-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Samsung Heirs pay 10 billion in inheritance tax. Over half of fortune.
- Thread starter AJUMP23
- Start date
- Status
Nester99
Member
No effect on TFSA as no income tax or cap gain tax from selling those. TFSA is the best thing any government can offer it’s citizens from a tax / investment POV.
Non primary dwelling Real estate held for a long time is the true problem.
ipukespiders
Member
I'd rather the inheritors getting "money for doing nothing" than the government getting "money for doing nothing"
LMJ
Member
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Government should get nothing from inheritance. It's no different than someone giving someone else a gift.
If I gave you $1 million dollars, why should you or me get taxed on it? If that's the case, then anytime a parent gives their kids big money to pay for school or buy a car should be taxed too.
As long as someone pays for capital gains on investments that fine as thats a normal course of making profit on stock, but if it's straight cash from rich uncle Bob to poor niece Sally and Bob already covered paying tax selling stock to give Sally a big fat cheque, zero tax in my books.
To me, that's just another money grab the gov is pulling while doing zero effort.
Good. I just did a quick google check. Canada has no inheritance tax. The only thing that the estate will have to pay for is any taxes owed that year for income filing if it wasnt done when the guy died or is outstanding when he dies. Anything sold off is taxed at the normal applicable tax rates as usual (like capital gains tax) like if he was still alive.
Makes sense to me. Good to see Canada have fair rules where they arent trying to profit off dead people.
If I gave you $1 million dollars, why should you or me get taxed on it? If that's the case, then anytime a parent gives their kids big money to pay for school or buy a car should be taxed too.
As long as someone pays for capital gains on investments that fine as thats a normal course of making profit on stock, but if it's straight cash from rich uncle Bob to poor niece Sally and Bob already covered paying tax selling stock to give Sally a big fat cheque, zero tax in my books.
To me, that's just another money grab the gov is pulling while doing zero effort.
Good. I just did a quick google check. Canada has no inheritance tax. The only thing that the estate will have to pay for is any taxes owed that year for income filing if it wasnt done when the guy died or is outstanding when he dies. Anything sold off is taxed at the normal applicable tax rates as usual (like capital gains tax) like if he was still alive.
Makes sense to me. Good to see Canada have fair rules where they arent trying to profit off dead people.
Last edited:
Quick question on this. So the kids inherited X amount of stock which the SK government says is worth Y per share and the time of that fellows death. Do they actually have to pay in money, selling the stock first, or can they just give the government stock at the value the government says it was worth when the guy died?
The government didn't do nothing, though.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
The Gorby Congressmanz
Banned
I haven't seen a single post on here that has justified a 50% or more inheritance cut. You can gild your age up the river.
StormCell
Member
Leave it to GAF to choose to be concerned on behalf of the ultra rich being taxed on inheriting billions more dollars. 
I detest taxes as much as the next person, but if anyone should be paying butt loads of taxes it's the ultra rich. They have plenty of ways to work around these taxes anyway, and whatever the heirs paid on the inheritance is surely a fraction of what they already have considering their extremely fortunate starting point in life.
I detest taxes as much as the next person, but if anyone should be paying butt loads of taxes it's the ultra rich. They have plenty of ways to work around these taxes anyway, and whatever the heirs paid on the inheritance is surely a fraction of what they already have considering their extremely fortunate starting point in life.
To the person who typed about municipality and why government doesn't ask for discounts, they do. its just that at the local and state level, they're supposed to buy at the price they're being presented to help stimulate their local economy. at the federal level, i'm sure its different.
BigBooper
Member
All that stuff you worked for...you don't own that. Just got a license to use it.
AJUMP23
Member
Just like video games.
DrJohnGalt
Banned
The idiocy here is frightening sometimes. People are ok with it when it's the 'sUpEr RiCh', but it shouldn't matter how wealthy or poor the estate is. The fact that government just swoops in and takes half of it (more or less, depending on where you live) should concern anyone with principles or that cares about property rights. Why are they entitled to that money in the first place? And don't give me some dumb answer like "we need more stop signs".
Nester99
Member
Leave it to GAF to choose to be concerned on behalf of the ultra rich being taxed on inheriting billions more dollars.
I detest taxes as much as the next person, but if anyone should be paying butt loads of taxes it's the ultra rich. They have plenty of ways to work around these taxes anyway, and whatever the heirs paid on the inheritance is surely a fraction of what they already have considering their extremely fortunate starting point in life.
Keep in mind this money has already been taxed once when it was earned.
ipukespiders
Member
I doubt anyone here is really concerned about the ultra rich, more like annoyed (some of us) that such a tax can be also be applied to us commoners.Leave it to GAF to choose to be concerned on behalf of the ultra rich being taxed on inheriting billions more dollars.
I detest taxes as much as the next person, but if anyone should be paying butt loads of taxes it's the ultra rich. They have plenty of ways to work around these taxes anyway, and whatever the heirs paid on the inheritance is surely a fraction of what they already have considering their extremely fortunate starting point in life.
I think it's because the government is the very embodiment of the systems and structures that we humans have created which have given these persons and corporations the very opportunity to amass such wealth in the first place.
Because the government is supposed to be us, the people.
Because we the people can surely see by now that the concentration of extreme wealth, and the resultant power, in the service of the few is shall we say 'not good'. Therefore it should be explicit in the social contract that we the people do not want more concentration of such power, and if a person desires to amass such wealth and power they must do so without the help of, without being enabled by, our systems of civilization - which are not without cost.
QSD
Member
In other words, in a primitive or tribal society there are no "ultra rich" as people that hoard so much wealth are killed and their stuff is redistributed among the rest of the tribe. In order for that not to happen, you need a government which protects property rights, i.e. a police force, an army, a court system etc etc, infrastructure that needs to be paid for.
In the classic hero myth, the hero faces the dragon and then shares the spoils. If he doesn't share, he's not a hero, he's just another ass.
Tams
Member
That really depends on the country, but usually yes.
Most countries have a limit on how many years before death a transfer of wealth can be before it is exempt from inheritance tax.
This can be 'gotten around' by old people transferring the assets that they don't want to be taxed to their children (through trust funds often, although this too can incur taxes), hoping they don't die within the statute, and then either still having enough to live on or relying on the goodwill of their children to give them an allowance.
E-Cat
Member
No one has worked hard enough to earn $10 billion
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
Leave it to GAF to choose to be concerned on behalf of the ultra rich being taxed on inheriting billions more dollars.
It’s more common that you think
Paltheos
Member
Try to think of it this way. Although a student is experiencing a very real gain by his parents paying for schooling (or, well, everything really!) the presumed results of these actions are a clear net positive for society and the unit. A child incapable of supporting himself (or not very well) now has higher education and is a stronger asset to society and better equipped for prospering on their own. Applying a tax here seems unwise as it would set back a presumably important step for millions of citizens.
A government needs funds to function. A government collects funds by levying taxes. What's best to tax? Gains? Alright, by what criteria? Those which are believed to least adversely effect the populace. --- Given that anyone in a position to inherit a significant sum of cash is likely also in a stable position themselves economically, they seem like strong candidates for taxation. If anything, in a capitalist society that accepts taxation, these should be the first people to be taxed as they did not work for their wealth and general income taxes for individuals and other entities should be considered only afterwards, but tbf I haven't really thought that far ahead. It just seems like a natural conclusion to me, so I added it in there.
The Pleasure
Member
They provided a framework for society, police, currency and everything else that gave them the ability to make this wealth. Could they make this money without government serivces loans infrastructure and so forth?
NinjaBoiX
Member
Exactly.
If you still have more money than you could possibly hope to use then what was the plan with the rest anyway?
Shame it’s not going to a good cause but that’s another argument. You should be made to donate it to charity or something.
69% of the Forbes 400 top American billionaires are self-made, not legacy heirs. 70% of generational wealth fails after two generations, 90% after three generations. That encourages billionaires to set up philanthropic trusts to put the majority of their wealth toward the long-term public good on the way out, with the benefit of their financial competence rather than the government’s typical incompetence and inefficiency. Note the success of the Giving Pledge.
It sends a much better signal to entrepreneurs that we'll be able to decide what to do with our money after earning it, rather than the government swooping in like a bitter ex-wife to arbitrarily collect half down the road. A pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship system draws the best and brightest to the US.
But that's the US.
SK is homogeneous and not immigration-focused, and Samsung is the country's largest employer, so they may have different priorities. It's important to be cognizant of extreme wealth disparities in the population or civil unrest can develop. SK only collects $80 billion in income tax revenue per year, so $10 billion is significant.
It sends a much better signal to entrepreneurs that we'll be able to decide what to do with our money after earning it, rather than the government swooping in like a bitter ex-wife to arbitrarily collect half down the road. A pro-business and pro-entrepreneurship system draws the best and brightest to the US.
But that's the US.
SK is homogeneous and not immigration-focused, and Samsung is the country's largest employer, so they may have different priorities. It's important to be cognizant of extreme wealth disparities in the population or civil unrest can develop. SK only collects $80 billion in income tax revenue per year, so $10 billion is significant.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Says who? Who says the people get inheritance is generally in a stable money situation too? That's an assumption.
What if Uncle Bob wants to give a bunch of money to people in the family tree who needs it (like parents paying for kids school which leads to a better society)? Why should those people getting some help get nailed?
Regardless, I believe people pay enough taxes. We all get grilled from all sides. Government needs to do the right thing and look in their own backyard for costs savings (that's why I brought up earlier the whole thing about cost negotiation) and not blowing budgets for sake of getting votes trying to look like robin hood.
Government workers also some reason get extremely good job security and pensions which are giant costs, which government has trouble fixing as they wrote and agreed to their own policies. So it snowballs over decades.
Problem is, government budgets are basically infinite. That's why debts grow forever. And they somehow have zero business acumen even though they got the biggest budgets in the whole country.
There's a general mentality problem of being lax. You cant do that in private sector because no company can run forever on big debts and zero profits. Giant loans and unprofitable years can only last so long before chapter 11. That's why companies act with more urgency and try to get the job done lean.
As one of my coworkers who has worked both public and private sector, he's been in both. He quit and came back to private sector. He just couldnt take the gov workers having a lazy office effort. The guy is hired trying to get the department in line and nobody wants to listen. He comes to my company as a high level boss, does the same thing with his department and people listen as they understand a company runs best being efficient, listening to bosses and making money so people keep jobs and the stock doesnt drop 10% with a bad earnings. There's no job security in private sector unless you got a union deal. So everyone understands the best way to keep a job and make a living is to give a good effort and hope the company does well. And that means earning money and keeping costs low, all while offering a good product.
It doesn't even matter if someone works for public, private, or mowing their lawn. There's a right way of putting in effort to do a decent job. And a wrong way to feel entitled and sit back not giving a shit in hopes someone else will do it or give you free tax money for nothing.
Last edited:
prinz_valium
Member
$750bn in defense every year and $350bn in interests every year
How about you look form the other perspective.
You earn money, it get taxed
You spend money, it get taxed
You invest money, it get taxed
You bequest money, it get taxed
And some people also want to do the following,
You own / have money, it get taxed.
Taxes, are soooo fair.
No matter what you do or don't we steal from your.
The same dollar gets taxed several times over and over again
Last edited:
It's not stealing. The circulation of currency is what keeps the economy moving. Hoarding of wealth by the ultrarich isn't good for anyone but those Rich fuckers.
DeepBreath87
Banned
It’s the only thing keeping inflation in check in the US right now.
prinz_valium
Member
It's coercion but for simplification, theft is a perfectly fine terminology.
So stealing for a good cause.
SF Kosmo
Al Jazeera Special Reporter
What is the justification for generational wealth? It's hard to feel bad for someone being taxed on money they did nothing to earn in the first place. If lottery winners have to pay half their winnings back to the government, so can heirs.
No, charging for a service. Like any other thing we pay for in life.
Last edited:
ipukespiders
Member
Another win for Canada.
(we'll take any win we can get)
QSD
Member
Jeez these taxation = theft people are just insufferable. Maybe they should just have an "opt-out" option - i.e. you don't pay tax but you get no police protection, no fire department, can't drive on the roads, can't send your kids to school etc etc etc. Good luck to you I say!
If you take an ultra-businesslike perspective and ask the question "what is the most efficient way to care for people who cannot take care of themselves" then you'll end up with questions about what quality of life you want to provide for these people? If you want it to be cheap and efficient we could just lock them all in a cage and hurl in some food every so often. If you want them to have at least a decent quality of life, you need to provide an environment which is stable, peaceful and organized. Psychiatric patients can cause chaos in any number of ways so you need a team of employees that cooperates well, can improvise and has a strong sense of internal solidarity. Having a very competitive, business-like mindset isn't actually very conducive in that situation. For example, if there's a lot of internal strife between employees, certain patients (like people with borderline personality disorder) will sense that and start fomenting these divisions. On the other hand, if collegial relationships are good, patients will also sense that and the atmosphere will be more relaxed and peaceful.
If someone from a business background would observe our work, they would probably think we spend too much time socializing with each other and with the patients. But actually that socializing is necessary in order to get a appropriately harmonious environment. Without it, more of our patients would fall back into psychosis and addiction, costing society more money in the end.
In a lot of cases, comparing the services a government provides directly to a business is awkward. Think about stuff like policing or mental health care. There are perhaps all kinds of ways to cut corners and save money in the short run, but there will be consequences to this (both foreseeable and unforeseeable) that may end up costing more money in the end. I myself work in mental health care (assisted living), it's a private company but the funding comes from the government mostly, so I'm a government employee by proxy.
If you take an ultra-businesslike perspective and ask the question "what is the most efficient way to care for people who cannot take care of themselves" then you'll end up with questions about what quality of life you want to provide for these people? If you want it to be cheap and efficient we could just lock them all in a cage and hurl in some food every so often. If you want them to have at least a decent quality of life, you need to provide an environment which is stable, peaceful and organized. Psychiatric patients can cause chaos in any number of ways so you need a team of employees that cooperates well, can improvise and has a strong sense of internal solidarity. Having a very competitive, business-like mindset isn't actually very conducive in that situation. For example, if there's a lot of internal strife between employees, certain patients (like people with borderline personality disorder) will sense that and start fomenting these divisions. On the other hand, if collegial relationships are good, patients will also sense that and the atmosphere will be more relaxed and peaceful.
If someone from a business background would observe our work, they would probably think we spend too much time socializing with each other and with the patients. But actually that socializing is necessary in order to get a appropriately harmonious environment. Without it, more of our patients would fall back into psychosis and addiction, costing society more money in the end.
Please, this is stealing from a dead person in order to give it someone else. Taxation is not suppose to be the redistribution of wealth. It is suppose to keep the government going. You can't even give your kids large sums of money if your rich without the government putting its hand out.
The rich don't pay their fair share when alive, so take it when they're dead.
Last edited:
Fuck off with this crap. None of the things you mentioned are funded by what is essentially a death tax.
the stupidity never stops
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked