Absolute Anime

Here is a comparison Table, though is abit old is abit out of date but I do know UK, USA, is correct on there and Japan maximum should be 50%. Unfortunately I couldn't find any table thats up to date. Correct me on figures if im wrong somewhere, but my main point of this thread is do you feel is right for them to tax someone after death?

http://www.mof.go.jp/english/zei/report2/zc001f06.htm
(page after that show more details)

To be honest I don't like since they erned that money during their life time, and maybe the government may say certain laws applies. However if their alive they work and live get tax, why should when they die and the possession they pass on get tax? They would tax whoever or whenever using the money already anyway. I know alot of people think is fair cause they dont like rich people and think their snob or have so much money it wouldn't matter. Though their still another human, but with just more money.

There shouldn't be any inheritance tax. Then again, under IRS regulation, even if you give someone money in return for babysitting, there is supposed to be a tax on that. But that's government for you, getting their grubby fingers where they shouldn't be...I wonder though, if it became a legal issue if it would (likely) be overturned...I suppose not though, since the good ol' days of Lochner are gone because of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. (On a side note, Lochner was never over ruled explicitly.)

Athos wrote:There shouldn't be any inheritance tax. Then again, under IRS regulation, even if you give someone money in return for babysitting, there is supposed to be a tax on that. But that's government for you, getting their grubby fingers where they shouldn't be...I wonder though, if it became a legal issue if it would (likely) be overturned...I suppose not though, since the good ol' days of Lochner are gone because of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. (On a side note, Lochner was never over ruled explicitly.)

Not sure about U.S Laws but you're right baby sitting supposed to be taxed? How the hell they keep track on someone's neighbour kid watch their baby lol

Inheritance Tax is the most unfair and ludicrous tax in existence. Why pay tax on money that has already previously been taxed? As I remember Inheritance Tax was scraped for married couples in the UK, though I may be misinformed.

Athos wrote:There shouldn't be any inheritance tax. Then again, under IRS regulation, even if you give someone money in return for babysitting, there is supposed to be a tax on that. But that's government for you, getting their grubby fingers where they shouldn't be...I wonder though, if it became a legal issue if it would (likely) be overturned...I suppose not though, since the good ol' days of Lochner are gone because of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. (On a side note, Lochner was never over ruled explicitly.)

The way I see it, there is no real point in even having the US constitution anymore because your politicians don't follow its rules. They are always looking for new ways to change it to suit their own needs and agendas. I just say, It wasn't broken so don't fix the damn thing.

Athos wrote:There shouldn't be any inheritance tax. Then again, under IRS regulation, even if you give someone money in return for babysitting, there is supposed to be a tax on that. But that's government for you, getting their grubby fingers where they shouldn't be...I wonder though, if it became a legal issue if it would (likely) be overturned...I suppose not though, since the good ol' days of Lochner are gone because of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. (On a side note, Lochner was never over ruled explicitly.)

Well don't blame the government when you don't have enough funds to cover your ass.

I'm not so much opposed to heavy taxes, as I'm opposed to my money being used in crappy ways.

Aoi Sakuraba wrote:

Athos wrote:There shouldn't be any inheritance tax. Then again, under IRS regulation, even if you give someone money in return for babysitting, there is supposed to be a tax on that. But that's government for you, getting their grubby fingers where they shouldn't be...I wonder though, if it became a legal issue if it would (likely) be overturned...I suppose not though, since the good ol' days of Lochner are gone because of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. (On a side note, Lochner was never over ruled explicitly.)

The way I see it, there is no real point in even having the US constitution anymore because your politicians don't follow its rules. They are always looking for new ways to change it to suit their own needs and agendas. I just say, It wasn't broken so don't fix the damn thing.

[color=dodgerblue

Kaoru Hanabishi wrote:

Athos wrote:There shouldn't be any inheritance tax. Then again, under IRS regulation, even if you give someone money in return for babysitting, there is supposed to be a tax on that. But that's government for you, getting their grubby fingers where they shouldn't be...I wonder though, if it became a legal issue if it would (likely) be overturned...I suppose not though, since the good ol' days of Lochner are gone because of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. (On a side note, Lochner was never over ruled explicitly.)

Not sure about U.S Laws but you're right baby sitting supposed to be taxed? How the hell they keep track on someone's neighbour kid watch their baby lol

] Yep a great thing to do, get rid of the entire constitution because a few people broke the rules.


The constitution is a living document, and even though it's interpreted in different ways, rarely is it exploited to such a violent degree, and if it is, they normally amend it so that it doesn't happen again.[/color]

I actually think that you don't have to document it up to a certain amount. I think it's 5,000$ but I'm not exactly sure.

Well, I don't know much about American Laws but I have an example which sparked my interest to make this thread. There's this woman called Jade Goody who got famous after she entered Big Brother (just for the reference I don't watch this show and I find it boring to watch others lives goes on while I have my own).

Even after she left big brother she attracted the media attentions and especially gossipy magazines. Not long ago she was diagnose with terminal cancer that doesn't leave her much time left to live and she has her two sons to think about. What she done was using her publicity she decided to make public of her progress in the illness and her wedding with her boyfriend with the media before she dies. She made over £2.3ish million from all the media coverage she agreed to do about her remaining life.

However due to UK law she was over the maximum limit on inheritance tax she will be paying 40% of it about over £1million or so when she died in March. Leaving only half for her two son's and I know that's quite alot already for most people. However isn't it abit unfair for someone who decide to devote her remaining life to leave something for her loved ones, but only to be robbed half of it?

I mean inheritance is all the same when someone dies, at least they know they well leave something behind for their loved ones and so they can have a better or easier life to live. If I was in her shoes I'll be pretty pissed off if you ask me.

Kaoru Hanabishi wrote:Well, I don't know much about American Laws but I have an example which sparked my interest to make this thread. There's this woman called Jade Goody who got famous after she entered Big Brother (just for the reference I don't watch this show and I find it boring to watch others lives goes on while I have my own).

Even after she left big brother she attracted the media attentions and especially gossipy magazines. Not long ago she was diagnose with terminal cancer that doesn't leave her much time left to live and she has her two sons to think about. What she done was using her publicity she decided to make public of her progress in the illness and her wedding with her boyfriend with the media before she dies. She made over £2.3ish million from all the media coverage she agreed to do about her remaining life.

However due to UK law she was over the maximum limit on inheritance tax she will be paying 40% of it about over £1million or so when she died in March. Leaving only half for her two son's and I know that's quite alot already for most people. However isn't it abit unfair for someone who decide to devote her remaining life to leave something for her loved ones, but only to be robbed half of it?

I mean inheritance is all the same when someone dies, at least they know they well leave something behind for their loved ones and so they can have a better or easier life to live. If I was in her shoes I'll be pretty pissed off if you ask me.

All through life, we're provided with schooling, roads, and protection via the military and police. Yes it's sucks, and but it's a sacrifice. I can't say that I'd be too happy about losing that much money myself, but like I said, if it's going somewhere that increases living conditions, I really couldn't complain.

The Joker wrote: All through life, we're provided with schooling, roads, and protection via the military and police. Yes it's sucks, and but it's a sacrifice. I can't say that I'd be too happy about losing that much money myself, but like I said, if it's going somewhere that increases living conditions, I really couldn't complain.

I understand what you mean, but I guess if they can lower the figures I probably wouldn't be as disagreeing. I agree living standards need to be kept at a decent level, but still I hope someone figure out another way to avoid taking it from inheritance.

Imagine Bill Gates dies I wonder what lump the government gets lol...

Kaoru Hanabishi wrote:

The Joker wrote: All through life, we're provided with schooling, roads, and protection via the military and police. Yes it's sucks, and but it's a sacrifice. I can't say that I'd be too happy about losing that much money myself, but like I said, if it's going somewhere that increases living conditions, I really couldn't complain.

I understand what you mean, but I guess if they can lower the figures I probably wouldn't be as disagreeing. I agree living standards need to be kept at a decent level, but still I hope someone figure out another way to avoid taking it from inheritance.

Imagine Bill Gates dies I wonder what lump the government gets lol...

He's donating majority of his money to his charities. So not much. I do think that each of his kids get 12 or 13 million each.

Yea i know his donating too but still is alot left lol...

I pay my taxes and I don't complain, cant say that i really care about taxes.

well me neither it doesnt apply to me, since is not like i got enough XD but I thought I'll bring up an issue some people dislike.

Kaoru Hanabishi wrote:Yea i know his donating too but still is alot left lol...

He's donating like 99.9% of his assets.maybe more, I think it's worked out that each of his children get around .0035 of his net worth.

yea but to me and you is more than we can earn in our life time lol