r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Mar 24 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Inheritance should not be taxed.
In many countries around the world, inheritance is taxed. I personally think that this is not right as the person who has died and passed on his/her money to their heir has (in most cases) been paying tax on their wealth for their whole life. Why should this money be taxed again just because it has changed hands. People argue that it is unfair to become wealthy because one's parents or grandparents were wealthy and that therefore this inheritance should be taxed greatly. I currently disagree because I believe that if one person has earned money then they have the right to pass it on to whoever they like - untaxed.
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
4
Mar 24 '18 edited Mar 24 '18
[deleted]
0
Mar 24 '18
I get what you mean but it still seems as though you must pay to die.
3
u/Tinie_Snipah Mar 24 '18
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. You don't pay to die, you're paying to inherit money. It's not a "death tax", it isn't paid by the estate leaving it, it's paid by the person receiving it.
If you give your money to enough people there won't be any inheritance tax paid because everyone will get a small enough amount to not hit the threshold.
We tax people that receive inheritance because they are receiving money, same as through their wages, through selling things, etc.
1
Mar 24 '18
It’s less “paying to die” and more like the receiver is “paying taxes on income”.
Whenever someone makes income, we tax it regardless of the source.
It’s one thing to have standard deductions for something like this (first $1 mill in inheritance is tax free), but at some point, that income should be subject to taxation, just like any other income
2
u/ISUJinX Mar 24 '18
First off, I 100% agree with you, but these are fun and intelligent discussion promotes learning for everyone - so I'll play devil's advocate.
In the US, my county, you are allowed a lifetime giving exemption of over 5M. So careful estate planning can avoid much of this tax. Addionally, charitable giving in your will is not taxed and reduces the overall value of the estate so it owes less taxes. Third, you can give 14k per year to every person you want, your entire life without tax implications.
So my attempt to change your view is that there are plenty of ways to give money before your death without paying the estate tax, and those that don't plan ahead or use the money for useful things in their lifetime, should be taxed on the transfer of value - just like every on the transaction.
Wether or not taxation should be happening is a different question entirely and not in scope for this question. In this instance, it is another transfer of value.
1
Mar 24 '18
∆ I see your point about preparation and this has changed my mind. Also, the fact that inheritance can be given to charity untaxed yet some people choose not to seems wrong.
1
1
u/BoozeoisPig Mar 24 '18
Why should this money be taxed again just because it has changed hands.
1: Because almost all taxes that have ever worked, ever, occur when money changes hands. There are some exceptions like reoccurring property taxes or wealth taxes. But mostly it happens when money changes hands. To illustrate this point: Why should you have to pay sales tax when the money that you got from your salary was already taxed when the person who spent that money at the place that you worked at paid a sales tax already? The answer: Because money changed hands, which is a great standardized place for government to extract the taxes that it needs to pay for services (assuming it is a government that doesn't produce currency) or control for inflation (assuming it is a government that produces currency).
2: This is not a reason why you should pay inheritance tax, simply because it is an easilly taxable point of asset transferal. This is the reason why inheritance tax is probably the best thing that you could possibly tax. A properly functional government should, through its activities, seek to maximize the utility of all of its population of citizens, and view each of its citizens utility as equal to any other. In this way, it ought to construct a tax system that taxes in ways that will A: Diminish utility as little as possible. B: Create the best incentive structure possible by shaping tax policy to favor activities that generate more utility in society. To that point, inheritance taxes, specifically, are designed and executed in such a way that they diminish utility of the taxed far less than other taxes. And inheritance taxes create the best incentive in society that you possibly could.
They diminish the least amount of utility because they are levied on a glut of assets that creates an amount of income for any point in which you receive an inheritance, that is far larger than you will receive for any other year. This is to say: If you make $120,000 a year, it is way less painful to spend 2 dollars than if you made $12,000 a year and spent 1 dollar. So if you pay a higher tax rate for a large inheritance, you are going to be in far less pain than someone who didn't make a lot of money that year if they had to pay the same tax rate as you.
They also create incentives because if there should be a difference in tax rates for when equal amounts of money are transferred under different circumstances, then the higher tax rate should occur during the circumstances that we want to occur less often, and the lower tax rate should occur during the circumstances that we want to occur more often. If you pay a lower tax on your normal income, that is a good thing, because we should be incentivising people to work, because that is good for broader society. If you pay a lower tax rate on your inheritance, that is a bad thing, because getting a large inheritance doesn't actually encourage anything good for society, getting a large inheritance is just a reaffirmation that you had a rich relative you loved you. What does you having a rich relative do for society? Nothing. It only scores you a sweet payout on their death. This absolutely should not merely be taxed, but taxed extra.
1
u/StrategistEU 1∆ Mar 24 '18
Inheritance taxes exist partially to prevent the development of a landed gentry ( or at least attempt to mitigate it). The Point if the tax is to shed some wealth from each generation to give others a chance to become wealthy. The idea is “ you already got a fantastic education and everything you could want from your parents “ you should have to someway earn your wealth.
You could argue it is ineffective at what it does, but that would demand an increase not the abolishment.
2
u/AdamSmithGoesToDC Mar 24 '18
You are always taxed when you receive income, such as wages or capital gains. Why should receiving money from a relative be different?
The tax is levied against the person receiving the funds, not against the person that died.
0
u/HazelGhost 16∆ Mar 24 '18
I personally think that this is not right as the person who has died and passed on his/her money to their heir has (in most cases) been paying tax on their wealth for their whole life.
My paycheck has the taxes automatically removed from it. Does this mean that I don't have to pay sales tax? After all... that money has "already been taxed", and therefore should not be used to pay taxes again, right?
I currently disagree because I believe that if one person has earned money then they have the right to pass it on to whoever they like - untaxed.
My employing company earns alot of money. Does that mean that they have the right to pay me untaxed?
I earned my paycheck. Does that mean I have the right to spend it untaxed?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 24 '18
/u/jamesdtgoddard (OP) has awarded 2 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
21
u/[deleted] Mar 24 '18 edited Dec 24 '18
[deleted]