Inheritance/Death Tax - Thoughts?

Trying2SaveABuck on 12/09/2023 - 16:06
Last edited 12/09/2023 - 16:49 by 1 other user

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/political-dynamite-tax-in…

Incoming Productivity Commission boss Danielle Wood has argued there is “simply no policy justification” for how little tax retirees pay, and called for a debate on taxing large inheritances as part of sweeping changes to address intergenerational inequity.

As part of an ambitious reform agenda that would push more of the tax burden on to older Australians, Ms Wood has urged the government to start a “sensible conversation” on reintroducing a levy on bequests to fund a reduction in income taxes for working age Australians.

TLDR - They want to tax your assets that you have 'ready' paid tax on when your NOK inherit them

My 2cents - if any government wanted to pass this without being annihilate next election the trade off would be a LARGE reduction in income tax at all brackets - ie the tax free threshold would need to be double at very least.

MOD: Please do not copy and paste the entire copyrighted article. Providing a link + snippet will be sufficient.

Poll Options

  • 152
    I support a 'death' tax
  • 511
    i do not support 'death' tax
  • 5
    i dont know
Financial

Comments

  • Taro Milk Tea on 12/09/2023 - 16:09
    +4

    where's the poll option for 'can't be bothered to read'?

    • EightImmortals on 12/09/2023 - 16:21
      +2

      Commies in power want to steal the inheritance your parents worked a lifetime for. Unless you are King Chuck, he got an exemption because some people are above the law.

      • grr1701 on 14/09/2023 - 16:52
        +3

        This didn’t come from the current Federal or State governments.

        • EightImmortals on 14/09/2023 - 16:59
          -2

          oh?

          https://www.pc.gov.au/

          "Australian Government Productivity Commission"

          Or are there two of them?
          And yes, QANGO's count as 'government'. :)

          • grr1701 on 14/09/2023 - 17:08
            +3

            @EightImmortals: The Commission is independent
            While the Government largely determines its work program, the Commission's findings and recommendations are based on its own analyses and judgments. The Commission reports formally through the Treasurer to the Australian Parliament, where its inquiry reports are tabled.

      • rooster7777 on 24/10/2023 - 13:22

        It's only right that if your ancestors stole their wealth, all descendants should get to have a work free life!
        I mean to say lachlan! fair go innit!
        PS…..How is rupert?
        or substitute a bazillion other nobel rockefeller busch names…
        PPS…. please don't be a pratt and neg me…
        PPPS…. please tell gina I luvvv her

    • poboy on 12/09/2023 - 18:13
      +13

      Capitalists in power want to maintain intergenerational wealth for the significantly wealthy. The gap between the top 1% and the rest is obscene and will only get wider. By implementing some form of wealth tax on the ultra wealthy, the government can recoup some of the tax deduction revenue that's lost upon estate transfers

      • Deridas on 12/09/2023 - 19:19
        +8

        It's called a tiered income tax system though. The "ultra wealthy" (eg >$180k pa) you mention pay 45% + Medicare for every $1 earned above that whilst if you're "not ultra wealthy" you pay a lower tiered tax. This is already a "wealth tax".

        What is this "tax deduction revenue that's lost upon estate transfers" that you speak of?

        • mskeggs on 12/09/2023 - 20:34
          +15

          It is clearly an income tax, unrelated to wealth. I can hold $1b and pay no tax if I don’t invest or spend on taxable items.

          • RatBargain on 13/09/2023 - 13:28
            -1

            @mskeggs: If you had $1b in cash or assets, you ALREADY paid a s#i7 load of taxes and will probably pay even more when any of those assets are sold.

            This death tax preys on the jealous have nots & the incurious vote, who lack critical thinking.

            If you want to meaningfully affect inequality. 1) Scrap CGT 50% discount
            2) Allow neg gearing on primary home
            3) Grandfather out neg gearing on those who own more than 1 investment property

            • Assburg on 13/09/2023 - 23:46
              +24

              @RatBargain: If you really think someone with $1b of assets has paid $470mil of income tax you probably can't be saved

              • RatBargain on 14/09/2023 - 12:52
                -4

                @Assburg: Not what I said. You should learn to read. Or just keep shouting: Eat the rich! while crabbing it up with your mates in a bucket

                • Assburg on 14/09/2023 - 16:29
                  +1

                  @RatBargain: If someone worth $1bil has paid less tax than the equivalent of earning $1b and being taxed on that rubbish PAYG system then they haven't paid a shitload of tax.

                  Everything is relative.

          • rooster7777 on 24/10/2023 - 13:24

            @mskeggs: Or if you have a great bent accountant!
            Kerry Bullmore told us that!

        • Trance N Dance on 12/09/2023 - 23:19
          +1

          They're probably referring to deferral of CGT when property is transferred from the deceased to a beneficiary. That or from an individual to a corporate entity in which the individual is owner of or something like that.

        • redfox1200 on 13/09/2023 - 07:25
          +18

          thats cute that you think people on greater than 180k are ULTRA wealthy

        • norrisrules on 13/09/2023 - 09:12
          +10

          185kpa is not in any way ultra wealthy… and for the true ultra wealthy they are not generating income in a way that they then pay 45% income tax on

          • r0nmac on 13/09/2023 - 14:42
            -6

            @norrisrules: I am 280+ but struggling month to month. Childcare is like a second mortgage. Everything bites.
            Its a false economy.

            • wau2 on 13/09/2023 - 17:55
              +7

              @r0nmac: @Ronmac would like to hear on 280+ how you are still struggling. How much is your mortgage repayments? How much is your house value?

              • OzBarAnon on 14/09/2023 - 10:18
                +1

                @wau2: Food $200
                Data $150
                Rent $800
                Candles $3,600
                Utility $150
                someone who is good at the economy please help me budget this. my family is dying

            • gimme on 13/09/2023 - 20:53
              +12

              @r0nmac: If you're struggling on that wage, you either have a warped sense of the word or have made some poor lifestyle choices

              • Benno007 on 17/09/2023 - 06:58

                @gimme: The more you earn the more you spend 😐

                I remember the days where $50 lasted me a month while living at my parents 😂 now it seems I can’t go a few hours without spending that much… bills or groceries etc…

        • Tleyx on 14/09/2023 - 18:09

          Ultra wealthy don't have a high income

        • Cyphar on 15/09/2023 - 16:36

          That Medicare Levy is based off family income. So if you and your partner earn over $185k combined (ie you both earn $100k each) you both pay it.

    • EightImmortals on 12/09/2023 - 16:24
      +31

      Slow day at the centerlink office?

      And what about all the batters who have struggled their whole lives and just want to leave something help their kids out with the mortgage when they die?

      And of all the low, despicable and criminal organisations that could get their hands on our money you would actually want to give it to government? Oh well gotta pay for the Voice consequences and Zelensky's bullets somehow I guess.

      • Jolakot on 13/09/2023 - 09:26
        +16

        Should only be taxed over 2m, this shouldn't be a policy that affects average people

        • OZKap on 13/09/2023 - 12:15
          +16

          No matter how high it's set, and how few people it affects, Liberal Party will run nonstop attack ads about how they wanna steal all your granny's money in a death tax.

          • connorlo on 14/09/2023 - 08:42

            @OZKap: that would be because they do wanna steal all my granny's money!

        • EightImmortals on 13/09/2023 - 12:37
          +2

          Nope. It might start at multiple millions but once they get it in they will keep lowering it, and combined with inflation the battlers will be hit pretty soon.

        • rossnroller on 13/09/2023 - 12:53
          +1

          Agree in principle, but not sure about the concept of a death tax ever being acceptable to the electorate. They should definitely tax super at the top income tax rate with a generous tax-free threshold of, say, 3m. That's way more than enough to support anyone's retirement and ensure they can afford a very comfortable lifestyle. Super was never meant as a wealth creation vehicle.

          Getting back to the death tax topic, I'm against dynastic wealth. Imposing increased tax on super above 3m and something similar on inheritances would be effective long-term measures in reigning in the appalling gap between haves and have-nots.

        • RefusdClassification on 14/09/2023 - 04:25
          +1

          In Biden's America there seems to be a federal estate state of 40% for estates over ~ $20 million AU; a small number of states also have inheritance and/or estate taxes.

          One thing to take into consideration is that many younger people now will never be able to purchase a home and their only hope of owning one in old age is if they inherit from their parents. Because of that fact, I think the inheritance tax threshold should be between 2 and 3 million dollars, and anything over that should be taxed at 50%. The threshold should also be indexed. Houses appreciate by 10% a year on average.

          The ALP will never introduce an inheritance tax. The goal of the ALP (and the Liberals and the Greens) is to help the rich become ever richer. Stage 3 tax cuts are a perfect example. If the ALP cared about the proletariat, they would have abolished Stage 3 on Day 1.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2023 - 12:09
          +1

          The shortsightedness of this is that anyone who is worth anything will move overseas. That company owner who’s doing well? They’ll move overseas and now you have a sovereignty issue. This idea has been used (and failed) before

          • GourmetFoodie on 21/09/2023 - 08:41
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Doesn’t stop the wealthy living in the US or France etc

            • [Deactivated] on 21/09/2023 - 13:44

              @GourmetFoodie: We’ve got bigger issues with foreign investment here anyway. Locals can’t compete or reap the “wealth for toil” in their own country and the foreign influence is at an all time high. I think sell out is the term?

      • gravel on 13/09/2023 - 21:55
        -3

        What a completely stupid ill informed comment. Pay for the VOICe consequences what on earth are you babbling about.

      • Assburg on 13/09/2023 - 23:49
        +2

        Your kids wouldn't struggle so much if they weren't competing with trust fund babies.

        You wouldn't have to work until you're 65+ if you needed to keep building the empire as to not let your kids down.

        Inheritance tax is the norm across most of the world and it encourages spending in your lifetime while discouraging mindless hoarding.

        And, if your kids really need the inheritance then you've failed them.

        • Earl of Lemongrab on 14/09/2023 - 08:08
          -5

          Disgusting comment.

          • Assburg on 14/09/2023 - 08:53
            +8

            @Earl of Lemongrab: Yes, teaching your children independence and expecting they exercise it is a disgusting idea.

            Your kids will be about 50 if you pass away from natural causes (the general case), and if they haven't gotten themselves established without your inheritance…. They're literally waiting for you to die. Great way to spend your final years.

        • Benno007 on 17/09/2023 - 06:59
          -1

          It’s not trust fund babies… it’s developers and immigrants from wealthier states/nations..

    • garddn on 13/09/2023 - 07:37
      +9

      Envy is not a virtue

      • rossnroller on 13/09/2023 - 12:55

        Neither is dynastic wealth.

        • randomvis on 14/09/2023 - 00:18
          +5

          I'm pretty sure wanting to leave assets for your kids is a virtue.

    • mirovich on 14/09/2023 - 10:23
      +2

      It’s quite puzzling that non-boomer generations think life should be fair and deserve good things to happen to them.

  • spackbace on 12/09/2023 - 16:13
    +6

    tl;dr?

    Didn't know these forums had become news.com.au

    • battler on 12/09/2023 - 16:56
      +2

      not quite - there's no pics of Paige here ;)

  • Drakesy on 12/09/2023 - 16:13
    +21

    As long as we have an aged population majority the incoming political party will always be on their knees, servicing the pensioner and boomer driven ponzi scheme much to the demise of the country's future.

    I think death taxes would be a great equaliser however know that the rich will be the first to exploit any loophole and as per usual the poor will be the only ones who end up paying it.

    And yes i'm in line for a fairly chunky inheritance but i know how bad the system is rigged in the wealthy's favour. My guess is giving the demographic of Ozbargain - highly paid individuals the majority will be against this.

    • rossnroller on 13/09/2023 - 13:04
      -3

      And will you be donating a fair proportion of your "fairly chunky inheritance", no doubt from boomer parents, to assist the less fortunate?

      What will happen to all this boomer hate when the greatest wealth transfer in history has been made to whinging resentful anti-boomer GenXers (who are already the most privileged of all generations, certainly including the boomers) and Millennials? How about you step forward, take a principled stand, and refuse to accept your inheritance on the basis of it being money unfairly acquired by privileged boomers?

      Or, there could be a limit set on inheritances with the excess to go towards ensuring a fair piece of the boomer pie is allotted to the many unfortunate kids of the majority of boomers who are not among the privileged wealthy recipients of a system apparently skewed in their favour.

      • Drakesy on 13/09/2023 - 13:20
        +3

        How about you step forward, take a principled stand, and refuse to accept your inheritance on the basis of it being money unfairly acquired by privileged boomers?

        The funny thing is X, Y and Z gens will never do this.

        The boomers weren't behind a huge eight ball from the get go regarding purchasing property, were provided with free university degrees, of which meant they graduated with zero Hecs debt (major barrier to home ownership borrowing power). Were allowed to retire early with extremely generous super pension schemes (all of which have been discontinued as it was a severe drain on the system) and are now subsidised by the working class to keep their private health costs down while the workers struggle with their mortgages.

        I don't think they'll want to give up this when the system is extremely stacked against you.

        • rossnroller on 15/09/2023 - 12:54
          -3

          You're falling for the GenX-media generated BS re boomers. The inconvenient truth they never mention is that the boomers are at the end of their working lives. Of course the ones who have worked all their lives and done "the right thing" according to societal expectations are reasonably well-off assuming they're in OK health and have not lost their money in divorce settlements etc. Of course, the financially comfortable boomers have acquired more than most younger generations - they have had a whole lifetime of working!

          This is not the place to expand, but there is much more to say on this that makes a nonsense of the boomer stereotypes being constantly reinforced by a toxic media. Just think about it, instead of swallowing the stuff the media feeds you.

          • Drakesy on 15/09/2023 - 13:45
            +1

            @rossnroller: Don't get me wrong, it's fully understandable that people working their whole lives will have more disposable income and assets under them.

            It's when they mould the tax and benefits system to suit them, to prolong their wealth and keep the younger generations poor that i have the issue with.

            Younger generations that won't get a pension and will have to be reliant on their super.

            • rossnroller on 15/09/2023 - 17:43

              @Drakesy: @Drakesy
              But how do you think "they" (the boomers) "mould the tax and benefits system to suit them, prolong their wealth and keep the younger gens poor"? I'm a boomer, and I've never moulded these things. I couldn't even if I wanted to. It's very weird, this idea that my generation has any more control than other generations over the way things are. It's the govt of the day that decides policy.

              I've voted progressive all my life. I've been walking the walk and talking the talk on environmental sustainability for decades. I abhor the fact that the Millenials and Zers have been largely cut out of the the real estate market. If I could do something about it, I would. I did nothing to create this situation, and I can't see how I can do anything to rectify it.

              I put it to you that "the boomers" are not a separate single entity who all think and act similarly, and who have spent their lives manipulating 'the system' to benefit themselves at the expense of younger generations. We just got old and have what we have. Call it the luck of being born in an era that is very different from the catastrophe we're living through now. Dumb luck, not manipulation.

              As for younger gens not getting a pension when they're too old to work, you're prob right - because with a lifetime of super behind them, they won't need state support. That's surely a good thing? I HATE being reliant on the govt for anything. I wish super had been mandatory before 1992, so many of us who now have to get by on a pension would be free of that. It's not a fun proposition to have to live on the pension at a time of your life when your earning capacity is zero.

              • Drakesy on 15/09/2023 - 17:54

                @rossnroller:

                I've voted progressive all my life. I've been walking the walk and talking the talk on environmental sustainability for decades. I abhor the fact that the Millenials and Zers have been largely cut out of the the real estate market. If I could do something about it, I would. I did nothing to create this situation, and I can't see how I can do anything to rectify it.

                I understand, but just because you weren't individually responsible for it doesn't mean that the entire generation wasn't more than happy to benefit from the lax tax system and super schemes.

                It's true that even the most progressive people (my family included) benefitted heavily from the government's decisions of the day, it's only now that we realised how lopsided the system was.

                • rossnroller on 15/09/2023 - 18:38
                  -2

                  @Drakesy: The entire generation had no choice! That's the point. You're basically blaming an entire generation for being born when they were. That's not rational. We didn't know how things would turn out after about 2007-8 (that's about when the house prices took off out of reach of the younger gens and just kept going). You're essentially blaming us for a future we had no idea was coming!

                  Governments, too, could only make policy in response to the conditions prevailing at the time. They didn't have a crystal ball. And the boomers and Xers constituted by far the greatest proportion of the electorate, so of course the party in power did their best to serve their needs. Were we "happy" about it? No! We didn't feel privileged. The govt of the day was simply doing some of what they'd promised in their campaigning before being voted in. They were doing as the electorate expected, and as they were mandated to do. Nothing abnormal or skewed about that at the time.

                  And yes, I said boomers and Xers. Don't for a moment swallow the line that the boomers were the only beneficiaries of the system you claim is deliberately skewed to favour them. The Xers had it easier than us - far easier. Any Xers who worked and wanted to buy a house did so without problems prior to prices racing out of sight a few years into the 21C. And the quality of house they got was far superior to the sort of home the average wage earner boomer bought in the 70s and 80s. Yet the Xers are the loudest decryers of the boomers because it's in their interests to keep the spotlight off themselves.

                  Very few boomers had investment properties prior to their 40s at least and probably 50s and over if at all. Many of the affluent GenXers who have gentrified and taken over my once multi-ethnic working class suburb post on local community groups about their investment properties, hobby farms, holiday cottages etc.

                  There is no doubt that there is a GenX driven media agenda to marginalise and scapegoat the boomers. It's oh so easy to fall into the trap of not questioning what you're being fed, but you should. If you're interested in the truth, that is.

                  Finally, ask yourself, what are you doing now to right the wrongs you see in an unequal society? What are you doing that is so much more than the boomers did? (Don't forget, the boomer effort with the Vietnam moratorium marches and protests brought Western participation in the Vietnam War to an end - political activism like that has only begun again with the Millennials and Zeds and all power to them).

                  Or, like us, are you as powerless as every generation is when it comes down to it, as lacking in foresight about the future as we were, as bound by prevailing conditions and the govt response to them, and as powerless as individuals to change the stuff that you see as wrong and unjust as the individuals that make up the boomer generation? I put it to you that essentially, the only real difference between you and us is age.

              • Benno007 on 17/09/2023 - 07:02

                @rossnroller: I remember being told in grade two tht I’d live to 100 and never receive a pension.

                At this point I’d hate to live past 50 with my current spine 😂. So 15 years to go.

                • rossnroller on 18/09/2023 - 11:19

                  @Benno007: I'm sorry to hear about your health problems. I have a dicky spine too (AS), so can identify to some extent at least. I hope your condition is not as debilitating into the future as your post indicates is likely. Mine hasn't progressed typically, so I'm just doing the best I can to keep moving and stay fit, and apart from the usual knee pain and stiffness, am doing OK. Dare to hope.

                  Back to the topics being discussed here, at least there is an NDIS now, in case you need support. And you would surely be eligible for the disability pension IF you get to the point where you need it? It's worth noting that both those support measures are relatively recent (1991 for the DP, NDIS 2020), and are designed to assist members of all generations who need them. These are two of many govt support packages that are around now but are relatively recent developments.

      • Bren20 on 14/09/2023 - 08:24
        +1

        Or, there could be a limit set on inheritances with the excess to go towards ensuring a fair piece of the boomer pie is allotted to the many unfortunate kids of the majority of boomers who are not among the privileged wealthy recipients of a system apparently skewed in their favour.

        So you're advocating for a death tax?

        • rossnroller on 15/09/2023 - 12:56
          +2

          Absolutely. I'm advocating a death tax with a generous tax-free threshold (2-3mill) PLUS a tax on super right now, again with a generous tax-free threshold.

          • Benno007 on 17/09/2023 - 07:04

            @rossnroller: So does that mean befor this comes in, my parents should ‘gift’ me pre-inheritance that I then use to pay their bills..? So they have no inheritance to give…

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 12/09/2023 - 16:13
    +16

    y'all are getting a decent monetary inheritance? All i got was a long ass list of hereditary issues…

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/09/2023 - 16:16
      +4

      im actually someone who 'doesnt' have a large if any inheritance to bank on - so for me i am impartial to the idea as long as they reduce income tax for working people i dont mind it

      however if they just want to 'add a tax' becuz our governments cant manage money then no i do not support it becuz that seems to be the only think the ALP know how to do increase taxes and waste money on shit

      • misu p on 13/09/2023 - 22:58
        +1

        Oh… you are the kind of guy that wants lower taxes "for higher brackets" because you may become rich one day and then you will need it… gotcha…

  • Kparky on 12/09/2023 - 16:18
    +12

    “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
    ― P.J. O'Rourke

    • djkelly69 on 12/09/2023 - 17:18

      … just do it now because it is going to happen anyway?

    • caitsith01 on 13/09/2023 - 12:01
      +8

      And look how well his favoured system is going with managing everything:

      1. Growing wealth inequality
      2. Breakdown of competition in many industries
      3. Environmental collapse
      4. Entire generation of younger people with no prospect of home ownership who are now also stopping having kids because it's too expensive

      But at least that awful government isn't interfering in the free market.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2023 - 12:17

        They are interfering in the free market more than ever. That is the issue.

        • negative gearing
        • bank bailouts
        • largest immigration rate the country has ever seen

        None of this is “free market” in fact it’s the complete opposite. Government intervention through policy and manipulation of the private sector is aching to true fascism (socialist) and has nothing to do with free market. The issues are top-down bureaucratic and socialist in nature. People do not have the facilitation to grass-roots a solution.

        Your argument is conveniently and commonly pushed by people with a socialist agenda to people who don’t know better.

        You could argue that free market lead to people having greater access to policy makers, govt etc but that is because there has not been effective regulation to ensure a fair playing field. It’s erosion of effective governance and inch at a time in the absence of effective safeguards which can only happen when there is an appetite from the public who are too stupid to understand anything these days.

    • CowFrogHorse on 15/09/2023 - 22:11
      +1

      THat may be true but if there was no government for starters we wouldnt have schools, roads, or hospitals.

      Life isnt perfect.

      You can be sure Trump and Musk dont go around building hospitals and giving away free visits and medicine. The Australian government has given us all more than any other system would, so stop being selfish and do your duty to contribute back.

  • Downvoter on 12/09/2023 - 16:21
    +24

    My parents earned their money themselves and I don’t expect a cent of it when they’re gone. I’m actively pushing for them to use it end enjoy themselves.

    • hasher22 on 12/09/2023 - 16:34

      I mean if there's left overs, I'm sure the right thing to do is give it to you to support you when they're gone.

      • Downvoter on 12/09/2023 - 16:39
        +4

        I’m an adult, no need for any financial support. I can provide for my own children.

        • ozhunter on 12/09/2023 - 18:05
          +7

          Then go give it to the government.

        • hasher22 on 12/09/2023 - 19:19
          +9

          No one is saying you can't support yourself or your children.

          If your parents pass away with an excess of money, then what will you do? Give it to charity? The government?

          The excess of money is better off in your pocket to your children's future or if you get stuck in a financial mess.

          But if you don't want the money, if there is any, then give it to me. Just saying……

          • Downvoter on 12/09/2023 - 19:52

            @hasher22: They can do with it how they see fit. If they choose to donate it to charity rather than me or my siblings then I don’t have an issue with it at all.

            • ozhunter on 12/09/2023 - 20:50
              +7

              @Downvoter: Go tell them you don't want it and they can just give it to your siblings who more than likely would be grateful.

          • Hawk Tuah on 13/09/2023 - 09:46
            -1

            @hasher22: Typical freeloader mentality

            • hasher22 on 13/09/2023 - 16:37

              @Hawk Tuah: Yup you got me, I am a freeloader!

              I got kicked out from home at 17 with my brother whom was 18 due to a messy divorce, we have been working since and paid my own bills and rent. Not once I asked my parents for financial help, oh wait, there were a few times my mother gave me money, each year $100, on my birthday…… guess I am leeching off my mother too much. She also purchased me pokemon cards for christmas when I was 10, don't think my mother is financially recovering from the $30 dollars she spent on the booster packs. Sorry about that.

              • shreav on 15/09/2023 - 10:06
                +1

                @hasher22: That’s rough mate. Hope you’re doing better now.

    • amsaini15 on 13/09/2023 - 21:34

      Exactly. You are spot on. I am doing the same.

  • [Deactivated] on 12/09/2023 - 16:26
    +29

    The money has already been taxed. Why should the grieving party/ies be subject to a tax on money that has had income tax and savings tax already applied?

    • poboy on 12/09/2023 - 18:16
      +15

      I can claim tax deductions on investment properties and shares. Then I can pass these on to my estate and my beneficiaries receive the assets, with a result cost base and don't have to pay any form or CGT. So the Government just subsidises intergenerational wealth.

      As a rule, I want estate taxes on high value estates - those over $10 million.

      • Deridas on 12/09/2023 - 19:25
        +6

        Just to clarify, claiming tax deductions on investment properties means you actually have to make a loss/spend the money, so I'm not sure what do you mean by "pass these onto my estate".

        With regards to shares, I presume you mean franking credits, which means tax has already been paid, so by claiming it you don't get double taxed. You actually need to pay tax, at your marginal rate. Once again, not exactly significantly "pass these onto my estate". If by some luck you make money from your investments, you have to pay Capital Gains tax. Please enlighten me how you can avoid paying CGT, unless you mean I gamble and lose it all on penny stocks.

        Declaration: I don't own any investment properties, and I don't own any shares.

        • redfox1200 on 13/09/2023 - 07:28
          +3

          no sell no cgt

          • [Deactivated] on 13/09/2023 - 07:37
            +1

            @redfox1200: You pay tax on earnings, if you have an investment where you're not earning its not an investment, thats whats called a depreceating asset. Property is not a car and if you treat it like it is you are stupid and inept.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/09/2023 - 07:37

          If you have property and you are not earning money from it what you have is a depreciating asset and that is stupid on your part.

          • redfox1200 on 13/09/2023 - 07:41
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: how did you get from "no sell no cgt" to not earning anything and being stupid and inept?

            how many investment properties do you own? i think less than 1.

            • [Deactivated] on 13/09/2023 - 07:45
              +1

              @redfox1200: And when the estate bicker and sell the investment they will pay CGT, but who really cares? a few thousand dollars when companies are paying no taxes and syphon billions overseas? priorites people.

      • Drakesy on 12/09/2023 - 20:42
        +1

        Funny thing is the wealthy educated are only too happy to take advantage of this. Its the uneducated poor who are converted easily.

    • tetra on 13/09/2023 - 12:56
      -2

      The money was not taxed when you made the gain.

    • misu p on 13/09/2023 - 23:03
      +5

      Money should never ever be taxed ever again as it was taxed at 1 point. For example I got my wage… that wage came from a company that had a client that paid money for a service, however that client paid taxed already (for that money), so did my company… why am I taxed again?

      In case you find my argument stupid… read most of the arguments on this page again.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2023 - 07:46
        +1

        And how is the estate of a deceased person getting "paid"? Why should they be taxed?
        There is much more money in chasing Google, Amazon, etc for shovelling profits overseas than chasing Mildreds estate for a few bucks in CGT.
        Just remember communism works until you run out of other peoples money.

        • misu p on 14/09/2023 - 12:40
          +1

          The dead person is not getting paid. The kids are getting paid.

          Re: chasing Google, Amazon… sounds great to me… chase them all. Btw, what you are doing is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism, trying to deflect something while pointing out to something else kind of related.

          Regarding communism… quote away mate if that makes you feel smarter, but you did not live it, right? My recollection of it would be my parents telling me (again and again) not to mention to anybody that they are listening to forbidden radio for fear that they would end up in prison… but sure… your platitude sounds good too.

          • [Deactivated] on 14/09/2023 - 16:52

            @misu p: I've had family fight against it and have parents of friends fight and escape it. They lost the right to visit their own country for fear of a life sentence for most of their life.
            Why should my inheritence be scammed off me? There are enough taxes in life, why introduce another greedy grubby money grab? What is the valid reason for doing it other than dead mummy left the kids a few dollars?

            • misu p on 14/09/2023 - 19:18

              @[Deactivated]: At least your argument is not that the money was taxed already. Good progress.

      • CowFrogHorse on 15/09/2023 - 22:13

        You want only one in 100 people or companies to pay tax, and yet you fail to understand that EVERYBODY went to school. EVERYBODY wants free medicare, where do you think the money is going to come from ?

    • Gunnar on 12/09/2023 - 16:49
      +18

      TLDR: poor and disadvantaged people are scum

      • tsunamisurfer on 13/09/2023 - 11:25

        poor and disadvantaged people are scum

        I never said that.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join