Mastodawn

@simone_z @mattczap but that's communism 🧐🎩🐲

@MBEverding @mattczap are you sure? Or has it always been a fair way to affect the wealthiest and balance capitalism (so NOT communism, which affects everyone), but we just got brainwashed into believing it is not fair, while Musk owns soon a trillion, the US president is filthy rich, and the average US citizen struggle to afford prescription drugs? https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/16782.jpeg (sorry if it was a joke and I did not get it, but the matter is so sadly serious…)

@simone_z @mattczap communism is when you kill the dragon because he is rich. But I want a social democracy where taxation increases with income, and if the dragon dies (ideally of old age) some of the inherited income gets taxed as well.

Think of it like RuneScape. The more you grind the harder leveling gets (because of taxation) and if you respawn you loose some of your items as well (like taxation)

It would require a tax on large stocks incomes as well since they why millionaires pay less

@MBEverding @mattczap I totally agree, with an additional 100% taxation for inheritance over 100 millions (which is not money anymore, but clearly pure “power”): one can earn it, ok, but cannot have it because of a “birth right”, identically to political charges.

@simone_z @mattczap 100% over 100 million goes back to communism. It's high enough for farmers to not get targeted but imagine owning a company and instead of having your kids continue your legacy, the company becomes state owned. State owned companies are not as efficient or innovative. Skilled key workers of the company would be lost because industry pays higher than the state.

@simone_z @mattczap imagine french electricity monopoly or German train monopoly. Government will capitalize your ass. Inheritance tax should work like in South Korea. Did Samsung disappear after the owner recently died? Did it get broke? No still well and kicking.

Political influence should be regulated with proper lobbying and corruption laws

@MBEverding @mattczap I see your point, but to regulate lobbying is much more complicated, vague, and after a certain point economic oligarchs become uncontrollable. One solution is simply to sell companies on the (inter)national market, and let relatives have limited inheritance. If they can keep control of the company, good for them. Otherwise, they will share control or have success in other activities. What the state gets, could go in the state budget or repay national debt, if any exists.

@simone_z @mattczap well France banned companies to donate to politicians and parties and have a limit of 7000€ on private donations. Germany on the other hand has a lobby register of donations over 10 000€ and foreign donations from outside EU are illegal. Right now AFD (supported by Elon Musk) is being checked if the publicity they got through their interview with Elon Musk on twitter was an illegal party donation.

Ideal would be a public record when which politician met with which lobby.

@MBEverding @mattczap indeed, as you ca see the controls are not very effective. In Germany there is no limit: they have to declare, but influence can be pushed by billionaires. In France Sarkozy is suspected to have received millions from Libia. On the other hand, the controls on inheritance are surprisingly strong (as the greediest are interested in them). If the state enters the game, it would be more effective in limiting financial-political power stemming from immense dynastic fortunes.

@simone_z @mattczap "controls on inheritance are strong" XD in Germany inheritance tax is called "the stupid tax". It's easy to avoid them if you can afford an advisor. That's why in Germany poor pay more inheritance tax. It takes 5-6 generations to get from poor to middle class in Germany also because of the classist education system.

Political corruption is there but if you look up corruption index, Europe is doing better, and Scandinavia well

@MBEverding @mattczap oh my oh my, your reply hastily and you lose your time 😌 If the state takes the role of a heir,the rules applied are not fiscal, but the inheritance law and notaries. A weak system might allow a heir to fraud others, so nobody wants this, and among the litigants (the heirs) state would win. Money leads to corruption. Less money = less corruption, and I think that limiting inheritances would be an excellent idea. Well, I still haven’t heard strong arguments against this idea

@simone_z @mattczap regulating inheritance will be worth nothing if you don't regulate gifting. It's one of the reasons German inheritance tax is not worth crap as some kids get each year up to 200 000€ in their bank account pre-inherited tax free until age 18. Gold bars are also gifted without tax because they physical gifts.

Also how will you regulate family businesses that are not on the stock market?

@MBEverding @mattczap boths your comments/questions have exactly the same answer: as you do when a heir suspects a violation of his/her quota. It is called “collation” of donations. Of course, there are ways to cheat. But we are talking of fortunes of hundreds of millions. Can you imagine cheating 100 millions? That’s one ton of gold! So given the means already existing for litigations among heirs, the state would have its way.

@simone_z @mattczap yes but most likely it's not 100 million in cash but 100 million in family businesses (farms are also family businesses hence one has to tread careful not to step on them) and Appartment houses with unclear ownership since several people are registered as owners.

@MBEverding @mattczap any asset can be partially sold. Business can have shareholders, even when not on the stock market. Same for real-estate. Once partial owner, the state can sell the quota on the market. Heirs will often prefer to keep fully owned assets they can control, instead of a little share of everything that is co-owned after an auction, that they will prefer to liquidate altogether. I still don’t see major issues, while obtaining strong limitation of politically relevant fortunes.

MBEverding Feb 15, 2025

@simone_z @mattczap in cases like Bosch or supermarkets the small share proportion would mean the ownership is symbolic as they can't decide anything anymore as the company is owned by government like German train and French power. Imagine you can only buy food at a government shop.