Which is not the same as estate/inheritance/death tax at all. Which is double-taxing what a given person already paid for. Being a (grand)son of someone ain't a job to pay incomes tax for.. :)
On top of that, there're lots of ways to dodge the US income tax. For example, many countries have double-tax agreements. Where you pay taxes in your residence country. Stay 185 days in the other country, do most of the business remotely and you can forget US incomes tax.
> > Otherwise everybody would bring in whole production chain in-house and we'd be left with huge conglomerates and no SMBs. > Don't we already have that?
Huh? There're lots of SMBs in pretty much any country in the world. And most people are employed by them, not by a bunch of mega companies.
Double taxing happens all the time. There is no rhyme or reason to tax policy. It just is.
Why should I pay sales tax when I've already paid income tax? Why should a corporation pay income tax if shareholders will also pay income tax? This is a red herring. Property must not pass generation to generation unscathed. Too much concentration of wealth is good for nobody, even for the 0.0001%
> On top of that, there're lots of ways to dodge the US income tax. For example, many countries have double-tax agreements. Where you pay taxes in your residence country. Stay 185 days in the other country, do most of the business remotely and you can forget US incomes tax.
As with peering, I am sure there are knowledgeable people in positions whose job it is to ensure that we get something out of these double-tax agreements. If these entities become a nuisance, there are many ways (preferably peaceful) to deal with them.
Meanwhile heritage tax involves no additional action and taxes exactly what was already taxed.
> Property must not pass generation to generation unscathed. Too much concentration of wealth is good for nobody, even for the 0.0001%
There's no way to tax all generational wealth transfer. Parents will keep buying their kids houses and cars and paying for their education. I doubt you want to tax a regular family paying for kids' university. Meanwhile those who you want to tax already figured out all sorts of workarounds. Trust funds etc.
> As with peering, I am sure there are knowledgeable people in positions whose job it is to ensure that we get something out of these double-tax agreements. If these entities become a nuisance, there are many ways (preferably peaceful) to deal with them.
They do help everybody who do legitimate business across borders. There's nothing stopping for someone to move to another country and do business in their old country in such manner. It'd be 100% legitimate. Unless you'd ban your own ex-citizens/residents from such scheme :) Which would be a huge PITA to keep track of. Taxing any cross-borders business would mean other countries taxing your own businesses as well. Which would mean companies moving out their HQs and developing elaborate schemes to work around this.
All in all, what you want to do would hurt middle class and small businesses. While the ultra-rich couldn't care less. In fact, they'd just hide away even more assets. Effectively widening the gap.
Yes, there is; tax all receipts as income to the recipient.
> I doubt you want to tax a regular family paying for kids' university
That's not a matter of not being able to tax all generational wealth transfer, but not wanting to do so. Creating exceptions to cover things like that is simple enough, though.
> Meanwhile those who you want to tax already figured out all sorts of workarounds. Trust funds etc.
But there's no reason trust funds have to be a viable work around; even if gains in the fund are tax free, there's no fundamental reason individual receipts of disbursements from the fund must be.
What receipt is there if dad buys a house or car and gives to his son? Or lets him to build a house on his own land?
Use decades old original purchase price? Or "market value" which is pretty hard to calculate without actually selling the property on the market.
Another scenario - never cashes out money from his company and gives a super-well-paid position to his son?
> Creating exceptions to cover things like that is simple enough, though.
Yes. And exceptions lead to loopholes.
> But there's no reason trust funds have to be a viable work around; even if gains in the fund are tax free, there's no fundamental reason individual receipts of disbursements from the fund must be.
You're missing core bit in this scheme.
Let's say trust fund payouts are taxed regular incomes tax. So wether you cash out directly from a company or via trust fund, tax rate is ~ the same. I know in reality it's more complicated, but let's stick to this for the sake of clarity.
If you tax inheritance - you tax both original incomes and generational transfer. With trust fund, the recipient does pay incomes tax when receiving the money. But inheritance tax is avoided. Original incomes tax wasn't paid either since the fund itself doesn't pay.
Thus outcome is the same as taxing original incomes, but not taxing inheritance. But with added penalty for everybody who're not ultra wealthy to afford trust funds, but still fit into taxable bracket.
There's the receipt of the house or car; taxing in-kind transfers at fair market value is already done in other contexts.
> Another scenario - never cashes out money from his company and gives a super-well-paid position to his son?
Uh, that's easy, you are taxing the income from the position. The existing tax code, in fact, already covers this fairly completely.
> If you tax inheritance - you tax both original incomes and generational transfer.
The distinction is artificial; there is just income.
> With trust fund, the recipient does pay incomes tax when receiving the money. But inheritance tax is avoided.
Inheritances aren't taxed as income, so you aren't avoiding a tax event that you would otherwise hit by swapping one for the other. Historically the top estate tax rate was pretty similar top income tax rate; you could get a rate advantage by structuring choices that move from estate to income tax since estate tax is driven by the size of the estate and income tax by the individuals annual income, but that's a reason to just have one (income) system rather than two separate systems that you can choose between by structuring.
> Original incomes tax wasn't paid either since the fund itself doesn't pay.
Sure, but that just makes a trust fund work like a tax-deferred transfer at the time money goes into the fund. That is something of a structuring opportunity, and I'd have no problem not having private benefit trusts be tax exempt entities (and they certainly a trivial fix if that is your concern), but it's a fairly minor issue.
But then you're taxing just once. No generational transfer tax.
> There's the receipt of the house or car; taxing in-kind transfers at fair market value is already done in other contexts.
Keep house or car under parents' name forever. It'll be written off or value will be very different by the time the old generation dies. If value booms - sell property and do smth creative to pass the money without tax.
> > If you tax inheritance - you tax both original incomes and generational transfer.
> The distinction is artificial; there is just income.
The difference comes in when you want to double tax :) If original earner pays income tax and then inheritance tax is applied - tax is paid twice. If you work around original income tax (e.g. trust fund) and only the (grand)kid pays his income tax - you only tax once..
> Inheritances aren't taxed as income, so you aren't avoiding a tax event that you would otherwise hit by swapping one for the other.
But you're avoiding it. Double-taxing comes from taxing original earner his income tax AND inheritance tax on top of that. If you restructure that, you can get away with paying income tax only.
> Sure, but that just makes a trust fund work like a tax-deferred transfer at the time money goes into the fund. That is something of a structuring opportunity, and I'd have no problem not having private benefit trusts be tax exempt entities (and they certainly a trivial fix if that is your concern), but it's a fairly minor issue.
You defer income tax AND avoid inheritance tax or double income tax. Essentially you get free generational wealth transfer.
Even if getting rid of trust funds (or similar vehicles) is easy, it wasn't done yet. Probably because if you'd outlaw trust funds, there's a 1000 and 1 ways to work around that in a different legal structure.
It taxes exactly as many times as with the estate tax (or one more, since the estate tax actually misses virtually all generational transfers.)
> Keep house or car under parents' name forever.
That's a different scenario; but, again, there's a straightforward tax answer to it: treat such vehicle use the same way as it is treated with personal use of a company vehicle using the Annual Lease Value rule; the other mechanisms wouldn't apply.
> The difference comes in when you want to double tax :) If original earner pays income tax and then inheritance tax is applied - tax is paid twice.
Replacing the estate tax by taxing inheritances as income to the recipients would not reduce the scope of funds taxed both when originally received by the first owner and then again when transferred as inheritance; on the contrary, it would increase it and make it more consistent with the progressive income tax system, with the tax rate when inherited based on the total income of the heir, not the size of the estate.
> That's a different scenario; but, again, there's a straightforward tax answer to it: treat such vehicle use the same way as it is treated with personal use of a company vehicle using the Annual Lease Value rule; the other mechanisms wouldn't apply.
Good luck trying to figure out who is the actual user of a house or a car. What if family shares the vehicle? Tax parents whenever their kid drives?
Let alone that this would, again, much more affect middle class than the uber rich.
> Replacing the estate tax by taxing inheritances as income to the recipients would not reduce the scope of funds taxed both when originally received by the first owner and then again when transferred as inheritance; on the contrary, it would increase it and make it more consistent with the progressive income tax system, with the tax rate when inherited based on the total income of the heir, not the size of the estate.
So you split inheritance on small bits before death to fly under radar. Or split inheritance to different people. Possibly consolidating it back later on. Or do the trust fund trick...
How is it relevant to giving up citizenship and owning property or company? There's no death involved. If their children are not citizen either, they are not hit by inheritance tax too.
> I am not a big fan of income tax on businesses but I can see why we need it.
VAT is sort of like income tax for businesses. Except it's not taxed on B2B transactions. Which makes sense. Otherwise everybody would bring in whole production chain in-house and we'd be left with huge conglomerates and no SMBs.