid French financial scheme
economist.com
economist.com
actually, because they always get convicted I don't have any proof that the brokers are serial killers
I just dont have any faith in how district attorneys and prosecutors work anymore
Because that's less of a flaming rubbish pit of recklessness than family?
The human element is the common denominator to all failing (or failed) policy and there will always be winners and losers. mIn my opinion the only way to succeed is to give people a chance at winning instead of taxing them into poverty.
I can understand why decades of Republicans and to some extent Democrats deliberately ruining your public services would give you a scepticism towards taxes, but you have to remember that not everyone lives in the US, and even then not everyone has the same attitude
The government doesn't need your inheritance to provide all this. What they need is for big companies to pay taxes as well. So instead of taking my money by default when I die instead of it going to my children, they should start by making businesses and the ultra rich pay proper taxes.
So they waste half a million on a ritzy house, or spend a couple of months in Spain with their own kids. What's it to you?
Ultimately you need to get the money from somewhere. I'd rather it come from: LVT, inheritance tax, luxury goods tax, etc, than from what it currently comes from: taxes on labour.
I personally don’t want the state to see any extra money—in particular because this is a Republic, not a democracy and so, I don’t even get a chance to say anything.
That way people could afford a home that is theirs until they (and their spouse) die.
The move from life estates and fee tails to fee simples was not a mistake. It was a core component of western society moving out of the feudal era. It's VERY difficult to durably invest in lands and estates otherwise.
We should be railing against the return of economic instability and lack of access to durable wealth for the middle class, not accelerating our return to permanently unlanded peasantry.
I believe there are even rules that allow for children to take over tenancy
Most of inheritance in France goes to the state which is the most rubbish pit of recklessness of all.
Also, after living 6 years in your wonderful country: I can wait to go back to the rubbish pile that is france.
To each it’s own I guess. Rugged individualism, rampant inequalities and industrial decay is not for me.
The tax burden depends on the amount you inherit
It’s between 20% and 45%
You can play with a official calculator here
I feel like this is a fight you will never win, and it's one I have abandoned, but...
I think a better sell would be:
> The default would be that it goes to orphanages and adoption services
That's why some people decline it too ( Belgium).
Default going to the state is insane and ineffective. People would give it away more during their life.
It has nothing to do with income tax, since it was not income for work rendered - it was a gift.
Do you think everyone should start out at zero and then build up debt until they are old enough to start working and paying it off?
Some people, but not others? Also no.
Neither possible nor desirable, what on earth made you think I was suggesting such an absurd dystopian notion?
> But one can still consider that irresponsible.
No. Making children is our #1 biological imperative. In a sense, it's the only "objective" purpose we have on this land: generate descendants before we die. It's absurd to say poor people are to blame if they want to have children.
> Providing to children some basic capital resources that are necessary for living in society could be done by significant share of population.
Not sure what you're arguing for here.
Why would some choose to bear a child and place them in such circumstances?
Many people in fact do put off or abstain from having children for exactly the reason that they don’t think they can provide for them.
> The very suggestion borders on eugenics.
This seems like a bizarre inference.
Elsewhere I've read that scientific evidence has shown that a single condition has proved more effective than any other in reducing maximum reported human lifetimes: accurate demographic data.
Mortgaging all of your property and buying an annuity with proceeds just seems like a sensible thing for anyone who is retired and doesn't expect to leave a significant estate.
I don't really get why individuals are interested in the other side of the trade, though. Real estate is an annoyingly illiquid form of investment, so it's less attractive when you don't get to actually use the property.
You're given cash for your life up to the value of the home in exchange for the home when you pass
There are many kinds of reverse mortgage plans, including ones that are functionally similar to this. (But there are also lump sum, fixed payment term, and other variations that aren't.) And even the ones that are functionally similar are technically different, since technically they are loans that come due at death secured by the property rather than a sale contract.
Disclosure: I'm the founder of https://tontine.com
I'd still like to believe it can be institutionalized to address many of the risks noted here by other comments.
My second thought was, I'd rather not sell my house if it meant someone was now going to directly benefit from my untimely death.