Unjust in what way? Similar to the US, the rich here pay the most tax both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of income.
We have exactly zero wealth taxes, estate or gift taxes, etc. We’re definitely not alone either.
The UK doesn’t have wealth tax, but the far-left is pushing for it.
Germany considers wealth taxes unconstitutional as they would be too large for people to handle.
Even India recently scrapped wealth tax.
The problem with a wealth tax is that much of the worth of the super rich isn’t in liquid assets. That means they never really have an accurate idea of their net worth. It could mean the difference of thousands or millions of dollars in any given year.
Unjust in the sense that a person who earns a lifetime’s worth of money will pay for government in the form of taxes, whereas someone who is given a lifetime’s worth of money will pay (almost) nothing in taxes but still benefits from the same government.
There are a few different kinds of wealth tax, some of which certainly are more problematic than others. Inheritance tax is one of the more straight forward and uncomplicated versions. Similarly, most US states and localities levy annual real estate taxes, which is a tax on a specific subset of wealth. I suspect at least some of the places you listed do as well.
But that lifetime’s worth of money was taxed the first time, when its original earner received it as income. The Government already received its due share, and now it just wants a second serving of the same money.
Unless a person’s sole income is their inheritance, they’re going to be subject to taxes elsewhere.
Some very well may. We impose taxes on the sale and purchase of property, though, and localities have their individual rates and levies so revenue is raised at a local level.
There are some potential taxes involved with capital gains if someone dies (say, if their shares or investments are liquidated), but we don’t have straight up inheritance taxes.
There’s just no “your net worth is X, so we’ll take Y” here.
Similarly though, the money the income earner gets taxed on has already been taxed a first time when their employer earned it as income. So prior taxation can’t be sufficient justification to indemnify funds from future taxes, or else essentially no one could be taxed.
Mind you, I am not saying these things as an argument that the government should be taking more total money in taxes. I am suggesting that we could afford to have lower income taxes if our tax policies avoided promoting the hording of wealth as a tax shelter. And given that transfered wealth is at a functional level indistinguishable from income, it basically makes sense to tax it as income, even if you want to avoid the complications that come from other types of wealth taxation.
did you see this excerpt? lol…apparently, trump doesn’t even like to skim. anyway, this book doesn’t seem particularly revelatory. at this point, who except trump stans doesn’t know trump is turning out to be one of the most ignorant and incompetent presidents in US history and the WH is a complete shit show.
case in point. trump irrationally blaming states like a petulant child because they wouldn’t buy in to his false claims and tin-foiled idiocy.
it was a good read and trump getting worked by the chinese is about what one would expect from a man who once said, “i consult myself on foreign policy issues. people tell me i have a pretty good brain.”.
true, even policy makers knew this way back in 1916 when they created the federal income tax and the estate tax, but you know srk when it come focusing on policy rather than on their paranoia about government. they don’t. anyway, an estate tax is just a tax on capital gains. for example, i buy a painting for $1000 back in 1940. i die and leave it in my will to a relative, but the painting is now worth a million dollars. if there was no estate tax. my relative would not have to pay any taxes on the increase in the value of the asset if they chose to sell it. which is why it’s pretty amusing to see people shedding tears over a minor tax that only applies to small number of large, wealthy estates that can afford to pay the tax, but usually hire teams of tax attorneys and accountants (not to mention buying political access) to avoid the tax via loopholes.
But an estate tax is not a capital gains tax. The estate tax would include the painting in the value of the estate, and then X amount would be taxed when the estate is transferred.
If the painting is sold after the fact, then the capital gains tax would be paid separately.
If most people who the tax targets don’t end up paying the tax anyway, then why bother having it around? Sounds like a general waste of everyone’s time.
i mentioned it because unrealized capital gains account for a significant proportion of these large estates and income from capital gains is taxed less and notoriously subject to gaming by accountants and tax attorneys.
or you could improve it by getting rid of the loopholes and lowering the threshold, but that’s a political issue. currently, there was only one party and one president interested in eliminating it for obviously, suspect reasons. it was falsely dressed up as a boon for ordinary americans when it’s really for the benefit of a rather a small group of very wealthy people. again, it’s funny to see people shedding tears over the poor “amish farmers, and truckers” being unfairly taxed by uncle sam.
lol…what a delusional clown. excerpt from the article:
Spoiler
it’s too bad there’s no picture taken at the moment he received the news he lost his alt-right, money bags. lol…trump stans getting finessed by trump and gop donor class. it’s reminiscent of that fraudulent, tea party movement. i’ve always said the best ducks are the ducks that don’t know they’re a duck. interesting excerpt from the article: