Hacker News Reader

Comment by zxspectrum1982 | Hacker News Reader

zxspectrum1982

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com