229
Bank of Mum and Dad: why we all now live in an ‘inheritocracy’
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
229 points (96.0% liked)
News
23311 readers
3593 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's not the problem. The problem is while the parents and grandparents are still alive. They act as the younger generations' bank. Giving them financial freedom to get set up properly. Even if you completely delete that inheritance when the "bank" dies, the younger generations already have a house, a good 401k, and possibly other investments going. So they're now setup to do the save thing for their kids.
This sounds like great family financial planning but the fact that we have to rely on this means anyone whose parents fall out for whatever reason, (addiction, medical debt, market flub, etc) is fucked through no fault of their own. And of course, anyone whose parents didn't receive the message to build wealth through never selling a house is also fucked.
It's really fucking complicated and we don't really assign purchases in a way that'd fully solve the problem - but if taken to a logical extreme I think simply taxing gifts as income sort of fixes all the loopholes.
If we're talking about the US the minimum income threshold for taxation is 13,850 - most personal expenses children incur wouldn't sum up to exceed that threshold (outside of medical bills which it's insane you have privatized in the US). So if gifts were treated as an income source then the first time kids would probably be hit with any owed taxes would be being gifted a car or being gifted college tuition.
I think the standard exemption should probably be higher than it is but it's still high enough to cover what we generally consider common expenses when raising a child. Using a rule like this would really even out the playing field for kids.
What is a gift though? Is it a gift for your parents to feed you, clothe you, and let you live with them rent free?
Yea, it is.
Yeah so you’re not really serious.
How so? Living expenses for children often fall below exempt income levels. Taxation would only kick in for large wealth transfers.
Having to file income taxes for their children is a burden the poor do not need.
Income taxes in general are regressive, even with all the exemptions and credits. If you want progressive taxation you should be looking at land value taxes and other forms of wealth taxation that rich people can’t avoid.
Then Mom and Dad just include taxes. I want to destroy this, not just make more revenue for the government. Either that or we admit we don't live in a country of individual merit and we change our culture. But letting this submarine of privilege sit here while we blame all of the poor people and pull up ladders isn't going to work in the long run. It's just going to cause massive political unrest like that during the French Revolution.