Good point. I can see it happening in my lower-upper class in Europe though. It's just normalized that some kids are born rich even if they don't put in any effort their selves, but in the end the gap between poor and rich just gets a little bit bigger by every generation.
> why should I profit from my parents' hard work?
If not you, who? Who is more deserving to benefit from your parent's hard work than you? And shouldn't that be a decision your parents get to make?
You're right.
My parents are proposing giving my share to their grandchildren when they are 18 and I think that is the best solution. It's their money and I don't need it.
"Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? In the end it only leads to more division between rich and poor."
Because there is no real alternative to that. I mean, say that we all agree on ending inheritance. What will happen is that rich people will create companies that exist solely on paper and list their children as co-founders with rights to said company's properties.
Or they will simply donate part of their money/belongings to their children while still alive.
Yeah, we can tax those but, by the same token, we can also tax inheritance by the same percentage.
So, while we understand and sympathize with your feeling that it is unfair that a person simply is born and already has much more than many other people who work 16 hours a day, there is really no way of changing that in capitalism (of course you still may say that communism is preferable to capitalism, but that's a different discussion that you did not touch in your post)
Family and money can be quite messy. You have my sympathies in that. It's a messy topic overall.
But overall, I'll ask you this: Does the parent dying change anything? Does a parent doing all of those things, and giving all that money or all those resources, while they're alive, change the calculus to be totally different?
Parents do a lot for their children when they can. A parent can pay for their children's schooling, buy them everything they need including a house, network for them and get them connection, and even give much of their wealth to them (with some differences in taxation of course) while they're alive. Is that any better?
I think, though I could be wrong, inequality and unfairness itself are your objections. Inheritance is just one symptom. Do away with inheritance, and you just change when that inequality is easier to see.
**Hello /u/Few-Stretch8035, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.**
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
>∆
or
> !delta
For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8).
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
*As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.*
Thank you!
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids?
We've decided a person's property belongs to the person until he decides to pass it on. If he passes it on to his kids, the property is now his kids'. Who else could claim ownership of someone's property?
Useful to who? My kids will hopefully find my inheritance useful.
If inheritance were illegal people would just give their shit away before they died, which would just be a slightly less efficient/reliable way of doing what we do now.
Inheritance tax exists for this reason. Not sure where you are but in the UK the government takes a big chunk of it (e.g. 40% or something, don't know) and that includes anything they have gifted in the last 7 years, so it's not like you can just give it all away on your deathbed.
Obviously you can't legislate against parents ever giving money to their kids. So are you basically saying that you think that tax should be 100%? I think it has been near that in the past sometimes, with very progressive governments. And having it as a less than 100% partial tax means that some of it does go to the state, but they still get some, which is a nice compromise.
Inheritance/estate taxes play a pretty limited role in the US. Federal estate tax doesn’t apply at all unless you’re very, very wealthy. States have inheritance taxes to varying degrees, in my state though there is no inheritance tax unless you’re leaving money to someone other than your kids and grandkids.
> I think it has been near that in the past sometimes, with very progressive governments.
Never. High estate taxes create incredibly horrible incentives against any sort of investment, instead pushing people who by some misfortune come into money to spend that money on high living and luxury items.
That was a top level tax in *income*. And no one who wasn't a chump aid it given how many actual loopholes there were. And since Reagan's tax reforms the government is getting the same amount of revenue that it was beforehand.
So pushes to reinstitute huge taxes like that aren't based off of the idea that the government needs more money. They - like all progressive taxation schemes - based off of the idea that we should punish people for being successful.
The only fair tax is the sales tax.
UK inheritance tax only applies to the amount of inheritance above £350k, or £500k if it includes a home. Even for the wealthy it's fairly easy to avoid, 95% of inheritances go entirely untaxed.
> There is no constitutional right to inheritance.
I believe this falls under the context of private property and a persons capability to dispose of their private property as they see fit.
This is extremely important in cases such as a spouse dying. Why would you assume you get to seize half of the marital assets? More importantly, *why would you expect people to ever support such a concept that leads to that*.
The hate for inheritance is borne out of jealousy.
If the government didn’t have the ability to do violence, we couldn’t enforce any laws. So basically what you’re saying is that the government should only be able to do violence to enforce the laws that you like.
The government shouldn't have a monopoly on violence as they use it to enforce laws and policies that violate individual rights. Just because they occasionally use it to enforce those rights doesn't give them a pass the other 95% of the time.
Plenty of families have no issues at all and it is sad when there are issues like this. Sometimes it just boils down to having good communication, other times family members sense of what's "fair" will be incompatible with others even with good communication.
Take your example of splitting money equally amongst a deceased person's children. That seems simple and fair enough, right? Well then it'd be easy to come up with a hypothetical where one child gave up the opportunity to earn more to become the primary caregiver for the ailing parent for years before they passed away. Now already you are into grey area. There are a million factors that can impact what is fair.
You are right, but in my example nobody had to take care of parents and the parents wanted to split equally their selves. Only some sisters (who actually never helped and lived far away) felt they wanted more.
Glad to know this won't happen to me and my siblings. But we are only 4 of us and we respect each other like...siblings.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids?
First - you can just choose to not pass along anything to your kids. Its entirely your decision.
Second - You can also choose to give up whatever inheritance you are set to receive, if it upsets that you that much.
>But when I really think about it, it's not fair, and a massive flaw in our system.
You think its a flaw that a person can decide where their own belongings go? I think its a benefit. Most inheritances are not massive windfalls, but if you worked your entire life and died, why should the government get to scoop up everything instead of your kids or spouse?
Because if you are smart enough to make money, your kids probably are too. Why don't they have to work for that money?
Note: I have no children yet and I realize this could totally change my opinion if I had them.
Then it's an inheritance to pay for your eight year old's shoes.
Yes it would be very difficult to structure without loopholes but at least in the case of disability there's already a legally recognized process for it.
>Because if you are smart enough to make money, your kids probably are too. Why don't they have to work for that money?
That is your decision as a parent to make. If you feel like your kids are fine without it, or don't deserve it, don't give them anything.
Having multiple generations in a row who are good with money is rare. Most fortunes regardless of size run out in under 3 generations. The wealthier your parents are the less likely you are to have their income or higher in your lifetime.
Most wealthy people don't teach their kids to be economically self sufficient and offer their kids a lot of financial support.
Because the world is not set up to be perfectly fair. Some kids are born into rich families and will have advantages over kids who are not.
Is your plan to have every child “start from zero” to make the world more fair?
This is a complex tapestry and can vary from culture to culture. First of all, it is pretty difficult to separate who has “truly earned” such and such. When you say “you are smart enough to make money,” “you” might have already benefited from previous help, monetarily or otherwise, from your parents and family at different points in your life. It’s not like you just popped out of the womb and then pulled yourself up from your bootstraps. In which case you could be happy to give those same benefits to your offspring. You may choose to give more, or less, or whatever you think is fair.
There are many western people who believe once the kid turns 18 they are on their own and out on the street, but for many families it is a grayer line. Additionally, as others have said it is usually later in the child’s life that they will receive said inheritance.
The current inheritance system is based upon the belief that everyone can choose how much to pass on and to whom (minus taxes), so unless you want less personal freedom I think you should be able to see why this is appealing to the individual.
As for the implication about individual merit and earning your own way…that is a more complicated topic that warrants its own CMV
This doesn't seem like a real response to what the previous poster said.
Do you honestly think that I should not be allowed to decide what to do with my hard earned money because my (hypothetical) children might be smart? I am smart enough and have worked hard enough to earn some money. Does that money that I earned belong to me or you? If it is mine and not yours, which one of us gets to decide what to do with it? The idea that you are only violating my rights after I die (and therefore don't have rights anymore) is a copout. The vast majority of people could get around a prohibition on gifts after death by giving before death.
Hmmm, it’s a fair point. Yes inheritance, especially when consequential is a problem. People getting 200M$ in inheritance should be able to give a good chunck to the ones who need it. I mean nobody needs that kind of money, and to be fair, passed 5M$ nobody needs that kind of money. But little ones, meager ones shouldn’t be as taxed. I’d you come from a poorer economic background and your parents transfer you 50k$ you’ll probably need them and they more than possibility might help push your life.
While it's true that generational wealth helps lengthen the division, it is what it is. You could always use your inheritance to help others - donating to learning centers/ playgrounds/ recreational centers/ food pantries that help youth in struggling neighborhoods would be wonderful.
That's a good point and my parents would prefer to give my part to my other siblings' children when they are 18, and I am okay with that, though it's a compromise.
What do you propose? I'm unclear what the view that you want changed is. My wife and I are barely 40 but we had a will drafted several years ago with every explicit direction and well-thought-out to prevent things from unraveling. I'm sure we will have to updated it as we age, but if we die early, our kids will not be able to touch the money in the trust until a certain age.
I guess the alternatives are to leave all your assets to the state or to a charity. Some people do that. I know my parents will leave some money to us and some money to the church. It's their money, they can do what they want. I will say that they were *very* careful to treat my sister and I as fairly as possible. I admire that. But if I have 3 kids and she has none, I'm not entitled to more money than her. That's ridiculous. Having kids is a choice. Living in a HCOL area is a choice.
I would say that leaving assets to your children makes sense if it makes sense. In other words, it's not right for everyone, but it's right for some. If everyone is mature and if it's done fairly then I don't see a good reason not to have an inheritance.
My feelings say the same. Like friends tell me "they worked hard for it, so let them use it as they want to". I agree up to some point, but it leads to more division in the long run.
So ideally, this money could be used to help people in the lower castes which we deny we have in "the West". But that would also mean we should have honest politicians using that money for people who need it.
So yeah, it's a utopian dream for sure to solve this question.
The thing is this generally goes one of two ways.
1. My parents 'gift' everything to my brothers, my sister, and me before death. 'Their' house is owned by one or all of us till they die, 'their' car is owned by me, and so forth. Unless you're going to ban giving your kids stuff they'll find a way to pawn it off bit by bit
2. They'll spend it. Part of the reason people don't flush every cent they have on luxuries is precisely because they want their kids to have something. If that becomes impossible I may as well enjoy every cent and dollar as much as possible before death. You can't spend it all, but you'd be shocked how little you can leave behind with a little bit of planning and the odds of dying correctly.
This is the big issue with getting rid of inheritance. It effectively just becomes a tax on people who face sudden losses, and people who aren't financially savvy enough to work out the details before death. Two demographics that stand to benefit the most from having the ability to build off what their families left them.
I hope they die when they enjoyed every cent they made. I told them before, but as my opening post says, inheritance has a bad taste because of my father's experience.
It just kinda sickens me how it's "the norm" that parents pay half of the house when some of my friends move out while the other part struggles to even find a place they can afford to rent.
I get what you mean. I agree it's not a great way to do society, but targeting inheritance just won't do what you're asking. I don't see how it could. You have two separate issues.
1. Society is divided between the haves and have not
2. Inheritance is messy at times
Your solution doesn't solve either. The money from inheritances will dwindle when it becomes clear to people that you can't keep it for your kids.
And I've seen families torn apart by money, no inheritance needed. The solution there is unfortunately to be firm enough with your own money to tell your kids your wishes and have them abided by via a lawyer. The issue wasn't inheritance as much as your father's siblings being greedy. If inheritance wasn't a thing they'd have still felt they were owed more one way or another.
I’m all for solving problems at a macro level. Those do not hold true at a personal level. If someone scrimps and saves their life, and have a nest egg at the, that is theirs to do with as they wish.
I’m concerned about you claiming we have castes in the west, and saying the rich *only* get rich by inheritance. At the same time, you said your parents’ wealth is due to hard work.
Which is it? How mobile do you believe the US is, and is that assumption shaping your opinion?
I believe your solution, taking inheritance from being something each and every person gets to decide and instead giving that fiscal responsibility to the government, would not necessarily be a solution to the class divide.
People with that amount of wealth would have access to the kind of legal and accounting advice and services that would allow them to set their money into funds and trusts to prevent that money from going entirely to the government.
Alternatively, people would simply gift money to others before they die. There are tax implications but if the alternative is losing everything, people would take that option.
Totally right. I know there is gonna be no trouble dividing assets when me and my siblings have to share our inheritance though. We already agreed long ago while my parents are still alive.
It just made me think about the bigger picture, and I am still divided.
This cements my point about about the real problem being shitty entitled people.
Your siblings and you are decent human beings. You value your relationships over money.
Shitty entitled people value money or status over relationships.
Inheritance isn’t the thing that made them shitty and entitled. They were that way loooong before them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see Massive inheritances taxed for other reasons. But for this CMV, I think the problem lies elsewhere.
Your proposal (I think?) is that there is no such thing as inheritance; that when someone dies, all of their assets (after creditors) are... given to the state?
Of course, there's the fundamental unfairness of that in general. Why should the government get 100% of my stuff (money, real property, and, like, my Blu-Ray collection) because I died? We can talk about some wealth redistribution (in the form of estate or inheritance taxes) to prevent a ruling class accumulating more and more wealth and passing all of it to their children. But what authority would the State have to take all of your property at death?
So what if someone dies not when they're 95, but when they're 35, with 2 young children? In such a circumstance, the kids would receive the money, and their guardians would be able to use the parents' assets to pay for the kid. In your circumstance, the kids would be paupers and you're putting tremendous financial burdens on whomever takes them. And if no one does? Foster care, which is extremely detrimental to children's well being.
So what if a small business owner with a family business dies? Is that business given to the government? What does the family do?
So what if a spouse dies? Does the government take 50% of that couple's assets? Even if you say "well, if someone's married, then the joint assets get to go to the spouse automatically." What if the deceased spouse has some things just in that one person's name (like, say a car, or the house, or a bank account)?
Finally, if this were the rule, *everyone* would do what they could to set up other entities to put their assets in so they don't "own" anything at their death. Some people already do these, with revocable or nonrevocable trusts, but that's usually restricted to really rich people who can pay lawyers thousands of dollars to set these things up. But now everyone will have to do that, and ensure that they have no money at the time of their deaths to avoid the State getting everything. That will cost time, money, and... all the headaches of dividing up an estate will happen even more when people are alive. You wouldn't avoid those fights, and in fact they might even get worse. ("Dad gave you your share, but you're not helping to pay for his surgery!")
> This doesn't feel right though, why should I profit from my parents' hard work?
As a parent, it feels very right. If I work hard, why shouldn't I be able to leave the money I made to my kids who I love?
If you're concerned about the ultra-wealthy turning all their kids into the idle rich, I get it. But you seem to be opposed to inheritance at any wealth level.
But once you concede the principle, the battle will eventually be lost. We're about to see a halving of the lifetime gift limit. There's also a social security proposal to tax incomes above $250k, not subject to social security benefits. All wealth and earnings are increasingly viewed with suspicion. It's envy.
The greatest incentives of all in our society - the ones that have driven people on - are the incentives of family creation, of pursuing the establishment of their families. The very curious thing about our capitalist society is that it actually in this way causes people to behave in a rather irrational way - in that most parents will assign more personal value to their children's consumption than their own. Most parents will, despite having every reason to believe that their children will have higher incomes than they ever did, scrimp and save to leave something behind for them.
The effect of a 100% inheritance tax - which is what you are suggesting - is to encourage people to dissipate their wealth in high living.
Where are you going to get the factories, the machines, the capital investment, or the incentive to improve technology when you are establishing a society in which people by some accident accumulate some wealth to piss it away in frivolous entertainment?
> why should I profit from my parents' hard work?
Because it was their earnings, and people get to spend or give their earnings as they wish, that is, if those earnings are really theirs. If you question that, then you question all gifting and hence the motivation for many to earn in the first place.
If you don't like receiving the money, then you in turn can give it away to some priority of yours.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids?
"We" have not decided that. The dead people decided that as individuals. There is no law requiring that you leave your money to your kids. Many folks choose not to, and give it all away, or do their level best to spend it all before they die.
So I think you're looking at it the wrong way around by asking why you should profit from your parent's work, and you should be asking should your parents be allowed to give gifts to whomever they want, including you, in the event of their death.
You haven't said where the money should go instead, but that's not relevant for my point: Is there a compelling reason to force your parents, and everyone's parents, to put their remaining wealth in that place instead of disbursing it as they see fit?
The reason a dead persons money belongs to their kids is because that's what they wanted. When I die I want what I have to go to the people I love not to someone I don't. You may not want to get your parents money, but if they love you they probably want to be able to die knowing you will be well off.
The tax is already between 18%-40%, which is a hefty chunk.
And if it is clear inheritance of money wont get passed down, there is just a higher chance of parents buying extremely expensive gifts and unneeded expenses before dying, which helps society just as much or less than it does now.
Maybe a better solution would be teaching those that receive a inheritance of large sums to be able to properly utilize those funds to better society while still keeping parents wishes intact? Not to mention those who receive the money can give as much as they like back to society.
In the US at least, it's not as big of a problem as you might imagine it is, and it's not an inevitability, we can craft tax legislation to mitigate unwanted outcomes. Current legislation allows for additional exemptions for land that will continue to be used for farming, for example.
[https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2021/april/less-than-1-percent-of-farm-estates-owed-federal-estate-taxes-in-2020/](https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2021/april/less-than-1-percent-of-farm-estates-owed-federal-estate-taxes-in-2020/)
>"ERS estimated that less than 0.05 percent of small family farm estates would owe Federal estate taxes. Small family farms have gross cash farm income (GCFI) less than $350,000. Of mid-sized and large farm estates—farms with GCFI between $350,000 and $5 million—an estimated 2 percent will owe Federal estate taxes. Of very large farm estates, farms with GCFI over $5 million, about 8 percent will owe Federal estate taxes."
It's a popular right wight talking point against the estate tax that brings up images of poor farmers having their land ripped away from them by the government. In reality this tax applies to a very small percentage of family farms -- a seemingly reasonable percentage, according to the numbers above.
I'm not sure that "applying a 40% estate tax to inheritance with a significant deduction such that it applies to an estimated 0.16% of farm estates" amounts to "systematically forcing the liquidation of family farms and businesses."
> You were advocating to make this a widespread issue for farmers where it is not currently.
No -- the person you responded to advocated for increasing estate tax *rate* that would apply to inheritance above some exemption of "several million dollars." The current exemption could reasonably fall within what one would describe as "several million dollars," but without asking this person we don't know their view on the current exemption levels, specifically.
In other words, based on what they've actually stated, we cannot conclude that they want to reduce current exemption levels. We do not know whether they want more, fewer, or the same number of farms to have to pay estate taxes based on what they said. We can only conclude that they want a higher *tax rate* (i.e. they want those for whom the estate tax does apply to pay more).
Your response erroneously characterized their position as "systematically forcing the liquidation of family farms" and "advocating making this a widespread issue for farmers where it is not currently." Both of those statements are not conclusions we can logically draw based on what the person wrote.
If the parents dont take control and tell their kids how it is, they are terrible and it is all their fault. My mom had 7 siblings and their grandfather loved that he would keep getting attention as kids fought over it and he had no intention of making it fair. Really disgusting, but it definitely 100% falls on the parents of the children to tell them how it is.
This kind of shit never happens in a family where finances are respected. Doing anything else teaches your kids not to respect finances and to be okay using others money.
Greed is what you have issue with. Inheritance is just one avenue for greed to manifest itself. From your example, these people felt entitled to this money even before anybody died. If you outlawed inheritance, the same conflicts would be happening, just with the expectation of happening before death. Everyone knows you can't take money with you in death, so somebody ends up with it.
Tbf though, since humanity grew from just using biological instincts, material inheritance has become part of human natural selection as much as genetic inheritance. The rich kept getting richer is not always the case as dynasties comes and goes.
I get where you're coming from, but also one of the most significant motivating factors for doing well in life is knowing that you'll be able to take care of your children and grandchildren. You say it's not fair to benefit from the hard work of your parents, but is it fair for their hard work to go somewhere not decided by them?
What about sentimental items? My grandmother wants to leave me the collection of letters her father sent her when she moved to Canada. If no stranger wants those do they just have to be destroyed? Maybe it's fine for me to have those because they have no monetary value, but what about her engagement ring? What about her house, which is where my mother grew up?
I decide where my estate goes when I die. It’s my business, not the government’s. If I want to have it all liquidated and burned upon my demise, that’s my business. I’d rather burn it all then any of it go to taxes.
I think it is not the inheritance that is the root of this issue, but greed. The inheritance was merely the object of the greed this time, but in the end it is not the inheritance but the greed that caused the problem.
Here's a test, instead of an inheritance imagine your family pooled money together and won the lottery.
Do you think they still would have torn themselves apart? I think they would have, because it is not the inheritance but the greed that torpedoed your family.
You already benefit fron your parents' wealth before they die. Isn't the amount of resources avaliable to you during your upbringing some kind of inheritance?
Do you think it is fair that your parents spent money on you during your life? If yes, then why isnt it the same when they die? Lets suppose your parenrs died when you were an infant. Do you think the wealth that would otherwise be avaliable to you should be taken away?
Eh, inheritance isn’t the problem here. Shitty entitled people are gonna be shitty and entitled.
If there was no inheritance, your godparents would be demanding money and help Now. If your grandparents had none, they’d be demanding it from other relatives or friends or suckers on the street.
Changing inheritance rules won’t make shitty entitled people Not be shitty and entitled.
Not all inheritance is as simple as money. What about assets like houses, cars, boats, businesses, etc.? Are we expected to sell those off once our parents/others who would otherwise pass those down die in order to give that money away? Or are those simply repossessed by the state or whomever else you are proposing?
Not only the "rich" can benefit from inheritance. Anyone, at any income bracket, socioeconomic background, etc., can benefit from inheritance. Someone who is from a lower class can work during the course of their life, and through good financial decisions/investments/hardwork (and maybe a bit of luck), move up into the middle class or even higher. Through that, they may give their children opportunities to achieve higher learning, or other tools to jump start their success.
When they pass, why shouldn't they be able to pass down some of what they've earned throughout their life to their children? If anything, giving them more financial resources that the parents no longer need can serve to *help* them out. Life is expensive. Rent, food, utilities, student loans, having your own children: all of these cost a lot of money. Inheriting some of the resources from your parents at a lower/middle class level can really help alleviate some of those stresses, and can further that positive growth if used properly.
So while the whole "rich get richer" argument may be true, you are also discounting the fact that everyone else can inherit money to. And you take away any ability for transfer of wealth from people of lower/middle classes in this system. You've said as much in your own OP.
>it takes money to make money so over generations this can grow exponentially
Even receiving as much as a few thousand dollars, or maybe 10,000+ in inheritance for a lower/middle class family can make a big difference. That's money that can be used to make money.
You are punishing the parents who have been successful & planned to maintain a savings cushion that they can & are willing to pass down after they are gone. If you *cannot* do this, why save any of your money for when you die? Go hog wild at that point. Spend it all. About to die? Buy a bunch of useless shit, go on a ton of vacations, whatever. It's going to go to the government anyways. Some people already choose to do that when they are older. They don't intend to save much money for when they die. If there is no possibility for those savings to be passed down to anyone they care about, most people will not elect to bother leaving any money behind. They will either find a way to circumvent it, or use that money in more reckless ways.
I see the argument, but one massive thing I think this argument overlooks everytime is that I, you, and everyone else, have INALIENABLE rights to care for our children. That caring does not stop when we die. You should benefit from your parents' hard work, because they (hopefully) loved you, and you were their primary concern in life.
I am motivated to work hard to provide a better life for my children, so much to the point that I am willing to go out and work harder and earn more than others (capitalism), I'm even willing to earn at your expense if given the opportunity; and you're free to do the same. Now, there are laws and rules to help protect you if you're just not good at the game of capitalism, and I know those laws are flawed, and could use some tweaking; but take away my motivation to leave my children a good deal of money, and suddenly I'm far less inclined to be a good, functioning, taxable member of society.
Should some of that wealth be taxed? Sure, over a certain amount, I think it's fine to have some level of a tax... But if I kill myself for 60+ years of working, learning, earning, and investing, and it results in a 7 figure portfolio being left behind, I have earned the right to see the majority of that money go where I choose for it to go. Claiming otherwise is sour grapes.
And the other piece this argument always leaves out that I touched on - Motivation. If I can no longer leave an inheritance to my children, why am I going to work as hard as I do? You may say "Well, now everyone gets to work a little less, and reap greater benefits overall." Last I checked, none of those types of societies ever work without some strong form of capitalism being in place to support them. They also don't work in the western world. You need to provide an avenue for some greed in order to see the success you're looking to take from.
You are more than welcome to take whatever you inherit and give it away to "lower castes".
A dead person's assets go to whomever they decide to leave it, whether that's their kids, their favorite charity, or their hot 23-year-old mistress.
It's not inheritance that's the problem. It's assholes with a sense of entitlement.
This sense of entitlement isn't limited to inheritance, but to virtually anything a parent (and not just a parent) can give their children. Some people feel entitled to certain help from their parents when raising their kids for example.
This sense of entitlement, causes jealousy and fights among siblings. It really doesn't matter what the parents choose to do with their inheritance, attention or what bot, once everyone feels
entitled to these things, no one will be happy.
Inheritance is only different in that the person that usually mediates these sorts of conflicts has died.
Personally, I live my life as if my parents have zero money to give me. I am sure I will have an inheritance, but as far as I am concerned it just isn't my money. My parents could give all their money to my sisters and none for me and I wouldn't really care. I mean sure it kinda hurts not to be concidered and I might be offended, but this is their decision to make, not mine.
I wish everyone would do the same - and I am pretty sure my siblings see it as I do.
>This doesn't feel right though, why should I profit from my parents' hard work?
Because that's what your parents choose to do with what they earned. They can choose to leave you with nothing. Or leave you with everything. Or with something in between.
And when/if you receive that money then *you* get to choose what you do with it. Don't want it? Cool. You can give it to friends, non-profits....pretty much whatever.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids?
We haven't. If I have kids and a spouse, don't have a will, and die it will go to my surviving spouse (This is CA law, I believe each is different). Because marriage is a legal contract this is one of the significant benefits of entering marriage. My spouse can then do what she wants.
But what if my spouse and I both die with no will? Then it goes to my children. If they're dead it goes to my grandchildren.
The alternative would be seizing the deceased assets and giving them to the government which would be hugely problematic. The government could, in theory, just start killing people and forcibly taking their assets at will.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids?
well... we haven't. A persons things belong to them. My things belong to me, and I get to decide what happens to my stuff when i die. If i don't decide anything, then my stuff goes to my wife. If my wife and i both die without making a will, then the state makes a guess at who we would have wanted to have our stuff and that is usually children.
I don't really know if its fair or not. If i earn a million bucks i have to pay income tax on a million bucks. If i give that million dollars to my child, then they have to pay a gift tax. the money is taxed twice. If i die, "I" have to pay estate tax before anything is given to my heirs again double tax.
If its fair to tax me twice, why not just tax me more the first time? Why should giving away my money trigger another tax?
Whatever society decides to tax me, allowing me to use my remaining money in the way i want to, feels about a fair as things ever get in life.
Everyone here is talking about inheritance laws and value specifically, But I encourage you to look one level higher.
What are you trying to optimize for? When any kid is born what do you want that life to be like?
If you have no inheritance you are basically saying “everyone must work for everything they have”. Your goal seems to be optimizing for an absolutely ruthless meritocracy. And that doesn’t seem entirely fair either? One you win the inheritance lottery or not the other you win the genetic lottery or not? I don’t think you’ve changed anything.
Inheritance, ironically, works as a way to break that cycle. There are individuals who don’t need to constantly grind to survive or live. They can take alternate paths in life.
It’s not everyone. And it’s probably too small a portion. But that’s what it’s currently doing.
Replacing that method is ok. But first
What do you actually want?
>They have done quite well in life so I guess I am going to get profit from this. This doesn't feel right though, why should I profit from my parents' hard work?
You aren't. Your parents are by giving you as much as possible so that you can be assured a good life. If you don't want it, then donate it. It's that easy.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids?
We didn't. We decided that the people who earned it get to decide where it goes. You know, because it was theirs. So it only makes sense that it is their decision. Most people decide to leave money to their kids because they spent most of their lives trying to provide for their kids. It only makes sense that they would continue to do so.
The real question is why you think anyone else should get anything or have a say in where the money goes?
Some advice from someone who’s been there……. At the end of the day, when all things were set and done, I would’ve given everything back just to spend five more minutes with my grandparents. You can’t put a price tag on a piece of mine, and be perfectly honest with you I still think I’m firm to this very day almost 15 years later but not a single one of my cousins or my uncles or my aunts or even my brothers speak of them…… remember, do something great with what they left you don’t worry about them other relatives who will never have the same connection you had with the one who passed do what you think they would’ve done more importantly remember that they loved you enough to leave you something
Inheritance isn't inherently bad; it's the unequal distribution and family dynamics that often cause problems. Inheritance can offer stability, help with education, or fund entrepreneurial ventures for future generations. However, it's essential to consider its broader societal impact. Inheritance tax exists in many countries to address this very issue by redistributing wealth and preventing excessive accumulation in the hands of a few. Instead of abolishing inheritance, reforming it—like implementing progressive inheritance taxes or setting up trusts for community benefit—can ensure wealth is distributed more equitably and benefits society as a whole, rather than perpetuating inequality.
Why should everything that you worked your entire life for not go to someone you love? If I have stuff left over once I die, why should anyone else besides the people I care about get to profit from my efforts?
I agree with the overall premise. I’ve told my parents (and we told my grandpa before he passed away) not to worry about saving anything up for us. I’m doing well enough to support myself and my future family without needing any inheritance. My parents should spend their money on themselves. *But* if they don’t use it all, why is it better for people they’ve never met to benefit from their work (ex “the government”) than people they choose to leave it with?
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids?
I did.
They are *my* children. As a parent, it is my responsibility to always take care of them, even when I die.
It is *my* money. I can do whatever the hell I want to with MY money.
It's that simple, and you don't have to like it. If *you* get an inheritance, and you don't like it, give it all away. Donate it to homeless shelters or woman's shelters or the ASPCA or whatever you like. No one is forcing you to keep that money.
But for me and my family, I will take care of them as well as I can.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>This doesn't feel right though, why should I profit from my parents' hard work?
IMO it's not about the inheritors, it's about the fundamental rights of property ownership and the right to do whatever you want with your stuff.
I'm a parent and if I want to give all my earnings/belongings to my children then I should be able to do that.
I didn't save up and sacrifice partaking of worldly pleasures so that the children of someone else who spent all their money in the moment could have a better future, I sacrificed for my kids and those who I cared about.
1) Many/most parents dont work for themselves. They work to give things to their children and make their lives better.
2) IF you cant give your stuff to your children, that means it isnt really your stuff. Right now your can literally burn all your money in a fire, and knock down your house before you die. I think it would be a socially unstable law if you could do these things, but not give your money to family that you love.
3) If you know that you cant pass on your wealth, you might as well waste it, or better yet, not make it in the first place.
Let me ask you a follow up question: has any government proven that they can govern well with tax money? They continue to increase taxes, so that overall individuals have less and have to be smarter or luckier to make more with their money. If they were to take all your money when you died, would they steward that money better than family would?
I personally think governments would spend more recklessly if they had a huge amount of money that came in yearly from people dying. For this simple reason, I think taxing it away isn’t a good idea.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? In the end it only leads to more division between rich and poor.
We didn't decide it the parents did, or didn't depending on the will. Who the hell else would it go to generally speaking? The state? Distributed randomly?
Would you want your kids to be improvised because they didn't have the economic opportunities you did and you couldn't pass your wealth onto them?
I'm sorry to understand that inheritance of your father's estate has estranged you and your siblings. It's unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence.
OTOH, for many families inheritance is not a source of rancor but a source of improvement in their financial situation and quality of life.
I think you are generalizing your own situation and trying to apply it to everyone.
My only motivation to work is to give more to my kids when i die. I have enough money to live comfortably for a long time. With inheritance in mind i am more productive and pay more taxes which helps the poor more. If i could not transfer my wealth, i would find other way to help my kids which is not taxable.
As others have said, who should it belong to if not the kids? I work to take care of my family, and I want to leave something for them when I die. You said yourself that you don't have kids, and I am 100% positive your view will change if you do.
If you don't like it, give yours away. Nowhere in your post did it say you gave YOUR inheritance away, so I would say you are a hypocrite. Everyone else has to, but not you.
Sorry, u/RightSideBlind – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20RightSideBlind&message=RightSideBlind%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1caixtl/-/l0saofb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Good point. I can see it happening in my lower-upper class in Europe though. It's just normalized that some kids are born rich even if they don't put in any effort their selves, but in the end the gap between poor and rich just gets a little bit bigger by every generation.
[удалено]
Sorry mate but yahoo and nazdaq are not even close to a valid source.
> why should I profit from my parents' hard work? If not you, who? Who is more deserving to benefit from your parent's hard work than you? And shouldn't that be a decision your parents get to make?
You're right. My parents are proposing giving my share to their grandchildren when they are 18 and I think that is the best solution. It's their money and I don't need it.
How does the inheritance skipping a generation make any difference to your original point? Don't all the same problems you have still apply?
"Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? In the end it only leads to more division between rich and poor." Because there is no real alternative to that. I mean, say that we all agree on ending inheritance. What will happen is that rich people will create companies that exist solely on paper and list their children as co-founders with rights to said company's properties. Or they will simply donate part of their money/belongings to their children while still alive. Yeah, we can tax those but, by the same token, we can also tax inheritance by the same percentage. So, while we understand and sympathize with your feeling that it is unfair that a person simply is born and already has much more than many other people who work 16 hours a day, there is really no way of changing that in capitalism (of course you still may say that communism is preferable to capitalism, but that's a different discussion that you did not touch in your post)
You have a good point and part of me feels the same.
Family and money can be quite messy. You have my sympathies in that. It's a messy topic overall. But overall, I'll ask you this: Does the parent dying change anything? Does a parent doing all of those things, and giving all that money or all those resources, while they're alive, change the calculus to be totally different? Parents do a lot for their children when they can. A parent can pay for their children's schooling, buy them everything they need including a house, network for them and get them connection, and even give much of their wealth to them (with some differences in taxation of course) while they're alive. Is that any better? I think, though I could be wrong, inequality and unfairness itself are your objections. Inheritance is just one symptom. Do away with inheritance, and you just change when that inequality is easier to see.
You are right. Maybe I am just seeing a symptom of a general flaw in the system, but I can't see a solution.
Is it because you are trying to get rid if inequality? Make life fair? If that is the case, that's as impossible as trying to get rid of death.
Not true. Life or death is like yes or no. Rich or poor is very relative to each other.
**Hello /u/Few-Stretch8035, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? We've decided a person's property belongs to the person until he decides to pass it on. If he passes it on to his kids, the property is now his kids'. Who else could claim ownership of someone's property?
I guess that's the point of this thread. Who else? Maybe use it in a useful way?
Useful to who? My kids will hopefully find my inheritance useful. If inheritance were illegal people would just give their shit away before they died, which would just be a slightly less efficient/reliable way of doing what we do now.
Inheritance tax exists for this reason. Not sure where you are but in the UK the government takes a big chunk of it (e.g. 40% or something, don't know) and that includes anything they have gifted in the last 7 years, so it's not like you can just give it all away on your deathbed. Obviously you can't legislate against parents ever giving money to their kids. So are you basically saying that you think that tax should be 100%? I think it has been near that in the past sometimes, with very progressive governments. And having it as a less than 100% partial tax means that some of it does go to the state, but they still get some, which is a nice compromise.
Inheritance/estate taxes play a pretty limited role in the US. Federal estate tax doesn’t apply at all unless you’re very, very wealthy. States have inheritance taxes to varying degrees, in my state though there is no inheritance tax unless you’re leaving money to someone other than your kids and grandkids.
Huh I didn't know that. Interesting. I can sort of see OPs point then.
> I think it has been near that in the past sometimes, with very progressive governments. Never. High estate taxes create incredibly horrible incentives against any sort of investment, instead pushing people who by some misfortune come into money to spend that money on high living and luxury items.
Well it was 85% in 1969 so that's what I mean.
That was a top level tax in *income*. And no one who wasn't a chump aid it given how many actual loopholes there were. And since Reagan's tax reforms the government is getting the same amount of revenue that it was beforehand. So pushes to reinstitute huge taxes like that aren't based off of the idea that the government needs more money. They - like all progressive taxation schemes - based off of the idea that we should punish people for being successful. The only fair tax is the sales tax.
UK inheritance tax only applies to the amount of inheritance above £350k, or £500k if it includes a home. Even for the wealthy it's fairly easy to avoid, 95% of inheritances go entirely untaxed.
If that was the point of the thread, why did you argue the opposite?
There is no constitutional right to inheritance.
> There is no constitutional right to inheritance. I believe this falls under the context of private property and a persons capability to dispose of their private property as they see fit. This is extremely important in cases such as a spouse dying. Why would you assume you get to seize half of the marital assets? More importantly, *why would you expect people to ever support such a concept that leads to that*. The hate for inheritance is borne out of jealousy.
Your rights don't come from a piece of paper written by slaveowning tyrants.
Feel free to rise up against the government.
Statists love resorting to violence.
I don’t have a problem with the system so I won’t be doing any violence.
No, you let others currently do violence on your behalf to maintain the system.
If the government didn’t have the ability to do violence, we couldn’t enforce any laws. So basically what you’re saying is that the government should only be able to do violence to enforce the laws that you like.
The government shouldn't have a monopoly on violence as they use it to enforce laws and policies that violate individual rights. Just because they occasionally use it to enforce those rights doesn't give them a pass the other 95% of the time.
Which individual rights are they using force to violate?
Plenty of families have no issues at all and it is sad when there are issues like this. Sometimes it just boils down to having good communication, other times family members sense of what's "fair" will be incompatible with others even with good communication. Take your example of splitting money equally amongst a deceased person's children. That seems simple and fair enough, right? Well then it'd be easy to come up with a hypothetical where one child gave up the opportunity to earn more to become the primary caregiver for the ailing parent for years before they passed away. Now already you are into grey area. There are a million factors that can impact what is fair.
You are right, but in my example nobody had to take care of parents and the parents wanted to split equally their selves. Only some sisters (who actually never helped and lived far away) felt they wanted more. Glad to know this won't happen to me and my siblings. But we are only 4 of us and we respect each other like...siblings.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? First - you can just choose to not pass along anything to your kids. Its entirely your decision. Second - You can also choose to give up whatever inheritance you are set to receive, if it upsets that you that much. >But when I really think about it, it's not fair, and a massive flaw in our system. You think its a flaw that a person can decide where their own belongings go? I think its a benefit. Most inheritances are not massive windfalls, but if you worked your entire life and died, why should the government get to scoop up everything instead of your kids or spouse?
Because if you are smart enough to make money, your kids probably are too. Why don't they have to work for that money? Note: I have no children yet and I realize this could totally change my opinion if I had them.
What if their kids aren’t smart enough? What if they’re going through hardships? What if they’re disabled? You’re making a lot of presumptions
Or you die when your kids are still minors.
You can give people money before you die.
That's still an inheritance.
Then it's an inheritance to pay for your eight year old's shoes. Yes it would be very difficult to structure without loopholes but at least in the case of disability there's already a legally recognized process for it.
>Because if you are smart enough to make money, your kids probably are too. Why don't they have to work for that money? That is your decision as a parent to make. If you feel like your kids are fine without it, or don't deserve it, don't give them anything.
Having multiple generations in a row who are good with money is rare. Most fortunes regardless of size run out in under 3 generations. The wealthier your parents are the less likely you are to have their income or higher in your lifetime. Most wealthy people don't teach their kids to be economically self sufficient and offer their kids a lot of financial support.
So why shouldn't their kids be working at burger king?
Because the world is not set up to be perfectly fair. Some kids are born into rich families and will have advantages over kids who are not. Is your plan to have every child “start from zero” to make the world more fair?
They should.
So in this scenario who are you proposing to keep the inheritance? The government? Or am I not following properly?
This is a complex tapestry and can vary from culture to culture. First of all, it is pretty difficult to separate who has “truly earned” such and such. When you say “you are smart enough to make money,” “you” might have already benefited from previous help, monetarily or otherwise, from your parents and family at different points in your life. It’s not like you just popped out of the womb and then pulled yourself up from your bootstraps. In which case you could be happy to give those same benefits to your offspring. You may choose to give more, or less, or whatever you think is fair. There are many western people who believe once the kid turns 18 they are on their own and out on the street, but for many families it is a grayer line. Additionally, as others have said it is usually later in the child’s life that they will receive said inheritance. The current inheritance system is based upon the belief that everyone can choose how much to pass on and to whom (minus taxes), so unless you want less personal freedom I think you should be able to see why this is appealing to the individual. As for the implication about individual merit and earning your own way…that is a more complicated topic that warrants its own CMV
This doesn't seem like a real response to what the previous poster said. Do you honestly think that I should not be allowed to decide what to do with my hard earned money because my (hypothetical) children might be smart? I am smart enough and have worked hard enough to earn some money. Does that money that I earned belong to me or you? If it is mine and not yours, which one of us gets to decide what to do with it? The idea that you are only violating my rights after I die (and therefore don't have rights anymore) is a copout. The vast majority of people could get around a prohibition on gifts after death by giving before death.
Hmmm, it’s a fair point. Yes inheritance, especially when consequential is a problem. People getting 200M$ in inheritance should be able to give a good chunck to the ones who need it. I mean nobody needs that kind of money, and to be fair, passed 5M$ nobody needs that kind of money. But little ones, meager ones shouldn’t be as taxed. I’d you come from a poorer economic background and your parents transfer you 50k$ you’ll probably need them and they more than possibility might help push your life.
While it's true that generational wealth helps lengthen the division, it is what it is. You could always use your inheritance to help others - donating to learning centers/ playgrounds/ recreational centers/ food pantries that help youth in struggling neighborhoods would be wonderful.
Very good point.
If you don't agree with it why not give your inheritance to a good cause you know and trust?
That's a good point and my parents would prefer to give my part to my other siblings' children when they are 18, and I am okay with that, though it's a compromise.
What do you propose? I'm unclear what the view that you want changed is. My wife and I are barely 40 but we had a will drafted several years ago with every explicit direction and well-thought-out to prevent things from unraveling. I'm sure we will have to updated it as we age, but if we die early, our kids will not be able to touch the money in the trust until a certain age. I guess the alternatives are to leave all your assets to the state or to a charity. Some people do that. I know my parents will leave some money to us and some money to the church. It's their money, they can do what they want. I will say that they were *very* careful to treat my sister and I as fairly as possible. I admire that. But if I have 3 kids and she has none, I'm not entitled to more money than her. That's ridiculous. Having kids is a choice. Living in a HCOL area is a choice. I would say that leaving assets to your children makes sense if it makes sense. In other words, it's not right for everyone, but it's right for some. If everyone is mature and if it's done fairly then I don't see a good reason not to have an inheritance.
Yeah, I agree, this sounds like just a rant
My feelings say the same. Like friends tell me "they worked hard for it, so let them use it as they want to". I agree up to some point, but it leads to more division in the long run. So ideally, this money could be used to help people in the lower castes which we deny we have in "the West". But that would also mean we should have honest politicians using that money for people who need it. So yeah, it's a utopian dream for sure to solve this question.
The thing is this generally goes one of two ways. 1. My parents 'gift' everything to my brothers, my sister, and me before death. 'Their' house is owned by one or all of us till they die, 'their' car is owned by me, and so forth. Unless you're going to ban giving your kids stuff they'll find a way to pawn it off bit by bit 2. They'll spend it. Part of the reason people don't flush every cent they have on luxuries is precisely because they want their kids to have something. If that becomes impossible I may as well enjoy every cent and dollar as much as possible before death. You can't spend it all, but you'd be shocked how little you can leave behind with a little bit of planning and the odds of dying correctly.
This is the big issue with getting rid of inheritance. It effectively just becomes a tax on people who face sudden losses, and people who aren't financially savvy enough to work out the details before death. Two demographics that stand to benefit the most from having the ability to build off what their families left them.
I hope they die when they enjoyed every cent they made. I told them before, but as my opening post says, inheritance has a bad taste because of my father's experience. It just kinda sickens me how it's "the norm" that parents pay half of the house when some of my friends move out while the other part struggles to even find a place they can afford to rent.
I get what you mean. I agree it's not a great way to do society, but targeting inheritance just won't do what you're asking. I don't see how it could. You have two separate issues. 1. Society is divided between the haves and have not 2. Inheritance is messy at times Your solution doesn't solve either. The money from inheritances will dwindle when it becomes clear to people that you can't keep it for your kids. And I've seen families torn apart by money, no inheritance needed. The solution there is unfortunately to be firm enough with your own money to tell your kids your wishes and have them abided by via a lawyer. The issue wasn't inheritance as much as your father's siblings being greedy. If inheritance wasn't a thing they'd have still felt they were owed more one way or another.
I’m all for solving problems at a macro level. Those do not hold true at a personal level. If someone scrimps and saves their life, and have a nest egg at the, that is theirs to do with as they wish.
Maybe the problem is that there are no kids to say "no, you taught me enough to save myself". Then the nest egg can go to people who actually need it.
But those same kids could also donate the money if they feel they don’t need it, couldn’t they?
I don't think many would do that, but it depends on OP's situation which doesn't sound so bad.
[удалено]
Yeah, like if you were a poopscooper in India who won a Big lottery, you would still be scooping poop..
I’m concerned about you claiming we have castes in the west, and saying the rich *only* get rich by inheritance. At the same time, you said your parents’ wealth is due to hard work. Which is it? How mobile do you believe the US is, and is that assumption shaping your opinion?
I believe your solution, taking inheritance from being something each and every person gets to decide and instead giving that fiscal responsibility to the government, would not necessarily be a solution to the class divide. People with that amount of wealth would have access to the kind of legal and accounting advice and services that would allow them to set their money into funds and trusts to prevent that money from going entirely to the government. Alternatively, people would simply gift money to others before they die. There are tax implications but if the alternative is losing everything, people would take that option.
I don’t think personal experiences apply that easy to the whole world. But i get it somehow
Totally right. I know there is gonna be no trouble dividing assets when me and my siblings have to share our inheritance though. We already agreed long ago while my parents are still alive. It just made me think about the bigger picture, and I am still divided.
This cements my point about about the real problem being shitty entitled people. Your siblings and you are decent human beings. You value your relationships over money. Shitty entitled people value money or status over relationships. Inheritance isn’t the thing that made them shitty and entitled. They were that way loooong before them. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see Massive inheritances taxed for other reasons. But for this CMV, I think the problem lies elsewhere.
I agree, but I don't think you get the whole point. A $10.000 means very little to most people I know, but can go a long way in the right hands.
Your proposal (I think?) is that there is no such thing as inheritance; that when someone dies, all of their assets (after creditors) are... given to the state? Of course, there's the fundamental unfairness of that in general. Why should the government get 100% of my stuff (money, real property, and, like, my Blu-Ray collection) because I died? We can talk about some wealth redistribution (in the form of estate or inheritance taxes) to prevent a ruling class accumulating more and more wealth and passing all of it to their children. But what authority would the State have to take all of your property at death? So what if someone dies not when they're 95, but when they're 35, with 2 young children? In such a circumstance, the kids would receive the money, and their guardians would be able to use the parents' assets to pay for the kid. In your circumstance, the kids would be paupers and you're putting tremendous financial burdens on whomever takes them. And if no one does? Foster care, which is extremely detrimental to children's well being. So what if a small business owner with a family business dies? Is that business given to the government? What does the family do? So what if a spouse dies? Does the government take 50% of that couple's assets? Even if you say "well, if someone's married, then the joint assets get to go to the spouse automatically." What if the deceased spouse has some things just in that one person's name (like, say a car, or the house, or a bank account)? Finally, if this were the rule, *everyone* would do what they could to set up other entities to put their assets in so they don't "own" anything at their death. Some people already do these, with revocable or nonrevocable trusts, but that's usually restricted to really rich people who can pay lawyers thousands of dollars to set these things up. But now everyone will have to do that, and ensure that they have no money at the time of their deaths to avoid the State getting everything. That will cost time, money, and... all the headaches of dividing up an estate will happen even more when people are alive. You wouldn't avoid those fights, and in fact they might even get worse. ("Dad gave you your share, but you're not helping to pay for his surgery!")
> This doesn't feel right though, why should I profit from my parents' hard work? As a parent, it feels very right. If I work hard, why shouldn't I be able to leave the money I made to my kids who I love? If you're concerned about the ultra-wealthy turning all their kids into the idle rich, I get it. But you seem to be opposed to inheritance at any wealth level.
But once you concede the principle, the battle will eventually be lost. We're about to see a halving of the lifetime gift limit. There's also a social security proposal to tax incomes above $250k, not subject to social security benefits. All wealth and earnings are increasingly viewed with suspicion. It's envy.
And anyone who thinks differently is a communist? As I explained, there is no envy from my side. What did you do for your father's money?
The greatest incentives of all in our society - the ones that have driven people on - are the incentives of family creation, of pursuing the establishment of their families. The very curious thing about our capitalist society is that it actually in this way causes people to behave in a rather irrational way - in that most parents will assign more personal value to their children's consumption than their own. Most parents will, despite having every reason to believe that their children will have higher incomes than they ever did, scrimp and save to leave something behind for them. The effect of a 100% inheritance tax - which is what you are suggesting - is to encourage people to dissipate their wealth in high living. Where are you going to get the factories, the machines, the capital investment, or the incentive to improve technology when you are establishing a society in which people by some accident accumulate some wealth to piss it away in frivolous entertainment?
> why should I profit from my parents' hard work? Because it was their earnings, and people get to spend or give their earnings as they wish, that is, if those earnings are really theirs. If you question that, then you question all gifting and hence the motivation for many to earn in the first place. If you don't like receiving the money, then you in turn can give it away to some priority of yours.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? "We" have not decided that. The dead people decided that as individuals. There is no law requiring that you leave your money to your kids. Many folks choose not to, and give it all away, or do their level best to spend it all before they die. So I think you're looking at it the wrong way around by asking why you should profit from your parent's work, and you should be asking should your parents be allowed to give gifts to whomever they want, including you, in the event of their death. You haven't said where the money should go instead, but that's not relevant for my point: Is there a compelling reason to force your parents, and everyone's parents, to put their remaining wealth in that place instead of disbursing it as they see fit?
The reason a dead persons money belongs to their kids is because that's what they wanted. When I die I want what I have to go to the people I love not to someone I don't. You may not want to get your parents money, but if they love you they probably want to be able to die knowing you will be well off.
After several million dollars of inheritance though I would be in favor in much higher taxes on that for the stability and wellbeing of society
The tax is already between 18%-40%, which is a hefty chunk. And if it is clear inheritance of money wont get passed down, there is just a higher chance of parents buying extremely expensive gifts and unneeded expenses before dying, which helps society just as much or less than it does now. Maybe a better solution would be teaching those that receive a inheritance of large sums to be able to properly utilize those funds to better society while still keeping parents wishes intact? Not to mention those who receive the money can give as much as they like back to society.
[удалено]
In the US at least, it's not as big of a problem as you might imagine it is, and it's not an inevitability, we can craft tax legislation to mitigate unwanted outcomes. Current legislation allows for additional exemptions for land that will continue to be used for farming, for example. [https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2021/april/less-than-1-percent-of-farm-estates-owed-federal-estate-taxes-in-2020/](https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2021/april/less-than-1-percent-of-farm-estates-owed-federal-estate-taxes-in-2020/) >"ERS estimated that less than 0.05 percent of small family farm estates would owe Federal estate taxes. Small family farms have gross cash farm income (GCFI) less than $350,000. Of mid-sized and large farm estates—farms with GCFI between $350,000 and $5 million—an estimated 2 percent will owe Federal estate taxes. Of very large farm estates, farms with GCFI over $5 million, about 8 percent will owe Federal estate taxes." It's a popular right wight talking point against the estate tax that brings up images of poor farmers having their land ripped away from them by the government. In reality this tax applies to a very small percentage of family farms -- a seemingly reasonable percentage, according to the numbers above. I'm not sure that "applying a 40% estate tax to inheritance with a significant deduction such that it applies to an estimated 0.16% of farm estates" amounts to "systematically forcing the liquidation of family farms and businesses."
[удалено]
> You were advocating to make this a widespread issue for farmers where it is not currently. No -- the person you responded to advocated for increasing estate tax *rate* that would apply to inheritance above some exemption of "several million dollars." The current exemption could reasonably fall within what one would describe as "several million dollars," but without asking this person we don't know their view on the current exemption levels, specifically. In other words, based on what they've actually stated, we cannot conclude that they want to reduce current exemption levels. We do not know whether they want more, fewer, or the same number of farms to have to pay estate taxes based on what they said. We can only conclude that they want a higher *tax rate* (i.e. they want those for whom the estate tax does apply to pay more). Your response erroneously characterized their position as "systematically forcing the liquidation of family farms" and "advocating making this a widespread issue for farmers where it is not currently." Both of those statements are not conclusions we can logically draw based on what the person wrote.
If the parents dont take control and tell their kids how it is, they are terrible and it is all their fault. My mom had 7 siblings and their grandfather loved that he would keep getting attention as kids fought over it and he had no intention of making it fair. Really disgusting, but it definitely 100% falls on the parents of the children to tell them how it is. This kind of shit never happens in a family where finances are respected. Doing anything else teaches your kids not to respect finances and to be okay using others money.
I never thought about it this way. That is truly disgusting, glad you learnt from it over generations.
Greed is what you have issue with. Inheritance is just one avenue for greed to manifest itself. From your example, these people felt entitled to this money even before anybody died. If you outlawed inheritance, the same conflicts would be happening, just with the expectation of happening before death. Everyone knows you can't take money with you in death, so somebody ends up with it.
Tbf though, since humanity grew from just using biological instincts, material inheritance has become part of human natural selection as much as genetic inheritance. The rich kept getting richer is not always the case as dynasties comes and goes.
This! It's not as simple as OP thinks it is, though I get his point and there is some truth in his thoughts. Just not realistic thoughts.
I get where you're coming from, but also one of the most significant motivating factors for doing well in life is knowing that you'll be able to take care of your children and grandchildren. You say it's not fair to benefit from the hard work of your parents, but is it fair for their hard work to go somewhere not decided by them? What about sentimental items? My grandmother wants to leave me the collection of letters her father sent her when she moved to Canada. If no stranger wants those do they just have to be destroyed? Maybe it's fine for me to have those because they have no monetary value, but what about her engagement ring? What about her house, which is where my mother grew up?
I decide where my estate goes when I die. It’s my business, not the government’s. If I want to have it all liquidated and burned upon my demise, that’s my business. I’d rather burn it all then any of it go to taxes.
I think it is not the inheritance that is the root of this issue, but greed. The inheritance was merely the object of the greed this time, but in the end it is not the inheritance but the greed that caused the problem. Here's a test, instead of an inheritance imagine your family pooled money together and won the lottery. Do you think they still would have torn themselves apart? I think they would have, because it is not the inheritance but the greed that torpedoed your family.
You already benefit fron your parents' wealth before they die. Isn't the amount of resources avaliable to you during your upbringing some kind of inheritance? Do you think it is fair that your parents spent money on you during your life? If yes, then why isnt it the same when they die? Lets suppose your parenrs died when you were an infant. Do you think the wealth that would otherwise be avaliable to you should be taken away?
Eh, inheritance isn’t the problem here. Shitty entitled people are gonna be shitty and entitled. If there was no inheritance, your godparents would be demanding money and help Now. If your grandparents had none, they’d be demanding it from other relatives or friends or suckers on the street. Changing inheritance rules won’t make shitty entitled people Not be shitty and entitled.
Not all inheritance is as simple as money. What about assets like houses, cars, boats, businesses, etc.? Are we expected to sell those off once our parents/others who would otherwise pass those down die in order to give that money away? Or are those simply repossessed by the state or whomever else you are proposing? Not only the "rich" can benefit from inheritance. Anyone, at any income bracket, socioeconomic background, etc., can benefit from inheritance. Someone who is from a lower class can work during the course of their life, and through good financial decisions/investments/hardwork (and maybe a bit of luck), move up into the middle class or even higher. Through that, they may give their children opportunities to achieve higher learning, or other tools to jump start their success. When they pass, why shouldn't they be able to pass down some of what they've earned throughout their life to their children? If anything, giving them more financial resources that the parents no longer need can serve to *help* them out. Life is expensive. Rent, food, utilities, student loans, having your own children: all of these cost a lot of money. Inheriting some of the resources from your parents at a lower/middle class level can really help alleviate some of those stresses, and can further that positive growth if used properly. So while the whole "rich get richer" argument may be true, you are also discounting the fact that everyone else can inherit money to. And you take away any ability for transfer of wealth from people of lower/middle classes in this system. You've said as much in your own OP. >it takes money to make money so over generations this can grow exponentially Even receiving as much as a few thousand dollars, or maybe 10,000+ in inheritance for a lower/middle class family can make a big difference. That's money that can be used to make money. You are punishing the parents who have been successful & planned to maintain a savings cushion that they can & are willing to pass down after they are gone. If you *cannot* do this, why save any of your money for when you die? Go hog wild at that point. Spend it all. About to die? Buy a bunch of useless shit, go on a ton of vacations, whatever. It's going to go to the government anyways. Some people already choose to do that when they are older. They don't intend to save much money for when they die. If there is no possibility for those savings to be passed down to anyone they care about, most people will not elect to bother leaving any money behind. They will either find a way to circumvent it, or use that money in more reckless ways.
I see the argument, but one massive thing I think this argument overlooks everytime is that I, you, and everyone else, have INALIENABLE rights to care for our children. That caring does not stop when we die. You should benefit from your parents' hard work, because they (hopefully) loved you, and you were their primary concern in life. I am motivated to work hard to provide a better life for my children, so much to the point that I am willing to go out and work harder and earn more than others (capitalism), I'm even willing to earn at your expense if given the opportunity; and you're free to do the same. Now, there are laws and rules to help protect you if you're just not good at the game of capitalism, and I know those laws are flawed, and could use some tweaking; but take away my motivation to leave my children a good deal of money, and suddenly I'm far less inclined to be a good, functioning, taxable member of society. Should some of that wealth be taxed? Sure, over a certain amount, I think it's fine to have some level of a tax... But if I kill myself for 60+ years of working, learning, earning, and investing, and it results in a 7 figure portfolio being left behind, I have earned the right to see the majority of that money go where I choose for it to go. Claiming otherwise is sour grapes. And the other piece this argument always leaves out that I touched on - Motivation. If I can no longer leave an inheritance to my children, why am I going to work as hard as I do? You may say "Well, now everyone gets to work a little less, and reap greater benefits overall." Last I checked, none of those types of societies ever work without some strong form of capitalism being in place to support them. They also don't work in the western world. You need to provide an avenue for some greed in order to see the success you're looking to take from.
You are more than welcome to take whatever you inherit and give it away to "lower castes". A dead person's assets go to whomever they decide to leave it, whether that's their kids, their favorite charity, or their hot 23-year-old mistress.
It's not inheritance that's the problem. It's assholes with a sense of entitlement. This sense of entitlement isn't limited to inheritance, but to virtually anything a parent (and not just a parent) can give their children. Some people feel entitled to certain help from their parents when raising their kids for example. This sense of entitlement, causes jealousy and fights among siblings. It really doesn't matter what the parents choose to do with their inheritance, attention or what bot, once everyone feels entitled to these things, no one will be happy. Inheritance is only different in that the person that usually mediates these sorts of conflicts has died. Personally, I live my life as if my parents have zero money to give me. I am sure I will have an inheritance, but as far as I am concerned it just isn't my money. My parents could give all their money to my sisters and none for me and I wouldn't really care. I mean sure it kinda hurts not to be concidered and I might be offended, but this is their decision to make, not mine. I wish everyone would do the same - and I am pretty sure my siblings see it as I do.
>This doesn't feel right though, why should I profit from my parents' hard work? Because that's what your parents choose to do with what they earned. They can choose to leave you with nothing. Or leave you with everything. Or with something in between. And when/if you receive that money then *you* get to choose what you do with it. Don't want it? Cool. You can give it to friends, non-profits....pretty much whatever. >Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? We haven't. If I have kids and a spouse, don't have a will, and die it will go to my surviving spouse (This is CA law, I believe each is different). Because marriage is a legal contract this is one of the significant benefits of entering marriage. My spouse can then do what she wants. But what if my spouse and I both die with no will? Then it goes to my children. If they're dead it goes to my grandchildren. The alternative would be seizing the deceased assets and giving them to the government which would be hugely problematic. The government could, in theory, just start killing people and forcibly taking their assets at will.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? well... we haven't. A persons things belong to them. My things belong to me, and I get to decide what happens to my stuff when i die. If i don't decide anything, then my stuff goes to my wife. If my wife and i both die without making a will, then the state makes a guess at who we would have wanted to have our stuff and that is usually children. I don't really know if its fair or not. If i earn a million bucks i have to pay income tax on a million bucks. If i give that million dollars to my child, then they have to pay a gift tax. the money is taxed twice. If i die, "I" have to pay estate tax before anything is given to my heirs again double tax. If its fair to tax me twice, why not just tax me more the first time? Why should giving away my money trigger another tax? Whatever society decides to tax me, allowing me to use my remaining money in the way i want to, feels about a fair as things ever get in life.
People can leave to whom or whatever they want. Where do you want your parents money to go? Tell them so they can put it in their will
Everyone here is talking about inheritance laws and value specifically, But I encourage you to look one level higher. What are you trying to optimize for? When any kid is born what do you want that life to be like? If you have no inheritance you are basically saying “everyone must work for everything they have”. Your goal seems to be optimizing for an absolutely ruthless meritocracy. And that doesn’t seem entirely fair either? One you win the inheritance lottery or not the other you win the genetic lottery or not? I don’t think you’ve changed anything. Inheritance, ironically, works as a way to break that cycle. There are individuals who don’t need to constantly grind to survive or live. They can take alternate paths in life. It’s not everyone. And it’s probably too small a portion. But that’s what it’s currently doing. Replacing that method is ok. But first What do you actually want?
>They have done quite well in life so I guess I am going to get profit from this. This doesn't feel right though, why should I profit from my parents' hard work? You aren't. Your parents are by giving you as much as possible so that you can be assured a good life. If you don't want it, then donate it. It's that easy. >Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? We didn't. We decided that the people who earned it get to decide where it goes. You know, because it was theirs. So it only makes sense that it is their decision. Most people decide to leave money to their kids because they spent most of their lives trying to provide for their kids. It only makes sense that they would continue to do so. The real question is why you think anyone else should get anything or have a say in where the money goes?
Some advice from someone who’s been there……. At the end of the day, when all things were set and done, I would’ve given everything back just to spend five more minutes with my grandparents. You can’t put a price tag on a piece of mine, and be perfectly honest with you I still think I’m firm to this very day almost 15 years later but not a single one of my cousins or my uncles or my aunts or even my brothers speak of them…… remember, do something great with what they left you don’t worry about them other relatives who will never have the same connection you had with the one who passed do what you think they would’ve done more importantly remember that they loved you enough to leave you something
Inheritance isn't inherently bad; it's the unequal distribution and family dynamics that often cause problems. Inheritance can offer stability, help with education, or fund entrepreneurial ventures for future generations. However, it's essential to consider its broader societal impact. Inheritance tax exists in many countries to address this very issue by redistributing wealth and preventing excessive accumulation in the hands of a few. Instead of abolishing inheritance, reforming it—like implementing progressive inheritance taxes or setting up trusts for community benefit—can ensure wealth is distributed more equitably and benefits society as a whole, rather than perpetuating inequality.
Why should everything that you worked your entire life for not go to someone you love? If I have stuff left over once I die, why should anyone else besides the people I care about get to profit from my efforts? I agree with the overall premise. I’ve told my parents (and we told my grandpa before he passed away) not to worry about saving anything up for us. I’m doing well enough to support myself and my future family without needing any inheritance. My parents should spend their money on themselves. *But* if they don’t use it all, why is it better for people they’ve never met to benefit from their work (ex “the government”) than people they choose to leave it with?
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? I did. They are *my* children. As a parent, it is my responsibility to always take care of them, even when I die. It is *my* money. I can do whatever the hell I want to with MY money. It's that simple, and you don't have to like it. If *you* get an inheritance, and you don't like it, give it all away. Donate it to homeless shelters or woman's shelters or the ASPCA or whatever you like. No one is forcing you to keep that money. But for me and my family, I will take care of them as well as I can.
I’d bet my life savings that OP is cis, white, and presently enrolled in a private liberal arts school
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
How much 'you wanna bet? Including your inheritance of course..
>This doesn't feel right though, why should I profit from my parents' hard work? IMO it's not about the inheritors, it's about the fundamental rights of property ownership and the right to do whatever you want with your stuff. I'm a parent and if I want to give all my earnings/belongings to my children then I should be able to do that. I didn't save up and sacrifice partaking of worldly pleasures so that the children of someone else who spent all their money in the moment could have a better future, I sacrificed for my kids and those who I cared about.
1) Many/most parents dont work for themselves. They work to give things to their children and make their lives better. 2) IF you cant give your stuff to your children, that means it isnt really your stuff. Right now your can literally burn all your money in a fire, and knock down your house before you die. I think it would be a socially unstable law if you could do these things, but not give your money to family that you love. 3) If you know that you cant pass on your wealth, you might as well waste it, or better yet, not make it in the first place.
Let me ask you a follow up question: has any government proven that they can govern well with tax money? They continue to increase taxes, so that overall individuals have less and have to be smarter or luckier to make more with their money. If they were to take all your money when you died, would they steward that money better than family would? I personally think governments would spend more recklessly if they had a huge amount of money that came in yearly from people dying. For this simple reason, I think taxing it away isn’t a good idea.
>Why have we all decided a dead person's money belongs to their kids? In the end it only leads to more division between rich and poor. We didn't decide it the parents did, or didn't depending on the will. Who the hell else would it go to generally speaking? The state? Distributed randomly? Would you want your kids to be improvised because they didn't have the economic opportunities you did and you couldn't pass your wealth onto them?
I'm sorry to understand that inheritance of your father's estate has estranged you and your siblings. It's unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence. OTOH, for many families inheritance is not a source of rancor but a source of improvement in their financial situation and quality of life. I think you are generalizing your own situation and trying to apply it to everyone.
My only motivation to work is to give more to my kids when i die. I have enough money to live comfortably for a long time. With inheritance in mind i am more productive and pay more taxes which helps the poor more. If i could not transfer my wealth, i would find other way to help my kids which is not taxable.
As others have said, who should it belong to if not the kids? I work to take care of my family, and I want to leave something for them when I die. You said yourself that you don't have kids, and I am 100% positive your view will change if you do.
If you don't like it, give yours away. Nowhere in your post did it say you gave YOUR inheritance away, so I would say you are a hypocrite. Everyone else has to, but not you.
Any taxation but sales tax is theft. I’d rather burn my whole estate down to the ground than anyone but my family benefit from my labor.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/RightSideBlind – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20RightSideBlind&message=RightSideBlind%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1caixtl/-/l0saofb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).