Hacker News Reader

Comment by jajko | Hacker News Reader

Silly is actually too nice a word for such extortion scheme. As you see if rich enough/business big enough, it could be easily circumvented. The little people without access to great lawyers and accountants got absolutely hammered when it got applied to them. But victorian England wasn't setup for little people in mind, it was all lords and wealthy businessmen ruling it all.

So similar to current situation in many places - if you are rich enough, you basically exist outside of tax system, be it capital gains, investments, inheritance etc. Obscure tax structures spanning whole globe as ie Panama papers showed. Its the middle class that gets hammered out of existence, ie in France its around 40% for inheritance tax, and trusts are AFAIK forbidden / treated very punitively. Very rich still bypass this and everybody knows this, everybody below not so much. Its not even effective there, the amount extracted yearly in such way is minuscule, but it pleases crowds with 'social justice' so they don't protest so much and burn more cars on streets.

View on HN

> The little people without access to great lawyers and accountants got absolutely hammered when it got applied to them.

In the tax year 2021 to 2022, 4.39% of UK deaths resulted in an Inheritance Tax

Inheritance tax only kicks in above £325K of assets. If inheriting your parents home the threshold increases to £500K (and increases again to £1M if both parents die).

That's hardly hammering the little people.

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/inheritance-tax-lia...

> That's hardly hammering the little people.

Agree. It hits the (upper) middle, as with most of the tax code afaict.

I rarely resent paying tax until I see how little people earning multiples of me get away with paying.

There are always unintended consequences. (This isn't an argument for not having an inheritance tax, it's an argument for being clear-eyed about the trade offs).

In the case of inheritance tax, it has resulted in a lot of British cultural treasures being shipped to the US to be auctioned.

Most jurisdictions have a tax-free allowance or threshold. If you're affected by an inheritance tax, you're not poor.

As I said in the comment you're responding to, this seems like an example of how this type of tax worked correctly for a very rich person, so the thread you're responding to is already a counterexample to your argument.

I agree that inheritance taxes can be implemented poorly. Still, the concept of an inheritance tax is good, and poorly implemented inheritance taxes should be fixed by improving them, not removing them.

Recently proposed changes to the UK system to include business property (and farms) are going to further the take over of productive property (including farms) in the UK by private equity and large and multi-national companies who have shown to be pretty poor actors in furthering the public good. In my opinion, this is a particularly bad change to inheritance tax.

Insightful comment. Good example of the law of unintended consequences there.

I don't think this has been fully enacted yet - but is being done because it had increasingly become a way to avoid tax - ie. buy dormant/hobby farmland and pass it on to your children tax free

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/what-are-the-changes-to-a...

Except the farming changes is far more nuanced than that.

The reason farms are worth so much at present, despite low margins, is because of the inheritance tax loophole that was introduced in the 80's, at the behest of the landed backers of the Conservative Party. This turned farmland into a prime investment vehicle as a way to shelter assets from inheritance tax.

Is the proposed change (and thresholds, plus half rate with interest free payments spread over 10 years) perfect? No - it'll still catch some small family farms - but it's telling that the highest level of opposition has come from some very wealthy landowners, such as those using their "farmland" for grouse hunting, rather than making food.

The tax break in the 80's was a textbook market distortion, if we believe in the power of free markets, the value of the farmland will now fall, which means fewer family farmers will need to pay inheritance tax.

Totally agree this is a problem, but I'm very much minded to think that a proper farming policy would include such distortions in the planning. The current government seem to think that putting the boot into farmers at every opportunity is just fine (classically, they are very conservative), the latest being the sudden ending of SFI. Let's sit down and have a grown up conversation about it all, including food security, sustainability and the best ownership models, rather than pissing around with inheritance tax.

In truth, my concerns are primarily around business property relief, since I think it is there that the damage will be both more significant and less visible. Many businesses carefully built up over years will have no option but to sell off a chunk to private equity to pay the tax liability. Is it a surprise that the gov come up with such policies when Rachel Reeves thinks that the finance industry is going to fire up growth [1], when they are the rent seeking parasites that are suppressing it. The fox has been invited into the hen house and getting to dictate policy.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chancellor-backs-britains...

There are numerous ways of avoiding inheritance tax, and therefore not having to deal with business property relief.

If the business is going to be a going concern for many years, then proper estate planning should be part of any careful running of a business. Passing it on 7 years before death is the most obvious play; yes, actuarially there will be some people who die before the 7 years have passed, so doing it early is important if continuity of the business is important.

Of course, which is why it's all so silly. It proves to be a headache that gets in the way of actually productive activity, and I know this from first hand experience.

In France the inheritance tax is only applied above 100 000€, so it's really not 40% flat. What's more, it's possible to make donations before the death, 100 000€ every 15 years, without taxes, meaning most of the time no taxes are payed at all below 200 000€ or even 300 000€.

These amounts are per-child, which means you can double them up if there are two children.

Median patrimony in France is 175 000€ per household, so your typical middle class family with two children ends up paying no inheritance tax, without having done donations in advance.

For starters, 100.000 EUR is nothing. Also, in many jurisdictions that threshold only applies to direct (eg father-son) inheritance but not eg between siblings.

I have an unmarried aunt with no kids. Most of her estate is land (that has passed through centuries in the family and is almost illiquid because the European Union has killed agriculture) and some stock (that cannot be used to pay the taxes because it's not yours until you pay the taxes). I just checked and when she dies, my mom (her only sister) will have to pay 45% of that in death tax. We may need to turn down the estate when she dies because we cannot pay the tax. And you think that's fair? Grow up.

The whole point of inheritance tax is to redistribute some of the accumulated family wealth across society. You think that's unfair? Grow up.

I think it's unfair, you work your entire life paying tax on every single euro you make(a lot of tax in fact!) and then when you want to leave that to your child it's taxed again? What complete nonsense. I'm very glad the country where I'm from(Poland) doesn't have that.

People could equally argue that it is unfair that some children are born with all the advantages while others have none. I don't think "fairness" is a strong argument here because it is entirely subjective. What seems fair to you looks like a huge injustice to somebody else.

My parents are upper-middle class, and I've profited from their wealth all my life. My inheritance will be taxed, and I don't find that unfair at all. I was born on second base and had an advantage over others at every stage of my life; it would be fatuous to complain about an inheritance tax.

Suppose you've inherited genes which contribute in varying degrees to brains, beauty, longevity and charm. These are arguably advantages rather more significant in life than money. If there was a choice who wouldn't choose these? So should you be taxed given how you will undoubtedly profit from it? Or is it just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill with something and destined for a short life who's hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash?

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/how-genes-shape-perso... https://human-intelligence.org/intelligence-is-genetic/ https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/news/beauty-may-... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23925498/

>is it just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill with something and destined for a short life who's hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the exact point you're making.

I follow the premise of your argument. You're saying genes are a birth advantage, just like money is. I absolutely agree with that. But I don't understand how this ends in "just the guy who's dumb, ugly, always ill" being "hammered if he or she happens to make some real cash."

FWIW, in many Western countries, healthy people are already functionally "taxed" (although it's often not technically a tax) more than unhealthy people because both pay similar amounts into healthcare but derive different benefits from it.

I also think that's good, just like taxing inheritance is.

Those unearned traits might make you more money, and you might also bequeath these traits to your kids. It would compound the injustice if you could furthermore bequeath all the money to your kids, while it would ameliorate the injustice if the inheritance were largely taxed away.

It's taxed above a pretty reasonable threshold. You have the option of gifting your money tax-free to your children, or to public-good organisations. Hell, you have the option to spend some of the money you made in your lifetime! You earned it, spend it! See the world! Eat the finest cheeses for breakfast, lunch and dinner! Have a masseur on retainer! The kids sound pretty entitled anyway!

Read my comment: your brother passes away without children and the Tax Agency steals 45% of his estate (and that's after the "discount" for the threshold, the actual tax rate over the threshold is higher than 45%). That's not reasonable at all.

Why should one be entitled to the property of their brother? What's special about a brother that should be unavailable with leaving property to, say, one's best friend?

Communism never ends up well. Remember that when your wishes become reality.

I don't see what this has to do with communism, and frankly I don't think you do either. And I do agree with you that taxing inheritance is unacceptable.

Not only that's not communism, but, by the looks of it, greed-capitalism isn't turning out so well either, now, is it?

I'm still getting 55% of the wealth my brother built for himself without putting any effort into it. It would be different if this were a spouse, but surviving spouses are not subject to these taxes.

Also, taxation isn't stealing. But if you genuinely feel that it is, you have the option of moving to a country with no functioning government. The Somali government, for example, has effectively no ability to collect taxes in most regions.

The fact that you call taxes theft is enough to disqualify your opinion.

The fact that you think 45% tax is fair is enough to disqualify your opinion.

The fact that you think getting 55% of something you did not earn is unfair is enough to disqualify your opinion.

Parents everywhere in (almost?) every country of the world are allowed to give tax-free gifts to their children without limit. That's generally not objected to in any way, but suddenly people think it's fair when the exact same money or houses get taxed at inheritance time.

Also - at the end of the day, someone is still getting something that they "didn't earn" - why allow it at all? Tax everything at 100% on death - why give people who didn't "earn it" something?

Obviously I'm being fascicious about this now, but if the argument that it's "unfair" for people who "didn't earn it" to get something, why allow this at all?

And also, personally - I think the argument is flipped on its head. It's not about people getting the inheritance - it's about people "giving" it - I paid taxes on my money throughout my entire life, why should the state take any more just because I'm leaving it to my children?

Limiting the snowball effect of the wealthy getting wealthier generation after generation through no contribution of their own is considered a societal good. Whether it is can be debated, but Europe seems to be in a happier position regarding that than the US, at the moment. Why is it always the rugged individualists, the pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps proponents who are in favour of receiving unearned money? It feels less like a considered philosophical viewpoint than naked greed.

(and, on a side note, where do you get that you can give unlimited tax-free money to your children in almost every country of the world? I checked the US, France, UK, Spain, Morocco, South Africa and Brazil, and all have limits after which tax apply. China and the Philippines don't, but neither do they have inheritance tax.)

>>Whether it is can be debated, but Europe seems to be in a happier position regarding that than the US, at the moment

I'm Polish and Poland doesn't have any inheritance tax for children, not sure what US has to do with this.

>>I checked the US, France, UK, Spain, Morocco, South Africa and Brazil

Did you really? Here a UK page about this, there is no limitation on how much you can give your children tax free, tax only applies if you die within 7 years after gifting it:

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/gifts

And

Raisin UK https://www.raisin.co.uk Gifting money to children explained (2025)

>>Limiting the snowball effect of the wealthy getting wealthier generation after generation through no contribution of their own is considered a societal good

Again, so please tell me why you don't think we should be taxing it at 100%, to maximise the societal good?

I already pay effective rate of 40% of tax on all my earnings - am I not doing enough for "societal good"?

You're making a good point. You've convinced me that the inheritance tax should be 100%.

Great - now at least you're being consistent about it.

Considered good by whom? By socialist teenagers? Work hard and build a family, then re-read your comments in a few years. You'll think different.

Also, again, the thresholds are ridiculously low. They don't even cover the cost of the deceased's house. Stop the theory, start the reality.

Stop the communist brainwashing "redistribution of wealth" and start thinking: 45%, that you saved after paying taxes, is pure robbery.

I would much rather pay less tax while I’m alive and the majority of it when I’m dead and will no longer give a shit.

You don't give a shit about your offspring? But even so, aren't you at least able to understand that other people do care about their progeny?

Distributing wealth in society on the basis of parental success seems like it would be a terrible idea.

There is a name for a system where people pass on their wealth (and titles) to their progeny, by birthright.

I am sure the average 99%-er American would love to be back in medieval Europe, where kings and queens, and lords and dukes cared so much for their offspring! Wealth by birthright, that's so progressive!

Money is not the most important thing I can give my kids. Love, education, support and encouragement ...

Nobody claimed otherwise however making sure your loved ones are taken care of in the best possible position involves love and support otherwise why bother you are already dead.

Stop the tsarist/oligarch propaganda then /s.

If you don't want to pay taxes, don't be a part of society, don't use public roads, public schools, public hospitals, and public education.

If you do want to be a part of society, accept that it's a give-and-take situation, and move on. Some people give more than they take, and some people do take more than they have given, and that's alright with me.

Side rant:

It's no wonder that a show like Breaking Bad, where a teacher gets cancer and has to become a drug kingpin to finance his healthcare, has to be situated in the US. The plot simply wouldn't hold in any other civilized country.

It's no also wonder that the name Luigi is no longer only the name of Mario's brother but synonymous with something else, and again something that happened in the US.

Nobody said "no" to taxes. Fair taxes are necessary. FAIR TAXES. Not 45% taxes on something that already paid taxes several times (income, property, VAT, etc). That's robbery.

> FAIR TAXES

Agreed with you! A progressive tax (the more you earn, the higher % you get taxed) makes sense as a fair thing to me.

Where I am from, it's 52%, and that's a reasonable price to pay for having bike paths, greening, parks, good roads, affordable public transport, great public schools, and paid time off and maternity/paternity leave.

Once there was a strike of the public sanitation workers in my city due to their low wages. You know what happened? In 2 weeks it changed from a beautiful place to live to a cesspool. Don't know about you but I was happy to spend some of my $$ so I didn't have to fight rats, rabid dogs and mountains of garbage to take my kids from school.

As a matter of fact, once somebody reaches a certain amount of wealth, I'd be very much in favor that it should be 70%, 80%, 90% and 99%. And, of course, then you get the prize "you won capitalism, now relax".

52% is not fair but pure robbery. Not so long ago, people paid the tithe (10%) and if any lord, governor or king dared to go just a little further, they'd be killed, usually by hanging. There's many countries in the world with smaller taxes and still great services. Public money is just wasted by politicians trying to buy votes for the next election.

> Public money is just wasted by politicians trying to buy votes for the next election.

No, that's not how any of this works.

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/voting-elections/...

Politicians' campaigns are usually funded by large corporations and individual donors, not by public money.

> Not so long ago, people paid the tithe (10%) and if any lord,

The current right wing governments are trying to bring us to that time, it seems.

> There's many countries in the world with smaller taxes and still great service

Name a couple.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/standard-...

Luxembourg - 42%

Netherlands - 49%

Denmark - 42%

Should I go on?

But is the point not that the person who needs to pay this tax, if they accept the free gift of land etc, still gets to keep 55%?

There are cases that can be imagined (a child inheriting an old house in a high-COL location) where it feels unfair, but in this case it sounds like free money. Surely the government is not asking for more money than the land is worth, or something like that?

The government already got their share during the accumulation period. They have no claim on it anymore. If people want the government to spread their wealth around to help society they can specify that in their will.

On what basis? Is there a law that says they can't tax estates?

It's not nothing - with 1.8 children the tax-free allowance covers 60-70% of the population (outstanding mortgages and loans are not counted in the 170K figure). And why should anyone be entitled to a relative's property? How does it benefit society? Why not friends', then?

"Benefit society"??? Pal, stop with the communist propaganda and start thinking for yourself.

One thing I can assure you: the moment you get a job, a house, a family, that's the moment you'll realize you are being systematically robbed by taxes that end up eating 70% of your income. If you are not socialist when you are young, you haven't got a heart; if you are not conservative when you grow up, you haven't got a brain.

I'm probably older than you, pal, and I'm happy to pay taxes as long as they help make society better. This is a considered, rational, and ethical decision. Just because I'm a highly-paid engineer doesn't mean I work harder or am a more deserving human being than a nurse or a Bangladeshi immigrant working two shifts a day at a fast-food. I'm not so selfless I want to give all my good luck away, but not so selfish I don't want life to be easier for others too, don't want the kids to get a good education, don't want the sick to get treated, don't want interesting art in the streets. I love dystopias, but only in books. I also am not so deluded as to think everything is reducible to money, and that what I achieved did not depend on having a society around me that made it possible.

>"Benefit society"??? Pal, stop with the communist propaganda and start thinking for yourself.

It's funny to me that you both think that "benefitting society" is "communist propaganda" and that others need to start thinking for themselves. Who are these communists spreading this duplicitous propaganda of considering the well-being of others and the betterment of our community? I need to find them to thank them for their service and also scold them for being bad at communism.

>One thing I can assure you: the moment you get a job, a house, a family, that's the moment you'll realize you are being systematically robbed by taxes

I have all that, and I still care for people other than myself and my family.

> you'll realize you are being systematically robbed by taxes that end up eating 70% of your income

Where does the water from your tap come from?

Where did you or your children go to study?

Did you make your own road, that you use to go to work?

Do you have a pension built up?

Do you fight your own fires and fight your own crime?

To be fair most of the taxes do not even go to what you describe and there is massive waste happening in the administrations.

There is, unfortunately, in every large and small organisation. I can't say I've noticed any particular qualitative difference between the efficiencies of government departments and corps of equivalent size when I was working for them; if anything, the government employees were always conscious of the fact they were spending taxpayers' money that was not theirs, although I can't talk of the practical results.

If these organisations were private, waste would be equivalent, but they would lose the mentality of acting in the public interest, and there would be a profit margin taken off. I'm pretty sure it would not be an improvement overall, purely from a viewpoint of efficiency.

Better some waste happening in the public sector and a still a public road being built than a crypto bro buying a lambo from a windfall they made on a rug-pull from a meme coin.

If you don't artificially curb wealth accumulation with laws, taxes and wealth limits, you will always and inevitably end up having an accumulation of wealth that allows the rich to stay rich forever, and keep the rest perpetually in poverty. I have consistently been in the highest taxable bracket in my country, and am happy to contribute even a bigger % of my wealth towards the betterment of the living conditions of my country and city.

Sauce:

- https://ifs.org.uk/articles/inherited-wealth-course-be-much-...

- https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/08/moving-up-the-income...

> The gap was most pronounced in the US: less than 10% of sons with low-earning fathers made it into the richest 25% of the population, while almost 50% of those with top-earning fathers grew up to become high earners themselves

Talk about "self-made". History has shown again and again that this can only go on as long until the poor and oppressed rise up, seize the wealth, and in the process, harm their "oppressors".

Because giving it to Amazon is making society better?

I was right-leaning when I was young and then I saw where the policies of the last three decades have taken us and I do not like it. I have earned a top-percentile salary in a rich western country and paid lots in income tax, and I would happily give more away to make sure people who make different life choices are taken care of and get more chances in life. The rich need no more money.

Also, what good is it to have a great house, an expensive car, and private tutored kids, if the outside of your house is a slum, the roads are too bad for your car, and your kids risk being kidnapped for ransom any time they go to play outside?

The rich through times always have had the delusion that their wealth will protect them and isolate them from society, with their private armies, private healthcare, private tutors and expensive villas. But if anyone looks at history, it always ends up the same way. Based on that knowledge, it's the rich that should be actively supporting equality and progress in society as if their lives depend on it.

"I just want everything to be the same it is now, except with no government that helps anyone else because I don't want to pay taxes, and I already have everything I need" is a pretty comfortable position. Until, inevitably, people run out of bread, and the guillotines come out.

I'm more than happy to pay my taxes and ensure everybody else has a good life, too. I don't want to find out first-hand how long a head survives without its body still attached to it.

> Silly is actually too nice a word for such extortion scheme. As you see if rich enough/business big enough, it could be easily circumvented.

Maybe it could have been easily circumvented, but it wasn't circumvented in this case. It obstructed direct inheritance, thus, worked as intended for the rich.

The death tax more or less ended the UK aristocracy, apart from the absolute top echeolon of the very richest and the special case of the Royal family.

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cavendish,_11th_Duke_of... "Devonshire inherited the estate but also an inheritance tax bill of £7 million (£303 million in 2023), nearly 80 per cent of the value of the estate. To meet this, the Duke had to sell off many art objects and antiques, including several Rembrandts, Van Dycks and Raffaello Santis, as well as thousands of acres of land"

For perspective, the family - currently headed by the 12th duke, were estimated to be worth £910 million in 2024. They are not out of the top echelon, and are now structured much better for avoiding inheritance tax, which is also at a lower rate now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com