Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung's Lee family to pay over $10.8B inheritence tax

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Samsung's Lee family to pay over $10.8B inheritence tax

#41

Post by atat7024 »

jjj123 wrote: post #33
vmception wrote: post #9

Seems excessive, how well is the Korean government in stewarding public resources and identifying areas of the economy to direct capital? Do they have a history of being the proper stewards of this money than a private person?

Since when is that the only purpose of taxes? I have no idea how efficiently the Korean govt distributes capital, but there are other reasons inheritance taxes are a good thing. Primarily because they limit the concentration of generational wealth in the 0.1%.

Unless all the tax money is used for subsidies/grants etc for companies owned by the elite/.01%.

Re: Samsung's Lee family to pay over $10.8B inheritence tax

#42

Post by vmception »

jjj123 wrote: post #33
vmception wrote: post #9

Seems excessive, how well is the Korean government in stewarding public resources and identifying areas of the economy to direct capital? Do they have a history of being the proper stewards of this money than a private person?

Since when is that the only purpose of taxes? I have no idea how efficiently the Korean govt distributes capital, but there are other reasons inheritance taxes are a good thing. Primarily because they limit the concentration of generational wealth in the 0.1%.

The aggregate outcome of government taxation is as a deterrent to sitting on piles of cash that year. Most fiscal policy via taxation is incentivizing the private property owner to create certain kinds of transactions in the economy, and if they fail to do so then the government runs a calculation on the remainder.

Thats the outcome whether any individual representative or tax policy expert would say that. The private persons operate within the existing world and have no utility in making an opinion on the purpose of tax, only reacting and playing within the system.

As such, it is surprising then that this family has not created transactions that would mitigate or nullify the state’s claim on their property.

Re: Samsung's Lee family to pay over $10.8B inheritence tax

#44

Post by vmception »

hogFeast wrote: post #36
vmception wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gotta read about this guy! His comatose film obsession is just as detrimental to his ability to make money as spending too much time with illegal sex workers. The commonality would be addiction, or more specifically neglecting other obligations. If neither of those things caused one to neglect other obligations, then there is nothing liberal and forward-thinking about not caring about the activity.

...I have come across quite a few execs with a prostitute habit...in no cases has it been unrelated to their job performance (and btw, I live somewhere where it is legal...it is usually correlated to either sex addiction and/or other addiction/compulsive behaviour).

what about executives with a binge watching habit? its fine if you aren't aware

Re: Samsung's Lee family to pay over $10.8B inheritence tax

#45

Post by Mandatum »

speeder wrote: post #10
matthewmorgan wrote: post #2

Nice problem to have

Last time I heard about this, there was some south koreans explaining this is very not nice, that the laws are silly, and can be weaponized. For example you can gift someone a expensive building right before your death, because when you do die, they will be forced to pay so much inheritance tax, that they would have to sell the building, since selling the building is quite hard, it is likely the person will just go b…

You can refuse gifts, you can also forfeit the building as payment. Banks have stupid money to lend.

This is propaganda.

Re: Samsung's Lee family to pay over $10.8B inheritence tax

#46

Post by emrah »

winkeltripel wrote: post #21
emrah wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how it works in South Korea but in the US, appraisals don't require having to sell the building. Similarly, for insurance purposes, they need to determine a value without having to sell the building.

The idea is that you'd have to pay inheritance tax on the value of the building. The only way for someone without wealth to pay that would be to sell the building. The sale of an industrial site could take years, during which you'd owe a bunch of taxes.

Oh I see. I think I misunderstood what the original comment was saying. There shouldn't be a need to sell the building to appraise its value but right, the new owner might have to sell it to be able to pay the tax if they have no other means to pay it.
Post reply on HN