Is it unethical to levy tax on a legacy? You could argue that all sorts of taxes have been levied during a person’s life and that the inheritance is the net result?

This is extremely unethical,

You work hard throughout your life, pay your taxes, and build up a wealth. This ability will build you up to let’s say a grandchild or child has a better life than you have had, to give this person a better start in life so you want.

You come to death and BAM, your inheritance will be taxed so that the person you wanted to give it does not get what you have saved with heavy work (or with lazy work it does not matter) together.

You pay taxes until after your death.

“There is a bit to say about taxing large inheritances because it encourages people to make donations to their relatives when they are alive to keep their assets low.It provides a better distribution of resources and makes it super expensive to be a millionaire in the Netherlands. The average citizen will suffer little because they will not usually have large capabilities. A house maybe, but the mortgage on it compensates this again with a debt. In any case, it ensures that money is kept rolling and that is good for the economy “

I saw that comment and normally I do not start a discussion here but Wim ten Brink this time we are so far apart that I want to react to it.And not to start some internet flame but just because this is Sun type site and I know we can deal with each other with respect. To have said that:

“Because this encourages people to make donations when they are alive,” you also pay extra tax.Again this is money that you have accumulated from work, so you have by definition already paid tax for it.

“It provides a better distribution of resources and makes it super expensive to be a millionaire in the Netherlands”

Why would you want to force it this way?You already pay more tax if you earn more, so I fall back at the same point you have already paid tax on it. So why again, to force some sort of “equality”?

“In any case, it ensures that money continues to roll and that is good for the economy”

Also that falls a bit under the same tone I see (according to me) in your whole comment as Red line “It’s good for the rest”.

It is good for the rest, in my opinion, is not a good reason to get out of this kind of stunts.Otherwise, we can move this line further and we will come to the “equal distribution of wealth by taking it off the rich and spreading it fairly”.

We all know where that thought has brought us in the past and still in many countries… We will say no success with it.

Forgive me if I find you are interpreting, and please reply if you think there is anything to say about it. I’m curious!

No, it is not in my opinion.

At the forefront: The current system is that the transferee pays a succession.It pays a tariff in the Netherlands to the position he has to the deceased and to the value of the estate.

The idea of taxing “procurement” is one of the oldest forms of taxation, in addition to that of “use”, and both are generally accepted from that perspective and therefore not unethical.

Now that theoretically may not sound so strange but nobody likes to pay taxes.People therefore try to move their taxes to another or another for payment to be held accountable. BTW For example, you try to push through as an entrepreneur and the consumer is ultimately the big payer. An example of the second: Inheritance tax on prize money is already in the amount to be won by some lotteries. This way you will be told that you win a million tax-free but, of course, you have already devised a construction that will benefit the government by or with the licensing provider.

In the event of a succession, this cannot be directly.So tax is given by heirs at least as a discount on the inheritance to be obtained, and by the deceased as a kind of seizure on his life carefully collected property and ability.

That first is not so bad from the idea that you are getting something.But the situation often arises enough that there are no cash equivalents and then the Government in fact asks heirs to sell goods where they also value. Painful. Because a postponement of questions to the tax authorities or a settlement is possible, it remains acidic.

Viewed from the deceased, it is at least not a nice feeling that his ability is cut out when there are several lingers among whom to divide and that the state can take a big bite out of what has accumulated.Surely you didn’t have your wealth together?

The point that the government rightly argues against is that if the purpose is to specifically leave something that can withstand the test of time, there are again constructions for it.These constructions are complex and create (wrongly) the idea that wealth protection is mainly a possibility for rich. The middle class often remains the pineut. The idea is that a deceased with a regular capacity sees his ability to fall apart and must accept that large sums go to the tax authorities, and the heirs are having problems to meet the tax authorities in a timely manner.

It might be smart to check out the site of the tax authorities for the figures so we know what we are talking about:


and Rates:

An example (1): Let your partner die and you are familiar in community of goods and your common equity is 2 million.

In this example, 1 million is in the succession.

From that amount 鈧?50,000 (rounded) inheritance tax is free. Over the remaining 鈧?50,000 you pay a steady load. About 鈧?25,000 (completed again) 10% 鈧?2,500 and over the remainder of 鈧?25,000 an amount of 20% or 鈧?5,000.

Short and good: a death does not compromise the common equity with 鈧?7,500!

How can you solve this now?

A first interesting thought would be to change the matrimonial property regieme of community of goods to marital conditions before death and to beg the longest-lived than so that this is favourable in the event of death.

Example 2. Man 72, female 68. In women, cancer is diagnosed.

If they were to go to prenuptial conditions and divide the capacity of 2 million to 75/25 between men and women, then this would be a decent sip on a drink at her death.After all, in her death, only 鈧?00,000 should be indicated in the taxes and… That is inheritance tax free!

Example 3. Imagine the man and the woman have 2 children.

Without testament, this means that the children communicate in the inheritance but in principle must wait until father dies.The children have for the time being “a claim” on the Pappa. The man and the woman can donate annually to the children under the duty-free tariff for donations and if it concerns a dwelling for the children up to gigantic amounts (read: about 鈧?00,000 per child). Check: Donate and donate tax And How much can I donate my child tax free?

Last Example (4): Set the power of the man and woman is stuck in six houses (ad 2 million).From those houses the man is thus 75% owner, the woman for 25%.

It is possible to bring this ability into a legal entity, such as a foundation, and then to give all interested certificates.These certificates ensure that they retain control over what is happening. The legal entity continues to survive after death (and owns 100% of the dwellings) and continues to make distributions to the beneficiaries (share rental tokens).

I’m not that very much at home in “estate planning” but it becomes clear that it only becomes interesting from considerable capabilities.There are companies that give advice and explain constructions about the protection of assets and successions and there are many more-sometimes also exotic-possibilities than the examples outlined above.

In my opinion, too often fall modal and slightly above modal incomes between shore and ship.For them, the current scheme is Wrang. This first requires the adaptation of standard amounts.

There have been longer ideas for adjusting or abolishing the system of inheritance tax for reasons of too complex and pain points for lagging behind in handling, but it seems to me to be too big a dairy cow.

The ethical stumbling block remains that people are forced to regulate something, which often does not do and what one can expect from those just above modal incomes.

Up to a certain amount the inheritance is therefore untaxed.But you can also see a legacy as a gift to the surviving relatives and also large gifts are taxed.Is tax on donations therefore unethical? And tax on assets?

The problem is, of course, that someone cannot take his or her belongings into the grave.So it is divided among the heirs, for whom this is actually just extra income. And revenues are taxed if they are high enough.

There is a little to say about taxing large inheritances because it encourages people to make donations to their relatives when they are alive to keep their assets low.It provides a better distribution of resources and makes it super expensive to be a millionaire in the Netherlands. The average citizen will suffer little because they will not usually have large capabilities. A house maybe, but the mortgage on it compensates this again with a debt. In any case, it ensures that money continues to roll and that is good for the economy…

No, it is not unethical, on the contrary.I would just say that it was unethical to shift the tax burden to the lowest incomes by increasing the VAT on necessary necessities by 50%. It has to pay everyone, yes, but comparatively people with a minimum income spend a lot more on first necessities.

No one likes to pay taxes.Then, from an ethical point of view, there is a lot to say that income for which the recipient has performed nothing at all is taxed more heavily than income for which people have had to work in sweat.

That argument that it is so pathetic for the deceased, because it has already paid tax once, is of course a fallacy.Whoever is dead does not have any pain in tax. They are the heirs who have not worked for it and have never paid a penny for it, who want free money.

So I would say, up those inheritance rights.This means that, in the same way as the total tax burden, the tax on works can be reduced, which will greatly benefit our competitive position. Or the whole whining about the cost of climate control is also in a blow of the job.

Any government tax is unethical, but inheritance tax is doubly unethical, since several times tax has been levied on that money (income tax, wealth tax, etc.) if it is ultimately neglected.

Tax is unethical because it is being tormented and confiscated or enforced.Enforced with the implied threat of violence and aggression (the ultimate deprivation of liberty, namely jail sentence). If the mafia does it is called the protection money or Pizzo.

It is therefore not difficult to argue why taxation is equivalent to slavery.

The essence of all slavery consists of in taking the product of Another’s labor by force.

It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that (s) he must get to live. [Misattributed to Leo Tolstoy

If the extortion and/or confiscation of 99 to 100% of the fruits of your labor is slavery, at what percentage is it no longer slavery?

Democracy therefore differs little from slavery.There are several “slave masters” to which you can vote, but that makes all the compulsion and aggression and deprivation of liberty no less unethical, I believe. The so-called social contract (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) is not voluntary or individual to say.

For more Dutch-language information see: Democracy beyond

Feel free to ask questions in the comments if you have them!

I have no problem with that.For the heir, it is the first time, and there are a lot of exemptions.

What I have a problem with is that the inheritance and donation law, like the inheritance tax, ties in with family bonds.Actually, I don’t see such a reason for this difference. In inheritance law, the children and especially the spouse are already properly protected and we have a social system in which everyone can acquire a reasonable income. In that sense, I don’t really see why an uncle or a friend should be treated differently from a child or spouse. I even know an example of a (hetero) Irishman who went to a gay marriage with a good friend to evade the inheritance tax in this way and let the friend tax-free his house inherit. But all things taken together: You shouldn’t trust a legacy financially, keep your own crap together.

This also leads to the fact that it is more or less as a crime to be seen to make up your money for your death and leave nothing behind.The children take a financial adviser in the arm and all of them dance to grandma and grandpa until they are completely lost and overwhelmed with a wealth planning scheme in which the excess value of the house is insured, are in a small Seniors go home or ‘ socialize ‘ in a child withdraw, and periodic donations to the children are done. Come on say, it’s your equity anyway? I find it particularly brutal and disrespectful behaviour of children to their own parents. I know of a case from the USA where the estate consisted of a life insurance policy that was monetized and patrolled by grandpa just before his death. The children, brutal rekels, tried to challenge the sale: Dad is not good at his head, he didn’t know what he was doing. Luckily the judge was thoughtful; It is PA’s own policy and he can sell and goods it if he wants to. If no inheritance is left for the children, Kassian!

Also general benefit institutions (read: The church, the mosque, the Hare Krishna, but also the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses), the Norwegian Brotherhood, the Order of the transformants and even movements that cloak organizations Terrorist movements), exempted.Then you open the social pressure door from these organizations on the members to incorporate them into the will. And remember, tax-free relief has been given to Muslim aid organizations in Bosnia who had ties to Al Qaida, and to the Tamil Tigers. Actually, you talk through those social and sometimes also physical pressures not even more about a donation or inheriting, it’s just extortion. The (tax) law can unfortunately not make the distinction.

Actually, I find the succession law wonderful, it is an example of how the state as a collective of each other not knowing people (i.e. actually individualism) the traditional collectivism based on the family and the church Vermorzelt.If the inheritance tax, together with the donation tax, would be immediately at 100% (of course including ‘ donations ‘ and erflatingen on ‘ good ‘ goals) then you would not hear me complain about it. Make it yourself:

We all go dead one
\Xa0so give another party though you stand red
\Xa0go on vacation, set another deed
\Xa0because before you know it is too late

Tax is continually levied.Your wages pay your income tax. Then he go to the grocery store and you pay VAT. You also pay VAT at the hairdresser. The hairdresser pays sales tax and payroll tax. If you buy a house you pay transfer tax, etc.

At other times you also get money from the government.Child benefit, care costs, AOW, mortgage interest deduction, etc. Sometimes you can also get subsidies.

Some call it pointless around pumping money, but by the more hands the money goes the more people benefit from it.

Is it unethical to be much richer as others?You have to share everything. After his success with ‘ Talk Dutch Me ‘, Kenny B has just shared the money with the people in his village. He also found death normal.

I also do not understand what is just about earning ten times more than the other.The one works hard for little money and the other works a little less hard for a lot of money.

I totally agree with you.And not only for a pot of money that remains after death, but you also don’t always benefit from it if there is a real estate that is already (three) double and cross paid. Still a pity if they were to sell that real estate out of distress and tax burden.

It is not for nothing that people have accommodated their abilities during their lives in a fun foundation in a paradise, so the power goes to the next generation without the government having a view.

Certainly not unethical !It has everything to do with the principle of equality; All people are born alike. It is unjust when someone who happens to be born in a wealthy family has a tremendous (financial) lead in relation to peers who are equal in every other respect.

The argument that tax on that money has already been paid does not go up, because that tax is paid by the person who earns that money and not by the person who receives the inheritance.For the inheriting, as Wim also says, it is just income and you have to pay tax on it.

I would say that the inheritance tax should be 100%, but I also understand (as a young father) that you want to leave your children with something.How high that amount should be and in what way you should divide that up is for another to figure out. But the amount cannot be more than a support in the back. Anything above 30,000 euro (liquid or real estate) seems to me unjust.

Leave a Reply