Is it fair that someone is born into a filthy rich family, and once their parents die, are left with tens of millions, millions they had little or nothing to do with.

Personally, I know at least three families where the siblings will share in excess of one hundred million.

Although i think we have enpough taxes, Is it time to revisit this tax, and implement it when any one person inherits in excess of say $500,000, with the proceeds of the tax ONLY going towards local welfare and nothing else, ever!

rehctub,
Yeah, when a Government dies the ministers inherit massive pensions. Is that fair ? Considering the money is not of their making ?

In most countries people are allowed to dispose of their assets and property as they want to, even after death parents are allowed to give any amount of their money to their children. But rehctub wants to deny that freedom, in his country if you die your house and property will be seized by the State to fund rehctub and his fellow rulers.

Sorry mate, the filthy rich will always dodge the tax that you and I will pay.

Australian culture is changing for the worse in some respects. It is not so long ago that looking over one's neighbour's fence was regarded as very bad taste, and it was reprehensible to indulge in speculative gossip about their presumed assets and how they might be distributed. Jealousy was a sin and jealousy of others' money and assets was worse.

Rather than go along with it, people should be asking what the spruikers of class war get out of the anger and disunity they foster. Divide and conquer.

Sorry rehctub, that doesn't work for me.

Why on earth should someone's wealth be wasted on the mostly layabouts that would collect the welfare. You're worried someone, who hasn't worked for it should be given the wealth, & you want to give it to a bunch, so many of whom have never worked for anything. That should increase the single mother population enormously.

I also know of many young of wealthy families, particularly on the land, who have worked on the family property all their lives, for very little income. They often are the only reason the farm survives financially. You should know that many are land rich, but cash poor.

Unless this passing down of the family farm continues we would end up with all corporate farming, probably owned by Coles or Woolworths

For once I agree with rehctub.

Everyone should have two tax department accounts from birth; one for income and the other for gifts and inheritances. There was recently a report in the SMH of a father buying a property worth about $750,000 for a seven year old son. That activity tends to force house prices out of the range of people who need one.

As for Hasbeen's farm example, farm ownership could be limited to those who are prepared to live on them and to operate with a limit on subservient employment, say a farmer and partner and one permanent worker. There might also need to be a limit on the numbers of harvest or shearing contractors on a farm. Post WW2 Soldier Settlement farms were adequate at 500 hectares of wheat growing country. With larger machines and more efficient practices that number may be now about 1000ha.

Bob Hawke once quoted from a letter I sent (probably his speech writer's effort) where I wrote; "Under the present inheritance system how does a tradesman's son manage to become a farmer?"

Union boss Paul Howes, who dabbles in deciding Labor leaders and telling the Labor Party what to do, has blasted those land-rich, income-poor farming families. Howes, the National Secretary of the AWU admits to a salary of $140,000pa and on top of that are his CEO perks and golden handshake when he cares to take it.

http://www.farmweekly.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/abbott-slams-howes-over-comments/2680392.aspx

To be brutally honest, this is a union boss who makes a jolly good income out of the fears of workers who earn a fraction of what he demands and gets, and workers who will could never imagine the luxurious lifestyle Howes could choose with the pay-out he might get.

Recently, ex-PM Julia Whatshername, who tried her fist at class and gender wars in the recent election but was rebuffed by the electorate, retired on a golden ex-PM package of benefits and parliamentary superannuation. She immediately traded up to a $2million bungalow and will live very well off Aussie taxpayers. Not too shabby at all for a Fabian socialist aka 'Progressive' who 'dissed' 'wealthy' people to make a career of that, while riding the feminist gravy train as well.

If we are to chew the fat over the 'ethics' of hardworking parents passing some of the fruits of their labours onto their offspring who they have kept independently of the State anyhow, what should be said of those who have produced zilch in concrete terms and have had the benefit of riding a wagon for their entire 'working' career and who look forward to people far less well off than themselves supporting them in style in their retirement (when they will likely earn more $$)?

It is not fair, is it?

.....Daeron, welcome to my fan club.

So tell me, do you think it's fair that one person inherits a hundred million while others get zero.

Dont you think it would be fair to share inherited wealth around a bit.

If not, why not? Because after all, I am only suggesting any amount in excess of half a million. Per sibling that is.

Hasbeen, I am nit talking about the family hand me down farm, however, if the multiple million dollar farm is sold off to developers, than that's in my view is fair game.

As for layabouts, I should have picked another word other than welfare.

What I meant by that was to keep it from government coppers so they couldn't waste it on other things like foreign aid, wasted projects or un seats etc.

And Daeron, just re read your post, please note I did say in excess of half a million.

Even then we could make it a full million, but I don't see the fairness in someone, just because they were born lucky, inheriting 20 million.

after 5 years of economic vandalism I can't believe anyone would want more money handed over to the Government especially after someone worked to earn that money. Maybe tax all those who earned their money on Government sponsored Green schemes, the Indigeneous industry or union thuggery.

Dream on!

The first politician to try and bring this in will be the first Australian politician to have a bullet to the back of the head!

Do you honestly believe someone like Murdock or Packer and any other rich family are going to let that happen?

Is it not enough that the state steals from you all your life? You want to give them what you get to keep when you die?

You're sounding more socialist with every passing day, rehctub. You sure you haven't been drinking the Fabian kool aid again?

SOCIALIST ENVY!

individual - Do you mean the $2000,0000 plus per year indexed for life pension Juliar is getting?

For her incompetence she should be paying us not the other way around.

Correction $200,000 plus per year.

Nice to see you know all about farming Foyle. People really should learn to keep their mouths shut about things, when they know absolutely nothing about them.

A case study. A mate of mine, now supposed to be retired to Bribie Island from the Jandowae farm. 2600 acres of treeless plain country, some of the best farming land in Oz, IF IT RAINS. His son is5Th generation on the property in just over 100 years.

Started with the old one square mile, 640acres, which was enough back pre war, when wheat prices were high. The farm employed 6 men full time.

Today run by his son, with no labour but dad when called, [about half the time]. It is barely enough to make a living, without flogging it to death. Wheat prices are so low some years, it is not worth harvesting, without chick peas & cotton it could not support one family.

They are highly qualified farmers. One of the first to use zero till, & the first to use satnav controlled permanent laneway farming. Still the place can't afford to replace it's machinery. They are forced to use contract harvesters.

They were debt free for 25 years, but 20/30 years back a series of bad years saw them within one failed crop of loosing the place not once but twice. Keating's 17%+ interest rates did for many good farmers.

Far from having to limit their staff, today they can't afford any. Clapped out dad has to help weld the equally clapped out machinery back together, & drive a truck during planting & harvesting.

Where once a good harvest once every 4 years, made for profitable farming, today it is a minimum of one in two, & that may not do it, if a bumper year means low prices.

It is probably fair to say the father should be fined for cruelty to dumb animals, leaving the farm to his son. Only a very dumb son, with deep emotional attachment to the place would be silly enough to accept it.

I now live on a pension and I do not need more money from the filthy rich. I also have worked hard all my life and feel no envy for those that inherit wealth. They have their problems that comes with money. I have no money problems. The thread sounds like socialist envy to me.

Runner, that's why I suggested that all taxes raised through this scheme, MUST be used to support families, nothing else.

Actually Raw Mustard, my kids, now adults, will most likely inherit more than a half a million each, so I am willing to effect my own, for the benefit of all.

Josephus, no socialist envy from my end, as I will not be eligible for a pension as I should be a self funded retiree before I am sixty. If all goes to plan.

But seriously, do you honestly believe anyone is deserving of ten million just because their parents were filthy rich?

Now if they were a James Packer, and continued the family business, or farm, then that's fine, as I'm more referring to this who cash in after mum and dad pass on, or a rich uncle leaves a fortune.

I have a belief that Business that have profits after tax of over $500,000; for each $500,000 they employ an extra person rather than downsize staff and pay executives millions. To me this is social responsibility. For me inheritance is not a problem but the interest or investment gained the above applies.

For her incompetence she should be paying us not the other way around.
Philip S,
Yes, I think I have said similarly on many occasions here. Public servants do not have to contribute as much to their Super as those working in private enterprise. Everyone should contribute the same percentage.
The minimum wage does not need to be raised it's the high end income that needs to be lowered to make low income more competitive not only here but globally for the benefit of trade.
We must make greed unfashionable. Get talking to some movie producers & pop groups.

forget the rich
MAKE TRUSTS[family trusts;corperate 'persons'[incorporation's] die
ALLTHOSE TOO BIG TOPFAIL cant ENDLESSLY GROW..and not die

i figure 20 years MAX..dissolves EVERY trust
its ASSETS..if any..are auctioned off on line
and the entities trustees can buy back all..or just key bits..with cash..not credit..

ITS ONLY TOO EASY TO HIDE WEALTH..in trusts..UNSEEN never dying..
tax avoiders hugly..keeping everything in-house[owning/renting too each other..via a slightly 'different trust..EVEN then..payments even in house claim deductions..'being tax' deductable..if its
IN..HOUSE..is insane*./.but t6hats how we are being screwed..at the end..of the trusts must be a living being..but we got trusts for other trusts[not shareholder..corporates hold the biggest trusts[even the house of settlements..that allow the APPEARANCE..ofg share trading..[oif you dont 'got'..the paper..your only placing 'a bet'..ons tock..you EVER held..or even/never existed[thus couldnt be sold

never left the trust..EVER

every trust born..last century..should be disoplved
die....beginning with THE BIGGEST AND OLDEST..the older the more urgent*..size matters

generally i agree death duties
its the only tax some ever pay..
but govt cant lawfully tax people[the living]..
so..death duties ALWAYS was,,only,,][for business/trust..ie creations of the state..created..by the act*]

t

before trust abuse
good to see were onthe same page

YOU ARE THE INCARNATE..mortal/living enjoined/living heir
of the eternal/omni*present..IMMORTAL..living loving father[good]..[god for short]

anyhow..INHERITANCE/tax shall fall ONLY on..the dead
[this is fair..trust/companies..ONLY]..so death duties
ONLY apply to the dead..[THE[i so called persons UNDER the act

[inc/ltd]..corporations business
and the dead*

the living live on the works of those past caring
anyhow we have drawn up gods will..and your all in..it
you have a credit card..that pays any reasonable repair teaching restoration even entertaining of feeding any LIVING heir of the living good

how?
proper govt..is taking back..control
see the snowden thread..

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152#178808

its all*..up to..you giving the AUTHER-izations
and clean-up..the rules by which we be ruled..by..as deserving children..of the father must be served..[better than we deserve]

but one COMMON WEALTH..
must have one form..of law
one crown..many..leaping lords..serving the deserving

servicing all life..that..only god created
YOU/MAAM..are..thy brothers servant..thus do we trust*..in thee.
the right royal perogative..of a sovereign charged by/god..to be just

rechtub,I think you may have the other side of it wrong. Its not to me the difference between those who inherit a lot and those who inherit none. I see the issue is the diff between the person who inherits large sums and pays no tax and the person who busts their boiler to provide for their family and is taxed at a high rate because it happens to be earned income.

No regard in our tax system to actual need or effort.

It appears to be difficult to do most taxes sanely, for those who are upset by rehctub's point keep in mind that our existing income tax system often severely penalizes those far more deserving.

R0bert