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

    • ausdday on 13/09/2023 - 20:31
      +1

      The best thing is, taxpayer is paying politician and their ministry/department staffers a hell lot of money, so that they can spend millions more to hire external consultants (e.g. pwc) to solve their own problems.

      It's like paying a bunch of chefs to sit in office to order takeaway

    • infinite on 13/09/2023 - 21:34
      +1

      That 380mil is only the tip of the iceberg.

      The $70mil worth of people recruited into the public service to run the games and the projects surrounding it now all completely cancelled,have been guaranteed permanent positions in the state government and will be re-deployed elsewhere or simply just paid until another job is created for them.

  • AustriaBargain on 12/09/2023 - 18:26
    -2

    I support it. Giving kids tax free money what are they going to do, waste or or pump most of it into the property market. Wasting it actually helps the country more as a whole. Putting a five million dollar inheritance straight into the property market hurts renters and first home buyers.

    • Benoffie on 12/09/2023 - 23:33
      +2

      You mean invest it in the infrastructure that keeps this country ticking?

      I always laugh when people want to pillage Super and investors. Super is the largest investor in the country.

      Do we honestly believe all tiers of government will provide better returns on that cash?

    • ausdday on 13/09/2023 - 20:47

      Putting a five million dollar inheritance straight into the property market hurts renters and first home buyers.

      Not when we have a better housing policy, e.g. Singapore.

    • infinite on 13/09/2023 - 21:36
      +1

      Peak financial ignorance.

      They inherit assets and wealth that already exists as assets or investments, they don't just inherit a magic pile of millions in cash to go and spend on something new.

  • deme on 12/09/2023 - 18:41
    +1

    Get this Murdoch crap out of here.

    You fools lap it up, when reality the only reason Murdoch is talking about it, is it hurts him and the ultra rich.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/09/2023 - 18:55
      +4

      Murdoch is an US citizen and his wealth is mostly in the US where they have a death tax…. - this has nothing to do with Murdoch it is a direct quote from Danielle Wood dead set did you even read the article

    • garddn on 15/09/2023 - 07:41

      Murdoch derangement syndrome

  • debb on 12/09/2023 - 18:54
    +12

    Any bequest that I may be able to give to my loved ones and charities has already been taxed to death.

    Please get your hands off a piece of my savings and let me die in peace. Amen.

    • caitsith01 on 13/09/2023 - 12:06
      +1

      You sure about that? Lots of boomers sitting on houses they bought for $20-100k which are now worth a fortune and which will not be taxed because they are a primary residence… not to mention super tax concessions.

      • debb on 14/09/2023 - 20:04

        Good point about super concessions. Happy to give back concessions received. No worries!

        • turbochris on 18/09/2023 - 09:49

          BuT tHaTs A dEaTh TaX!!!

          • debb on 22/09/2023 - 11:02

            @turbochris: Don't necessarily need to be done after death. The govt can put in place a system to retrieve super concessions where if, after retirement, people reach an income/asset level, super concessions can gradually be returned. Similar concept to HECS. Perhaps?

            • turbochris on 23/09/2023 - 10:55
              +1

              @debb: Not a bad idea, but in the current media environment and with a No-alition, unlikely to get off the ground.

  • kranix on 12/09/2023 - 19:49
    +2

    The Economist looked at this (amongst other times) a few years ago.

    (If you can't read the article, delete your cookies or use Private/Incognito mode in your browser)

    It posits a conundrum:

    Yet this trend towards trifling or zero estate taxes ought to give pause. Such levies pit two vital liberal principles against each other. One is that governments should leave people to dispose of their wealth as they see fit. The other is that a permanent, hereditary elite makes a society unhealthy and unfair. … A sensible discussion is hard when inheritance taxes prompt such a visceral reaction. But their erosion has attracted too little debate. A fair and efficient tax system would seek to include inheritance taxes, not eliminate them.

    • caitsith01 on 13/09/2023 - 12:07

      Yep, all these people screeching about "my money that I've already paid tax on" need to address wealth inequality. What's the plan? The "bootstraps" system is not working. Unless their philosphy is "poor people deserve to stay poor forever" they need to do more than oppose reform.

      • infinite on 13/09/2023 - 21:41
        +3

        How are those people meant to make the financially ignorant and lazy suddenly hard working and motivated ?

        Wealth inequality is a basic part of life that will always exist, because you will always have a range of intelligence, ingenuity and work-ethic across every population.

        • brendanm on 14/09/2023 - 07:37
          +2

          Thankyou, reality seems hard for some people.

        • caitsith01 on 14/09/2023 - 10:01
          -2

          Right, and philosophically, why shouldn't it reset for each generation so that everyone at least has a fair chance?

      • ausdday on 14/09/2023 - 22:53
        -1

        Have you seen any poor people become richer, or rich people becomes poorer after the government introduce new tax?

        Rich people will find ways to avoid paying tax. Only a very small portion of tax collected will end up in the hand of the poor, most of them are just wasted on fat cats.

  • Baysew on 12/09/2023 - 19:59
    +2

    Productivity Commission is plagued by ‘group think’: ACTU

    The peak union body says the Productivity Commission is stacked with former staffers to Liberal politicians and business groups, leading to group think and a lack of proper independence.

    • infinite on 13/09/2023 - 21:42
      +3

      LOL, says the organization consisting of 100% Labor party members.

  • mskeggs on 12/09/2023 - 20:38
    +1

    Nobody likes paying tax, but if we insist on refusing any new tax, we will have to pay more existing taxes (assuming we don’t suddenly want fewer or poorer quality services).
    I don’t see any reason not to have wealth related taxes, as the very wealthy are the most able to bear a higher tax burden with no meaningful lifestyle impact.
    Any arrangement that places the tax burden in another way will by definition impact people less able to bear it than the wealthy.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/09/2023 - 20:40
      +14

      Nobody likes paying tax, but if we insist on refusing any new tax

      i might be the only one but i personally think there is way too much emphasis on tax payers and not enough emphasis on the governments using the 'tax dollars' efficiently and effectively

      if there was some kind of a reverse ATO which ensured every tax dollar was 'spent' efficiency i think we would be dissolving the government every 6mo

      Dan Andrews would probably be on a life sentence for sheer stupidity of wasting tax payer funds

      • Dominus on 12/09/2023 - 21:10
        +3

        Your notion of a 'reverse ATO' exists in multiple forms already - the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) being the most notable, but equally the entire Senate Estimates process exists specifically to scrutinise budget estimates for every department and its agencies. If you google Australian government audit and oversight you'll quickly find almost every department has publicly available annual reports, budgets, audit & risk charters etc.

        Outside of that, entire departments like Treasury and the Productivity Commission exist to try and make the most of our tax dollars and weigh in on the impacts (pro & con) for new measures or taxes. Appreciate very few people actually want to read or engage with any of this, but it all does exist if people want to inform themselves. Fully acknowledge we're not perfect but compared to many countries Australia is far more transparent and accountable than many other nations are.

        • burningrage on 12/09/2023 - 21:16
          +5

          So when Dan Andrews wasted $380m on cancelling Commonwealth games and $1b in East West Freeway, you would think they have gone through the Treasury and Productivity Commission, wouldn't you?

          I think you are putting too much faith in institutions that are appointed by the Govt of the day. Example: Most super funds are run by ex Labor staffers/premiers such as Greg Combet (ex staffer of ISA) and Wayne Swan (CBus).

        • OzBarAnon on 13/09/2023 - 14:05
          +2

          And yet countless millions still get flushed down the toilet every year

        • infinite on 13/09/2023 - 21:45

          Both groups are utterly toothless tigers who have no capacity to enforce any finding, outcome, or put into effect any change what so ever.

          A reverse ATO would control government spending, revoke funds if required and force departments and individuals to be financially accountable for their spending.

    • mrvaluepack on 13/09/2023 - 13:45

      Flawed thinking. The rich will find a way to hide more stuff the more tax govs put on them. There will be much more assets held in tax free havens and they will hire creative global accountants to ensure that these taxes have minimal impact to them.

      • mskeggs on 13/09/2023 - 15:01
        +1

        So no downside? Either we increase the tax take, or the wealthy shift all their assets elsewhere. Every time a tax increase is mooted, people say, “the rich will simply flee”. Yet they either have done so already, or they can see the benefits of Australia.

        Let’s give it a try. Maybe it will turn out that moving an iron ore mine to the Bahamas is trickier than we think, and the wealthy will end up paying more tax.

    • sakurashu on 13/09/2023 - 19:17

      Why do we have to pay more existing taxes for the same services? (excluding indexation)

      • mskeggs on 13/09/2023 - 20:39
        +1

        WPI usually grows faster than CPI, and most government services are heavily linked to wages because they are people doing things. While income taxes are obviously wages linked, gst and company taxes are not, and usually grow lower than WPI.
        So even if everything was even, our government budget expenditures would grow faster than CPI.
        But everything isn't even, and demographics are pushing a bulging number of baby boomers into costly healthcare and aged care phases of their life, while they are also reaching retirement with no income tax. So dropping collections and increasing expenditures to care for them

        And, if course, old people "paid taxes all their lives" and now must not be denied.

  • mskeggs on 12/09/2023 - 22:06
    +4

    Everyone agrees that the government wastes spending, yet everybody also points to different areas they would like to see cut.
    Empty vessels criticise public service pay or their own hobby horse (regularly some programme making up 0.001% of the budget) but scream if their favourite services are cut.
    The reality is nobody proposing substantial budget cuts will be elected or re-elected.
    So how do you pay for these things? You need to collect taxes.

  • Benoffie on 12/09/2023 - 23:28
    +5

    This country went to great lengths to abolish death and inherentance taxes which cripple people in the UK. No way will I accept their reintroduction.
    Now the UK etc are abolishing them, Id rather shift my kit OS than give more to these money grubbers

  • netjock on 12/09/2023 - 23:41
    +2

    Only catches those who are not rich enough to afford complex tax structures to avoid it. You need to fly under the radar (say make $200k a year when stage 3 kicks in, save, shift your assets, stay under the $3m super super tax) or make multiple lifetime changing money (high tens of millions to allow you to offshore).

    In the UK the new Duke of Wellington avoided billions of pounds of inheritance tax the guardian

    There is also word on the grape vines the government is going to increase pension age further which is basically a stealth tax for those who don't have savings / super and need to work an extra 2 years (and pay income tax)

  • Eeples on 12/09/2023 - 23:41
    +2

    ‘Death tax’ even in quotes gives your hand away.

    No-one (just about) supports a ‘death tax’ (I’ll humour you and put it in quotes too) a heriditrary tax… well maybe,… maybe let’s hear some numbers….

    $5,000,000 exempt, some allowances for farms….

    Ummm… 30% tax above $5 milllion (some allowance for farms)… how does that sound…?

    Your Answer: DEATH TAXES NO WAY!

    (Good grief).

    Edit: that’s the problem when you call it a death tax; you make it emotive, and sadly, you know it.

    Edit: When the Australian system of government and economy allows one person to leave over $5 million dollars to their children… then surely that system ought to be paid back some of it (eg. 30% over $5million, some allowance for farms).

    • The Hawk on 13/09/2023 - 10:54

      I was going to post much the same.

      Exempt the family home if you've lived in it for more than two years and then tax everything above 10 times the average Australian house price. That would mean the vast vast VAST majority of "average" people would never have this apply, but potentially at least, capture the massive wealth generated and retained by the very wealthy at say 50%.

      We can argue the actual numbers up or down, but the wealthy control the votes and the poor people are easily swayed because they aspire to be wealthy so don't want a tax that "might" apply to them if they ever make it!

      Of course, this probably only captures the 'moderately' wealthy people, the uber wealthy just avoid all tax anyway.

    • thewiseone on 13/09/2023 - 13:51
      +1

      I don't think many people would be against a $5 million + inheritance/death tax.
      The problem is this is almost definitely not going to be the way it will be executed.

      It will probably be a far lower threshold and d*ck the middle class once again while the wealthy evade it.

  • garddn on 13/09/2023 - 07:39
    +1

    Those in favour of the tax are more than free to donate their inheritance to charity when the time comes. No one is stopping you.

    • freefall101 on 13/09/2023 - 18:45
      +3

      Those against any sort of tax are free to leave Australia and live overseas if they don't want to pay them. No one is stopping them.

      Although IMO I'd rather see an end to kicking the tax can down the road and taxing wealth accumulation. CGT triggers on death and it's 100% of the gain, and make sure old people pay a fair share of their aged care costs if they have the money. It costs us hundreds of thousands to give them care, then they kick the bucket and the kids get the cash instead.

      No one would push that idea forward though, pandering to the oldies is a requirement in Australia.

      • Trance N Dance on 13/09/2023 - 19:16

        Aged care is already means tested, the issue is the people who are wise on the facts offload their holdings at least 5 years before seeking the assistance money and then qualify. Doesn't matter what sort of tax you place, people will find a way to take advantage of the system.

      • sakurashu on 13/09/2023 - 19:19
        +1

        Cheers I'll leave before I die so I don't have to pay this rubbish

      • garddn on 13/09/2023 - 19:32
        +1

        That's not what I'm saying though is it. It isn't a tax yet. And if people want to donate their inheritance to charity or donate their estate, they are already free to and no one is stopping them. It's already an option if people want to.
        You must love extra taxes.

        I have no children. I'll be spending everything.
        Even if it means i spend it all on blow and hookers when I'm a centenarian. It's my money.

      • tasty-falafel on 15/09/2023 - 15:05

        Just because someone is against this tax doesn't mean they are against all tax.

  • mskeggs on 13/09/2023 - 07:45
    +6

    So many people of limited means here defending the moneyed classes interests.
    If we tax wealth at, say, 0.5% above $100 million dollars, many more people will have timely medical care, a place to live, better schools, better transport and all the other services society provides.
    Nobody subject to that tax will suffer lower standards for any of those things. They won’t even have to rein in their art collection, yacht buying or jet setting.

    Because the cost of government services is increasing, if you argue against taxing the wealthy more, you are arguing for increased taxes on everyone else.

    • Ch34p on 13/09/2023 - 13:10
      +2

      It's not even taxing the wealthy - because they just died. It's taxing the children of the super wealthy - people who, by "virtue" of simply being born to the right parents, have an enormous financial head start. There's no question of them being "deserving" or having "worked hard". I don't understand why there is such a visceral reaction against it as it almost certainly won't affect you, it will just affect the elite.

      The best arguments against it are pragmatic - it will be too difficult to enforce, the truly elite will structure their assets to avoid it, governments tend to waste money so what's the point, and so on - I'm not an accountant so hard for me to make a judgement on those things. As for the government wasting money, I agree that's probably true, but we should fix that issue on its own rather than conflate it with the issue of a death tax.

      • sakurashu on 13/09/2023 - 19:21

        Why tax only on death then? Why not simply have a general wealth tax?

      • netsurfer on 13/09/2023 - 21:33
        +2

        People born to the right parents generally have an enormous financial head start get their head start way before their wealthy parents die.

        Thinking this will be a fair tax and effective against super rich is wishful thinking. The super rich are awesome at avoiding tax (their accountants are). Our politicians are also great at avoiding income tax. They use the loopholes in our tax systems themselves (politicians belong to the rich group). It is only the hard working middle class which don't earn enough to hire a team of accountants will be worse off. If you think our politicians will only tax the super rich on this tax, you are dreaming.

        For the super rich, the introduction of inheritance tax will simply bring forward their succession plans and their accountants will be busier.

        It is a lazy attempt from our politicians to milk more money out of people. If they were to introduce this tax, they will give themselves another pay rise.

        Our politicians should close the tax loopholes they use themselves to dodge income tax first before introducing inheritance tax because those loopholes are effective to dodge inheritance tax also.

        • gromit on 15/09/2023 - 16:23

          exactly, the people this will hit hard is NOT the wealthy and super rich, they will simply structure their financial affairs to avoid it, those that will pay the death tax will be the middle class and below. It is a moronic tax, doubly so when their are so many other areas they could concentrate their efforts on if they really want to increase government income or simply they could learn to not be so wasteful with the huge revenue they already get.

    • brendanm on 14/09/2023 - 07:43

      It won't be done on $100m+. They will put it at $1m+, because they are "millionaires". This will catch pretty much anyone who has a house and more than $2 in the bank when they die. The actual wealthy will avoid it, like the other taxes they avoid. The middle class get shafted once more.

  • Peza on 13/09/2023 - 08:02

    As many have said, the 'death tax' will only disadvantage the less fortunate..

    The wealthier individuals will (i.e. can afford) to restructure their assets to avoid/minimise any loss in the most creative ways.

    They can afford the best advisors.. setting up companies and trusts to hold the assets.. so when they pass, technically they are worthless.

    • mskeggs on 13/09/2023 - 15:03
      +1

      Seems hard to believe a tax on the wealthy would disadvantage the less fortunate.
      Perhaps rather than give up in case it fails, we could try it out and see if it succeeds? Much preferable to me to give it a go, rather than just accept higher income taxes or increased GST.

  • Myone888 on 13/09/2023 - 09:00
    +4

    Govt shud spend their time in recovering billions$ given to big corporations who got job keeper and other payments. Nowadays these companies are making record profits!

    • Grunntt on 13/09/2023 - 13:16

      Govt shud spend their time in recovering billions$ given to big corporations who got job keeper and other payments. Nowadays these companies are making record profits!

      This is the comment that everyone seems to be ignoring in the rush to blame individuals with more assets than them for all of the ills in society.

      The amount of money being sent overseas without a single cent of tax being paid here is astronomical - if there was the political will to sort that issue there would be no need to keep blaming (the whichever is the group you don't belong to) for the poor and unfairly treated in society (pick your flavour of the month).

      • CowFrogHorse on 14/09/2023 - 20:37
        +1

        Blame the media in trying to brainwash Australians into worshipping their corporate leaders.

        Every day the media is dumbing down people to accept that the hard work for the companies in the community is only the result of the corporate leaders,.. and of course with that agenda they want to pay the little people who actually did the work less and less. Part of this agenda is naturally not taxing the mega rich, just like they do in America.

        Its the R agenda, the companies have no money to pay minimum wages, but they have money to pay tens of million bonuses to the board, and thats the agenda we see in the SMH. Go read their cover pages…its always about the Qantas new ceo this or that board member saving the company, its never about how hard all the engineers, staff and others work aka the people who actually make the planes run.

  • Cluster on 13/09/2023 - 09:30
    +1

    The inherited money has already been taxed. Why is it fair to tax it again?

    What if the dead person used trusts and other investment vehicles to avoid taxes? Well, how about fixing the system while the person is alive rather than waiting until they die?

    • CowFrogHorse on 14/09/2023 - 20:33

      Where do you think the money for the pension comes from ?

      You do realise all those free hospital visits, doctors, medicines, home care etc isnt free… each pensioner costs over a $1000 a week when you add it all up.

      Unbelievable…

  • Willy Beamish on 13/09/2023 - 10:29
    +2

    We should start by not paying people to sit on their ass all day. Too many Australians are getting paid our tax money to not work, they are also getting our tax money to pay for their homes and literally everything else and they live that way their entire lives. No more.

    • Eeples on 13/09/2023 - 12:46
      +1

      Who is getting ‘our tax money’ to pay off their homes ?

      • TooSerious2 on 13/09/2023 - 19:25
        +2

        PWC partners/staff

    • garddn on 13/09/2023 - 19:37
      -2

      I know a fugee and his parents have never had jobs. Never will. Nice house though.
      Only anecdotal but I've heard of many others doing the same, Australians too

    • CowFrogHorse on 15/09/2023 - 22:08

      Yet again anotgher person who doesnt see the big picture.

      Unfortunately there will always be bludgers, its cheaper to pay them the dole etc, than have an increased crime way put them in jail.

      Life is a bit more complicated than pretending that there are no consequences for not having welfare, just look at America. No welfare, and far more criminals and violence.

  • Chewy2221 on 13/09/2023 - 10:48
    +1

    Whether we like it or not, Australia is a country of homeowners. Any suggestion of death tax, property tax, negative gearing changes etc will put downward pressure on property prices and may even allow first home buyers to get a foothold on the property ladder. However any new taxes will be howled down by the majority of homeowners. It is a difficult problem that few politicians seem keen to tackle.

  • webtonmoy on 13/09/2023 - 11:36
    +3

    I feel that the Government is very inept and inefficient in managing money and I do not want to handover more - living or dead.

    We already pay once when we earn, and then again when we spend it. That should be enough. Before they take another cent, they first need to establish that they have not wasted any of the taxpayer money.

  • Willy Beamish on 13/09/2023 - 11:53
    -1

    NSW Government should stop giving out free money to people that keep their heaters and shit on all day too, look up eapa and you cant imagine how badly it is being abused

  • bomberswarm2 on 13/09/2023 - 11:56
    -1

    As the sole heir of assets which will be worth over $3,000,000 by then, no I completely oppose this tax.

    • garddn on 13/09/2023 - 20:04

      Nice!
      That's awesome.
      Those that are opposed must show envy.
      Labor loves the politics of envy, as do commies

  • OzBarAnon on 13/09/2023 - 12:07

    The reality is that people have far more loyalty to their own family than the government. They certainly have more control over their own family too. For this reason, people are (rightfully and reasonably) more inclined to pass on their accumulated wealth to those they love and know, rather than this bureaucratic body that probably has often acted against the interests of the deceased. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that the money from the taxes will all go to prudent spending on the interests of the nation rather than just a continuation of the corruption that politicians already engage in to enrich themselves and their circles.

    • Eeples on 13/09/2023 - 12:44
      -1

      Passing some of the accumulated wealth back to the system that provides the stable economic, political and social systems which enabled that wealth accumulation; makes sense.

      • OzBarAnon on 13/09/2023 - 13:51
        +4

        They already did that all of the other times that they were taxed beforehand

        • Eeples on 13/09/2023 - 18:51
          -2

          Well, the super wealthly; perhaps not. As tax minimisation seems to be highly effective.

          If you admit tax paid during a lifetime is a good thing as it provides stability or government, economy, provision of infrastructure, law and order… which enables someone to become wealthy….. then paying tax after death (say tax applying to amounts over $10,000,000) then surely that is a good thing too.

          • OzBarAnon on 13/09/2023 - 19:11
            +1

            @Eeples: Using that same logic, I can justify doubling tax rates across the board because more tax=good, which is obviously ridiculous.

            • Eeples on 14/09/2023 - 12:33

              @OzBarAnon: Maybe not doubling.

              I would rather pay 15% gst to fund Medicare type dentistry (clean, fillings and extractions).

              Similarly I would support 30% inheritance tax for amounts over $10million dollars for similar funding.

  • thewiseone on 13/09/2023 - 12:14
    +1

    As is the case with most taxes the ultra wealthy will loophole their way out of their this death tax and the eroding middle class will erode even further. The government would be far better off addressing corporate tax evasion and taxing people who own 47 properties more appropriately rather than subsidising their investments. But hey, that's probably too hard.

    • Eeples on 13/09/2023 - 12:49

      I think the government can walk and chew gum at the same time.

      • thewiseone on 13/09/2023 - 13:49

        Are you telling me you believe in the competence of our government?

        • Eeples on 13/09/2023 - 18:53
          +1

          I’m telling you the government can do more than one thing at a time.

  • Freitag on 13/09/2023 - 12:55
    +1

    Guarantee if they bring in a inheritance tax the wealthy will find ways to avoid it and it will make a further divide between to very rich and the average such as family trusts.

    They will also have to add a tax on gifting money or people could just gift large amounts as they age or decline in health.

  • Black Brown Blue on 13/09/2023 - 13:03
    +7

    When parents have already purchased house from taxed income. Why should I pay tax again if I inherit the asset.
    Purely greedy government.

    • Ch34p on 13/09/2023 - 13:12
      -7

      Did you do anything to "deserve" your inheritance? Is it good for society for there to be a class of people, different simply because they came from a wealthy family? Doesn't that go against the idea of a meritocracy?

      • Trance N Dance on 13/09/2023 - 13:40
        +2

        The flipside would then be making the case that if someone manages to be successful and amass wealth that they must divulge all their possessions to the state/everyone else just because they died.

        • LFO on 13/09/2023 - 15:49
          +2

          Real wisdom says that wealth should be distributed before death.
          When the potential beneficiaries are most in need and it will be more helpful to them.

          Now explain that to greedy seniors.

      • OzBarAnon on 13/09/2023 - 13:59
        +5

        "Did you do anything to deserve inheritance?"
        Yes, purely by nature of the fact that the owners of the property/assets have opted to pass it down. If I were to buy a gift for my child, does my child not deserve to have rights over said gift, or is it just for a third party to take it away just because?
        An attack on inheritance de facto the endorsement of hedonism and short-term thinking. Why invest and save for a future beyond your own lifetime when the faceless state will take it all away? The only way to control what happens to your money would be to piss it all away while you're alive. Moreover, you're presenting the very idea of saving and investing to benefit your kin as immoral and unfair to others. So what would the moral course of action be? Pissing it all away on yourself?

        • Ch34p on 13/09/2023 - 15:38
          +3

          I think you've misunderstood what a gift is. A gift is, by definition, unearned. If it was earned, then it is wages or reward. Whether it is right for a gift to be taken away is another matter - that's exactly what we're debating.

          But I do take your point about hedonism and short-term thinking - that's why this kind of tax only would apply to the truly wealthy, we're talking estates of >$10mil kind of thing. Happy to have indexation apply to it too. At that point, the hedonism would happen regardless of whether there is a death tax or not, you don't have to look hard at the lifestyles of the truly wealthy (not that I begrudge them that - this isn't a matter taking that away from them while they are living). At that point we're no longer talking about "saving for your kids' future", but amassing intergenerational wealth. At no point did I say that saving and investing to benefit your kin is immoral. I'm simply saying that it would be better for society to not have a class of super-rich people simply because their parents were extremely wealthy.

        • LFO on 18/09/2023 - 12:51
          +1

          "Pissing it all away on yourself?"

          The wise alternative, rather, is to "consume" your acquired wealth WHILST being alive.

          Certainly not on the proverbial drugs, fast cars and hot women but in all and many other ways to spend lots that benefit others even a lot more.

    • garddn on 13/09/2023 - 20:06

      Plus stamp duty and everything else that goes into it

  • joelmuzz on 13/09/2023 - 15:09
    -3

    I think its a fair enough form of tax, as far as tax goes.
    Stuff has to be paid for and taking some of dead peoples money is not a bad way to collect some. vs the alternative of squeezing wage incomes even harder.

    It shouldnt apply to partners or financially dependant children and debts should be paid out pre-tax calculation.

    Should be more efficiency in the spending of tax revenue though, starting with cuts to government perks like private jet travel. PM can slum it in jetStar economy like everyone else, keeps them intouch.

    • CowFrogHorse on 14/09/2023 - 20:28

      Perks to politicians while they might sound like a lot of money in the big picture they are nothing.

      Try and look a bit harder at where the government is spending billions on stupid projects. Look at the new tram from Parra to Olympic Park. Whatas it up to now $5B ?

      If you collected all the tax for every rider who takes this tram for all their lives the tram still wouldnt be paid for.

      5 suburbs with something like a few thousnad per suburb, thats insane, spending $1b per suburb so a 1000 people can ride the tram. Do the maths its not hard to see why no public company would start such a dumb money wasting scheme. Each rider of this tram is costing tax payers $1M EACH, im not talking each trip im talking that its costing 1M to provide this tram service for each person who uses it.

      More stupid corporate subsidies like this is whats sucking Australian tax payer money…and its growing all the time and people are too simple actually champion them.

  • ninnypoop on 13/09/2023 - 19:13
    +1

    After @Trying2SaveABuck first weak attempt to incite a racial debate with his Indigenous only ticket post (which was banned by mods BTW for being a troll - you'll see he's currently in the 'penalty box' ). He is also bringing up a done-to-death scare tactic of the coalition against labour.

    Mods should perma ban this moron. He needs to stick to his far right, q anon, white supremacy echo chambers where he belongs

    • brendanm on 14/09/2023 - 07:47
      +1

      How tolerant of you.

      • ninnypoop on 16/09/2023 - 04:29

        What do you mean? What should I be tolerant of?

        • brendanm on 16/09/2023 - 16:43
          +1

          Different opinions or values.

  • h4zey on 13/09/2023 - 20:28

    well you know what they say, nothing is certain except death and taxes.

  • xavster on 13/09/2023 - 22:13
    +1

    Don't worry, the rich wont be paying the inheritance tax.

    It will be the poor and middle class paying it.

    The rich has off shore asset holding vehicles and trusts specifically for this scenario.

    • MrThing on 14/09/2023 - 07:19

      This is pretty much how it works in the UK

  • Seraphin7 on 13/09/2023 - 23:09
    +4

    A death tax is just an egregious sting on those that have been prudent and thrifty over their life.

    It's basically saying we didn't sting you enough when you earned it, when you spent it, when you invested it, or just held onto an asset … despite quite possibly paying income tax, GST, CGT, stamp duty, contributions tax, company tax, land tax, and any number of rates, excises, levies, contributions, and surcharges along the way.

    For mine, governments have more than enough mechanisms to take my hard earned off me when I'm alive, they can kindly #%$& right off once I'm dead.

    • Earl of Lemongrab on 14/09/2023 - 08:15

      100% - Extra sting if there's an unexpected death in the family.

  • misu p on 13/09/2023 - 23:10
    -1

    What kind of "not smart" kids do you guys have that you have to leave them money? Can't they earn their own money? I keep telling my folks to spend their money, I can earn my own.

    • MrThing on 14/09/2023 - 07:18
      +1

      Selfish entitled little brats

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join