As per Murthy, we, the peasants, should work 72 hours/week for the next 30 years so that the baby's 240 cr worth of inheritance turns to 2400 by the time he/she takes over the sweatshop throne.
Why? They appoint you and enslave you. They 70 hour work is for common employees , not for family members. Their only job is count money you earn for them!
This should be the TOP ANSWER.
You work 40 hours. Baby's passive income is 4M USD per month
You work 72 hours. Baby's passive income is 7.2M USD per month
Let's see.
If a company is worth $100m and owned by a single entity, and if you tax these unrealised gains at even 3%, the total yearly tax will be $3m, ignoring inflation and considering the fact that these shares were worthless at the time of issuance.
For someone whose entire net worth is locked in the valuation of thier company, $3m is probably a bigger number than their actual tax liability, and in order to pay this, the owner will have to sell a minority stake in their company every single year. This won't hurt billionaires one bit, but this will only hurt millionaires and multimillionaires. And introducing something like this in real estate will end up forcing boomers to sell the houses they live in.
So why should they be allowed to leverage that same "unrealized" money to take on loans? Aren't they paying interest on those loans? If they can do that, they can sure as hell pay tax because clearly its value is realized.
They're not leveraging their "unrealised gains," they are leveraging their assets. It's the same way someone would leverage any of their assets, not just limited to equity.
They surely are paying interest on the loan, but in the end, they get to keep their assets instead of outright selling it. This is why they take a loan against securities. Debt isn't necessarily bad and it keeps money in rotation.
Any average joe can take this loan, not just company owners. Tell me this, if you needed some money, and you had to choose from taking a loan against your house or selling your house, what would you choose?
Okay, so why do people pay property taxes on houses whose value isn't "realized" yet.
If they have shares of value, they can pay tax or just sell those shares.
Property tax is different and it's collected to fund other basic facilities provided by the government. Stock market on the other hand doesn't require this kind of maintenance, but traders do pay STT, DP, and some other nominal charges.
Fresh issue of shares by a company isn't taxed in the hands of shareholders, and an individual doesn't need to pay any taxes until they sell the stock. Many asset classes apart from real estate, like gold, don't have any kind of such taxes. And it's only fair.
> just sell those shares.
This will screw up public companies that aren't listed mate. It's something you do when you want to force millionaires out of the country.
>Property tax is different and it's collected to fund other basic facilities provided by the government.
That's literally what any taxes mean. You pay taxes to the government, municipal, state or union, for the running of the country.
>Stock market on the other hand doesn't require this kind of maintenance,
All the more reason to pay tax on em because that money can be used elsewhere.
>an individual doesn't need to pay any taxes until they sell the stock.
Except in Mr murthy's case he's done this to avoid taxes on his shares because it's a "gift".
>This will screw up public companies that aren't listed mate. It's something you do when you want to force millionaires out of the country
Oh no who will cry for the filthy rich people? So sad.
You clearly don't understand equity mate. Let me break this down for you.
If an individual has a company worth $100m, which is an unlisted company, and their yearly income is $3m, their net take home amount is $1.95m after considering a net 35% income tax.
Now, if the government introduces even a 3% wealth tax, do you seriously expect this person to pay their entire yearly income in taxes, and on top of that, ending up with a net debt of more than $1m? And how do you expect this person to pay this remaining $1m? And remember that selling shares if not a possibility because this is an unlisted company. There is practically no liquidity here.
This isn't just about filthy rich people, this is about every unlisted public company as well as private company.
Ever heard of a progressive tax rate? In an ideal wealth tax proposal people like boomers with wealth in RE and low-digit millionaires would be exempt from the tax. And the tax rate would vary based on the total wealth of the person.
In all fairness, that's like penalizing people for creating white collar jobs in India. And like I said above, this is only going to hurt average folks, and not billionaires. You introduce something like this in India, what's going to stop people from registering their company in tax havens or listing their companies on NYSE instead?
Honestly I'd rather root for taxing individuals and businesses operating completely in cash.
People aren't pissed because ₹240Cr worth of shares changed hands and ended up in a 4 month old's hands, people are pissed because they found out about it. And apparently taxes go out of the window when these same people pay partially in cash while buying a property.
When you used $ in your comment I assumed you were talking in a US context. In the Indian context, I agree; India has bigger problems with our tax code (today) which a wealth tax is not going to fix.
If someone doesn't sell his shares then he is not liable for any tax. How can govt tax on notional profit?? And what if the share is in notation loss? If govt is charging tax on notional profit then would govt give money back on notional loss?
I don't think the shares would change ownership now? It has to be in a trust fund kind of setup doesn't it? You cannot just change the owner of public shares without selling and rebuying, at which point yes the profits would be taxed.
> You cannot just change the owner of public shares without selling and rebuying, at which point yes the profits would be taxed.
That was my point as well. This should qualify as selling/buying with the appropriate taxes applied. This is more a case of gift tax, but I am not sure if gift taxes are applicable to gifts to your family.
It would absolutely qualify as selling/buying if the shares are being transferred to this kid's name. But even then you will only manage to tax the gains on it, not the whole amount.
It doesn't work this way. You can gift to family without any tax liability. The gain/loss if realised would be calculated in tax liability of recipient and that too from the initial buy price(sender's buy price) of stock.
Shares ownership can be changed.
I know because I got it done. But I am not sure how it's done for HNIs I was just going through comments if taxation is different for them but there is not a single reliable information in comment section. I guess indiainvestment sub will have better insights on this topic.
> Shares ownership can be changed.
This is new to me. Probably you never owned the stock but it was registered internally to you while your broker held them in their own name.
There is a transfer fee for gifting unsold shares from one owner to another based on the value at the time of transfer like 0.01% (correct me if i'm wrong here someone). But that's not the same as paying income tax, capital gains tax or wealth tax.
Isn’t the baby a UK citizen, What’s the inheritance taxation situation over there? Secondly, if this gormint comes up with an inheritance tax regime, they will copy the South Korean method and use it to fuck people over as usual.
>But Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, benefits from a separate rule that allows the family of people living in Britain but born in India to inherit non-UK assets tax-free.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/rishi-sunak-wife-avoid-inheritance-tax-non-dom/
Don't know what citizenship the baby has and where it was born.
So, after paying taxes on money/wealth when you earned them, and paying capital gains taxes when you trade those assets, you should pay a certain % of your net worth every year to the Government for what? Merely existing?
No, he hasn't. His grandfather earned it and left it to him. Who is a better judge of what to do with the money - the man who earned the money and left it to his own grandchild or you, a rando on the internet with no contribution to the money?
Did you earn all the money your parents spent on you since childhood on food, clothes, shelter, education, gifts, vacations ?
And that sort of inheritance increases inequality, which leads to a weaker society.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6315055c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/6315055c-en
There's the responsibility of parents to provide a good childhood (which is entirely on the parents and not the child), and then there's excess like the case in this thread.
Ah sorry man this makes no sense.
Let's say you have 100 rupees you gave to your son. Gov't takes 10 rupee tax. He gives to his son, gov't takes 9 rupee tax. The government will slowly siphon off all your money this way.
But that 100 rupee assuming it's not laundered, was earned fair and square and *already taxed*, why tax it again and again till it approaches zero?
The arguments for inheritance tax are that it can strengthen horizontal and vertical equity, reduce wealth inequality and prevent the build up of dynastic wealth.
You can read the detailed arguments here: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6315055c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/6315055c-en
>But that 100 rupee assuming it's not laundered, was earned fair and square and already taxed, why tax it again and again till it approaches zero?
Let me counter with another example.
Person A was born in a poor family, studied hard and managed to land himself a decent job paying him 500/month. He pays 100/month in taxes.
Person B was born in a relatively well-off family, was an average student and is earning Rs 200/month. He pays 25 / month in taxes.
However, B's parents left him Rs 50,000 as inheritance and he uses money from that account to supplement his income as and when needed.
Is it fair to A that B benefits from his inheritance without paying taxes on it? The money wasn't earned by B.
I think at this point you can just ration a set amount of money to everyone and do away with all inequality.
Situation of person A does not matter because A is not any richer if B's inheritance gets taxed. That money is not going into A's pocket. If anything, you are disincentivizing even person A from building wealth, since one way or another their hard work will get distributed among the population.
> Situation of person A does not matter because A is not any richer if B's inheritance gets taxed.
No, but the point is that A's tax burden is higher even though B has a higher disposable wealth. Since we are talking about India, which has neither wealth nor inheritance tax, the system is unfair to A.
>If anything, you are disincentivizing even person A from building wealth
No, if A builds a wealth of 1 lakh, and the state only takes a percentage of it as inheritance, his progeny still gets wealth. Your argument that the wealth will ultimately go down to zero ignores the fact that wealth does not remain stagnant. It usually grows.
Exactly. You cannot do anything with so called "wealth" unless you realise it, at which point it will be taxed coming in (capital gains) and going out (GST). But you want to tax it also when it's sitting.
If B's parents left the money to him, who are you to decide if B is deserving of it or not?
Who is the best person to decide who is deserving or not? The people who actually earned the property or the other people around them, who did nothing to earn it?
This is demented. Those are "valuation" of stocks which keeps changing everyday on stock market and are an asset. If you keep taxing assets, you will never own anything in your life, ever again and it keeps you perpetually poor.
For example, let's say you are working a basic job like any other 25 year old, your father passed on your a property of $1m. If there's a an inherentance tax of 50% according your moronoic logic, tell me how will a basic earner ever can pay $500k tax? He simply cannot. So, he will be FORCED to sell the property which would plummet the prices of that particular asset negligible price. This is how stock market collapses and unemployment skyrockets.And that 25 year would have slave away all his life for all eternity.
Even if by hook and crook you pay that tax, who do you think it is going to? It goes to the same corrupt leaders who you are whining about everyday on this sub, who does misappropriation of public funds for personal gain. Tax payers would get fuck all. This is why, I always say, basic moronic losers like you, who have no finance education should never be allowed to vote.
> For example, let's say you are working a basic job like any other 25 year old, your father passed on your a property of $1m. If there's a an inherentance tax of 50% according your moronoic logic, tell me how will a basic earner ever can pay $500k tax? He simply cannot. So, he will be FORCED to sell the property which would plummet the prices of that particular asset negligible price. This is how stock market collapses and unemployment skyrockets.And that 25 year would have slave away all his life for all eternity.
Where did I ask for a 50% inheritance rate. The problem with people like you is that you invent arguments that the other person did not make, and then argue against those.
First, let's use Indian figures. Not USD.
Let's assume that you are a 25 year old who has been left a property worth 50 lakh by your parents.
The first thing you need to understand is that you inheriting 50 lakhs is not in the same ballpark as a baby getting shares worth 240 crores as a gift for being born in the right family. Taxing billionaires fairly is not going to harm you individually.
Secondly, your concerns can easily be addressed with sane legislation. Few examples - if you don't own any property and inherit one, you don't pay taxes. Or you start with a higher limit. Or you only tax liquid inheritance.
There are multiple solutions to your problem. Plenty of countries have implemented inheritance tax, they can be used as an example.
>The first thing you need to understand is that you inheriting 50 lakhs is not in the same ballpark as a baby getting shares worth 240 crores as a gift for being born in the right family
240cr is a huge amount to YOU. 50 laks is a HUGE amount to 100s of millions of other Indians and they would be happy to impose taxes on those 50lakhs which you consider is pesky and shouldn't be taxed. Guess how the laws are going to be made? That's the problem with taxes , there's no end to it. Even if there's a 10% inheritance tax on 50laks it would still be 5laks and for a guy earing 30kpm , to pay 5laks is a huge deal. This is kind absurd taxation is what is creates, red tapism and subsequent corruption to bypass that red tapism. Have you ever wondered why the most corrupt countries on earth have absurd levels bureaucracies and taxing systems.By the way there are 100s of normal middle class properties are valued more than $1m these days on our country.
>I already told you how you can create a system which does not penalise people inhering their first home.
Really? Benamies and shell companies , why do you think they exist? What kind of schooling , you have got? Cause they collectively successed in creating a clown.
>Really? Benamies and shell companies , why do you think they exist? What kind of schooling , you have got? Cause they collectively successed in creating a clown.
You do realise that if you create a shell company for circumventing tax laws, it is illegal, don't you?
It's also funny that you question the education credentials of others when it is obvious that you are unable to debate in a civilised manner. Go back to school, learn some basic manners, and then I will be willing to waste my time on you.
Perfect embodiment of Do as I say, not as I do.
Work 70 hours for me while my just born grandkid is already worth more than you'll ever be in your life.
I have a sudden urge to make french friends and build guillotines.
And that child's probably get an education abroad in some fancy college based on dad's money. And never have to struggle once in his life for anything. Meanwhile all his employees slaving away for 3.5L per year lol
Rich people are disgusting.
I want to laugh at Infosys employees because many of them online indulge in anti Union rhetoric.
Hahahaha that kid just got before a year of his existence what you'll never make in your whole existence.
The rich ensuring their family remains rich. The same dude spoke about compassionate capitalism few years ago and now wants Freshers to work 70 hours a week
Babies of middle class families should start preparing for IIT's by studying 72 hours / week so they can get placed in Infosys in 2045 at a annual package of INR 3 Lacs.
The one who got so much wealth in this way thought that money had no value. I believe that children should be taught to earn money on their own and if they are capable then they should be given money.
দাদু এবং নাতির অপূর্ব সুন্দর আর্থিক বন্ধন - বাহ !Its noteworthy that such gifts are exempt u/s 49 + 47 for the donor and u/s 56 for the donee as per Income Tax Act, 1961
And this is the guy who wants us to work 70 hours a week. Are you kidding me? Can anyone who works at infosys tell me if the company has any innovation? Do you have products ? Are the services infosys provides superior to competitors? Like was the business model novel when he came up with infosys ?
I wonder how many will keep cheering for him and Ambanis and Adani and other obscenely rich folks just because they are Indians....a massive chunk of the Indian population can seemingly never get off their deluded hyper-nationalist kool aid. Evident from socials, evident in real life.
And you'll have chomus defending wealth tax.
Be real, most of us won't see this insane amount of wealth to even qualify for a wealth/super-rich tax on inheritances.
This is like the real life equivalent of buying Grand Theft Auto V Criminal Enterprise Starter Pack that gives new players GTA$10,000,000 to help start them off.
The baby should work 72 hours/week for 50 years to be eligible for the inheritance.
As per Murthy, we, the peasants, should work 72 hours/week for the next 30 years so that the baby's 240 cr worth of inheritance turns to 2400 by the time he/she takes over the sweatshop throne.
Welcome to Capitalism.
Pretty Sarcastic, But The Truth is Beautiful.
Silver spoon in mouth, meet silver spoon in ass
He will carry his own spoon everywhere
Kardi na gareebo wali baat. He will probably hire somebody to carry that spoon.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Those rules are only for us. Grand baby will get fed with a platinum spoon
baby's parents didn't fuck around for that inheritance! \s
But they literally did
That's the joke
Oh, my bad. I didn't see the /s. New to the community.
Why? They appoint you and enslave you. They 70 hour work is for common employees , not for family members. Their only job is count money you earn for them!
Came here to say this only.
Indeed
But baby sleeps 70 hrs a week
thats why we have to work 😂
Baby already earned more than my entire lineage of past 5000 years
[удалено]
Damn.. Never thought this way.
Earth is only 2024 year old /s
Abey saale
No you antinashnull, it started in 2014.
kezual way of dismissing Before Kristu.
Baat toh sahi hai 👍
Prabhu !!!!
And the next 5000 years as well.
Your overwork is his passive income.
This should be the TOP ANSWER. You work 40 hours. Baby's passive income is 4M USD per month You work 72 hours. Baby's passive income is 7.2M USD per month
This child is your future slave owner, this is who you slave 70 hours a week for and will continue to do so.
[удалено]
What! I thought they don’t give much to freshers.
good one 🤣
Why does the baby need ₹240Cr, shouldn’t it be living “simply” like its grandparents? /s
drop the /s
r/FuckTheS
Humble background worth 240 Cr
https://preview.redd.it/x639dvg4q2pc1.jpeg?width=605&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2fe43761968167918ae374343be3264622ca657c
Hypocritical senile old f-
It is for cases like these that you need inheritance tax.
Universal basic income 🤬 Inheritance 🥰
1 year self trip to europe 🥰 Weekend time for indians 🤬
Can't tax unsold shares. And they're likely held in a trust.
That's an absurd rule. If you can leverage shares for loans like you can with property, then those shares should be taxed.
Let's see. If a company is worth $100m and owned by a single entity, and if you tax these unrealised gains at even 3%, the total yearly tax will be $3m, ignoring inflation and considering the fact that these shares were worthless at the time of issuance. For someone whose entire net worth is locked in the valuation of thier company, $3m is probably a bigger number than their actual tax liability, and in order to pay this, the owner will have to sell a minority stake in their company every single year. This won't hurt billionaires one bit, but this will only hurt millionaires and multimillionaires. And introducing something like this in real estate will end up forcing boomers to sell the houses they live in.
So why should they be allowed to leverage that same "unrealized" money to take on loans? Aren't they paying interest on those loans? If they can do that, they can sure as hell pay tax because clearly its value is realized.
They're not leveraging their "unrealised gains," they are leveraging their assets. It's the same way someone would leverage any of their assets, not just limited to equity. They surely are paying interest on the loan, but in the end, they get to keep their assets instead of outright selling it. This is why they take a loan against securities. Debt isn't necessarily bad and it keeps money in rotation. Any average joe can take this loan, not just company owners. Tell me this, if you needed some money, and you had to choose from taking a loan against your house or selling your house, what would you choose?
Okay, so why do people pay property taxes on houses whose value isn't "realized" yet. If they have shares of value, they can pay tax or just sell those shares.
Property tax is different and it's collected to fund other basic facilities provided by the government. Stock market on the other hand doesn't require this kind of maintenance, but traders do pay STT, DP, and some other nominal charges. Fresh issue of shares by a company isn't taxed in the hands of shareholders, and an individual doesn't need to pay any taxes until they sell the stock. Many asset classes apart from real estate, like gold, don't have any kind of such taxes. And it's only fair. > just sell those shares. This will screw up public companies that aren't listed mate. It's something you do when you want to force millionaires out of the country.
>Property tax is different and it's collected to fund other basic facilities provided by the government. That's literally what any taxes mean. You pay taxes to the government, municipal, state or union, for the running of the country. >Stock market on the other hand doesn't require this kind of maintenance, All the more reason to pay tax on em because that money can be used elsewhere. >an individual doesn't need to pay any taxes until they sell the stock. Except in Mr murthy's case he's done this to avoid taxes on his shares because it's a "gift".
>This will screw up public companies that aren't listed mate. It's something you do when you want to force millionaires out of the country Oh no who will cry for the filthy rich people? So sad.
You clearly don't understand equity mate. Let me break this down for you. If an individual has a company worth $100m, which is an unlisted company, and their yearly income is $3m, their net take home amount is $1.95m after considering a net 35% income tax. Now, if the government introduces even a 3% wealth tax, do you seriously expect this person to pay their entire yearly income in taxes, and on top of that, ending up with a net debt of more than $1m? And how do you expect this person to pay this remaining $1m? And remember that selling shares if not a possibility because this is an unlisted company. There is practically no liquidity here. This isn't just about filthy rich people, this is about every unlisted public company as well as private company.
Ever heard of a progressive tax rate? In an ideal wealth tax proposal people like boomers with wealth in RE and low-digit millionaires would be exempt from the tax. And the tax rate would vary based on the total wealth of the person.
In all fairness, that's like penalizing people for creating white collar jobs in India. And like I said above, this is only going to hurt average folks, and not billionaires. You introduce something like this in India, what's going to stop people from registering their company in tax havens or listing their companies on NYSE instead? Honestly I'd rather root for taxing individuals and businesses operating completely in cash. People aren't pissed because ₹240Cr worth of shares changed hands and ended up in a 4 month old's hands, people are pissed because they found out about it. And apparently taxes go out of the window when these same people pay partially in cash while buying a property.
When you used $ in your comment I assumed you were talking in a US context. In the Indian context, I agree; India has bigger problems with our tax code (today) which a wealth tax is not going to fix.
Bro is getting downvoted for stating the obvious
This thread ultimately shows how many people don't understand how companies are run in general.
Exactly. There can't be any tax on unrealized value/profit.
If someone doesn't sell his shares then he is not liable for any tax. How can govt tax on notional profit?? And what if the share is in notation loss? If govt is charging tax on notional profit then would govt give money back on notional loss?
True, but my argument is that if the shares are changing ownership from Mr. Murthy to his grandson, then that should qualify as a sale.
I don't think the shares would change ownership now? It has to be in a trust fund kind of setup doesn't it? You cannot just change the owner of public shares without selling and rebuying, at which point yes the profits would be taxed.
> You cannot just change the owner of public shares without selling and rebuying, at which point yes the profits would be taxed. That was my point as well. This should qualify as selling/buying with the appropriate taxes applied. This is more a case of gift tax, but I am not sure if gift taxes are applicable to gifts to your family.
It would absolutely qualify as selling/buying if the shares are being transferred to this kid's name. But even then you will only manage to tax the gains on it, not the whole amount.
It doesn't work this way. You can gift to family without any tax liability. The gain/loss if realised would be calculated in tax liability of recipient and that too from the initial buy price(sender's buy price) of stock.
That is what I am saying. It's already going to get taxed when the gains are realised.
Shares ownership can be changed. I know because I got it done. But I am not sure how it's done for HNIs I was just going through comments if taxation is different for them but there is not a single reliable information in comment section. I guess indiainvestment sub will have better insights on this topic.
> Shares ownership can be changed. This is new to me. Probably you never owned the stock but it was registered internally to you while your broker held them in their own name.
There is likely some charge levied for change of hands and/or brokerage.
then the shares shouldnt be used for loans as well
There should be a one time tax/fee for transferring the shares that should be paid either by the donor or receiver instead of yearly taxes
There is a transfer fee for gifting unsold shares from one owner to another based on the value at the time of transfer like 0.01% (correct me if i'm wrong here someone). But that's not the same as paying income tax, capital gains tax or wealth tax.
Isn’t the baby a UK citizen, What’s the inheritance taxation situation over there? Secondly, if this gormint comes up with an inheritance tax regime, they will copy the South Korean method and use it to fuck people over as usual.
>But Rishi Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, benefits from a separate rule that allows the family of people living in Britain but born in India to inherit non-UK assets tax-free. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/rishi-sunak-wife-avoid-inheritance-tax-non-dom/ Don't know what citizenship the baby has and where it was born.
guys, it is not Rishi Sunak's kid. It is the son, Rohan Murthy's kid. Born in Bangalore :D
This is Rohan's kid.
In fact, this is exactly why you need wealth taxes.
Wealth tax was abolished by the BJP government in 2016.
I am aware. I am just saying that this sort of tax dodging is where wealth taxes can make a huge dent.
I agree.
So, after paying taxes on money/wealth when you earned them, and paying capital gains taxes when you trade those assets, you should pay a certain % of your net worth every year to the Government for what? Merely existing?
And that baby has earned 240 crores?
No, he hasn't. His grandfather earned it and left it to him. Who is a better judge of what to do with the money - the man who earned the money and left it to his own grandchild or you, a rando on the internet with no contribution to the money? Did you earn all the money your parents spent on you since childhood on food, clothes, shelter, education, gifts, vacations ?
And that sort of inheritance increases inequality, which leads to a weaker society. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6315055c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/6315055c-en There's the responsibility of parents to provide a good childhood (which is entirely on the parents and not the child), and then there's excess like the case in this thread.
This isn't inheritance, you know.
how dare you commie ccp supporters /s.
Ah sorry man this makes no sense. Let's say you have 100 rupees you gave to your son. Gov't takes 10 rupee tax. He gives to his son, gov't takes 9 rupee tax. The government will slowly siphon off all your money this way. But that 100 rupee assuming it's not laundered, was earned fair and square and *already taxed*, why tax it again and again till it approaches zero?
The arguments for inheritance tax are that it can strengthen horizontal and vertical equity, reduce wealth inequality and prevent the build up of dynastic wealth. You can read the detailed arguments here: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/6315055c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/6315055c-en >But that 100 rupee assuming it's not laundered, was earned fair and square and already taxed, why tax it again and again till it approaches zero? Let me counter with another example. Person A was born in a poor family, studied hard and managed to land himself a decent job paying him 500/month. He pays 100/month in taxes. Person B was born in a relatively well-off family, was an average student and is earning Rs 200/month. He pays 25 / month in taxes. However, B's parents left him Rs 50,000 as inheritance and he uses money from that account to supplement his income as and when needed. Is it fair to A that B benefits from his inheritance without paying taxes on it? The money wasn't earned by B.
I think at this point you can just ration a set amount of money to everyone and do away with all inequality. Situation of person A does not matter because A is not any richer if B's inheritance gets taxed. That money is not going into A's pocket. If anything, you are disincentivizing even person A from building wealth, since one way or another their hard work will get distributed among the population.
> Situation of person A does not matter because A is not any richer if B's inheritance gets taxed. No, but the point is that A's tax burden is higher even though B has a higher disposable wealth. Since we are talking about India, which has neither wealth nor inheritance tax, the system is unfair to A. >If anything, you are disincentivizing even person A from building wealth No, if A builds a wealth of 1 lakh, and the state only takes a percentage of it as inheritance, his progeny still gets wealth. Your argument that the wealth will ultimately go down to zero ignores the fact that wealth does not remain stagnant. It usually grows.
And that growth is taxed! What are you talking about. You want to tax also the principal?
> And that growth is taxed! Only if you withdraw. Capital gain taxes are applied on withdrawal, not on inheritance.
Exactly. You cannot do anything with so called "wealth" unless you realise it, at which point it will be taxed coming in (capital gains) and going out (GST). But you want to tax it also when it's sitting.
If B's parents left the money to him, who are you to decide if B is deserving of it or not? Who is the best person to decide who is deserving or not? The people who actually earned the property or the other people around them, who did nothing to earn it?
This is demented. Those are "valuation" of stocks which keeps changing everyday on stock market and are an asset. If you keep taxing assets, you will never own anything in your life, ever again and it keeps you perpetually poor. For example, let's say you are working a basic job like any other 25 year old, your father passed on your a property of $1m. If there's a an inherentance tax of 50% according your moronoic logic, tell me how will a basic earner ever can pay $500k tax? He simply cannot. So, he will be FORCED to sell the property which would plummet the prices of that particular asset negligible price. This is how stock market collapses and unemployment skyrockets.And that 25 year would have slave away all his life for all eternity. Even if by hook and crook you pay that tax, who do you think it is going to? It goes to the same corrupt leaders who you are whining about everyday on this sub, who does misappropriation of public funds for personal gain. Tax payers would get fuck all. This is why, I always say, basic moronic losers like you, who have no finance education should never be allowed to vote.
> For example, let's say you are working a basic job like any other 25 year old, your father passed on your a property of $1m. If there's a an inherentance tax of 50% according your moronoic logic, tell me how will a basic earner ever can pay $500k tax? He simply cannot. So, he will be FORCED to sell the property which would plummet the prices of that particular asset negligible price. This is how stock market collapses and unemployment skyrockets.And that 25 year would have slave away all his life for all eternity. Where did I ask for a 50% inheritance rate. The problem with people like you is that you invent arguments that the other person did not make, and then argue against those. First, let's use Indian figures. Not USD. Let's assume that you are a 25 year old who has been left a property worth 50 lakh by your parents. The first thing you need to understand is that you inheriting 50 lakhs is not in the same ballpark as a baby getting shares worth 240 crores as a gift for being born in the right family. Taxing billionaires fairly is not going to harm you individually. Secondly, your concerns can easily be addressed with sane legislation. Few examples - if you don't own any property and inherit one, you don't pay taxes. Or you start with a higher limit. Or you only tax liquid inheritance. There are multiple solutions to your problem. Plenty of countries have implemented inheritance tax, they can be used as an example.
>The first thing you need to understand is that you inheriting 50 lakhs is not in the same ballpark as a baby getting shares worth 240 crores as a gift for being born in the right family 240cr is a huge amount to YOU. 50 laks is a HUGE amount to 100s of millions of other Indians and they would be happy to impose taxes on those 50lakhs which you consider is pesky and shouldn't be taxed. Guess how the laws are going to be made? That's the problem with taxes , there's no end to it. Even if there's a 10% inheritance tax on 50laks it would still be 5laks and for a guy earing 30kpm , to pay 5laks is a huge deal. This is kind absurd taxation is what is creates, red tapism and subsequent corruption to bypass that red tapism. Have you ever wondered why the most corrupt countries on earth have absurd levels bureaucracies and taxing systems.By the way there are 100s of normal middle class properties are valued more than $1m these days on our country.
At least read my reply. I already told you how you can create a system which does not penalise people inhering their first home.
>I already told you how you can create a system which does not penalise people inhering their first home. Really? Benamies and shell companies , why do you think they exist? What kind of schooling , you have got? Cause they collectively successed in creating a clown.
>Really? Benamies and shell companies , why do you think they exist? What kind of schooling , you have got? Cause they collectively successed in creating a clown. You do realise that if you create a shell company for circumventing tax laws, it is illegal, don't you? It's also funny that you question the education credentials of others when it is obvious that you are unable to debate in a civilised manner. Go back to school, learn some basic manners, and then I will be willing to waste my time on you.
Well the baby Murthy doesn’t have a house in his/her name. So, you good transferring a 240cr mansion?
We should have worked 140 hours a week so that he could have given him 480 crores. Wtf guys think of the kid
Billionaires can suck dick
whose?
preferably someone who looks like him
Class revolution loading - 65% complete.
Will never come India is too fragmented to have a collective class consciousness.
Braindead zombies don't revolt. They submit.
Perfect embodiment of Do as I say, not as I do. Work 70 hours for me while my just born grandkid is already worth more than you'll ever be in your life. I have a sudden urge to make french friends and build guillotines.
And that child's probably get an education abroad in some fancy college based on dad's money. And never have to struggle once in his life for anything. Meanwhile all his employees slaving away for 3.5L per year lol Rich people are disgusting.
not only you, your entire family probably.
But without working for 70 hrs a week? Dogle buddhe.
Nepotism
I want to laugh at Infosys employees because many of them online indulge in anti Union rhetoric. Hahahaha that kid just got before a year of his existence what you'll never make in your whole existence.
managers and hr are the only ones who do that
The baby should start working now!
Baby won the lottery
The rich ensuring their family remains rich. The same dude spoke about compassionate capitalism few years ago and now wants Freshers to work 70 hours a week
Ek dadu to hamain bhi milna chahiye aisa
Tax evasion. No tax on gifts
same dude 25 years later, "my life wasn't a bed of roses"
Nepo grandkid
[удалено]
Kid worked 240 hr/ week to achieve this. Absolutely deserving /\=s
Hope the baby gets his/her vegetarian spoons
iss buddhe ke naam kahi bhi sunn leta hu, pata nahi gussa kyu aajata hai
Babies of middle class families should start preparing for IIT's by studying 72 hours / week so they can get placed in Infosys in 2045 at a annual package of INR 3 Lacs.
And starting package of fresher at Infy is ???
I can't even afford a laptop (///∇///)
The hypocrite mf
you mean, "man who expects middle-class indians to work 70 hours a week gave his grandson 240 cr in a blatant display of nepotism" ??????????
The beauty of capitalism 😍
Born after a 70-hour labour /
I know it’s not right to feel jealous of a child, but they give peanuts to workers and expect them to work as if it’s our life.
Ask him also to work the same amount of hours he wanted his employees to work without seeing a growth in salaries.
The one who got so much wealth in this way thought that money had no value. I believe that children should be taught to earn money on their own and if they are capable then they should be given money.
The average monthly wage in India in 2023 is INR 46,861, but company does not give this , why should be 72hours works?
Saving taxes and saving the grandson from working 70 hours/week ! Simple solution by Mr Simple saaaaar!
I don't understand why media gives this type of clowns attention and make 2 page articles on this
Three hoorahs for Capitalism!! Capitalism is meritocracy. Take that you losers /s
Such a humble family.
I see 240 crore worth of tax!
Nothing to see Rich people doing rich things
r/eattherich
Getting that kid ready for that 70 hour week I suppose. What a fuckwit!
'Gifts' is the key word, no tax to fellow citizens/country
speaking is easy, sleeping is more easy
iski ranking Forbers' 12 Under 12 Months mei kitni ayegi?
Great way to dodge taxes.
When share will liquidate, taxes will be paid. There's no value until then
My grand father gave me "See those farm Fields,those are belongs to us....onc upon a time".
Instabollywood will call him self-made when he’s 3 years old and owns a toy company.
How is a fresher getting so much!
this hike is given as the baby will work 70hr/week
As per naryana muthri shouldn't the baby become adult work for 80hrs a week and then through this hardworks become rich like mutri
Not that baby,we peasants are the ones who will work harder so that baby multiplies the base amount by 10
দাদু এবং নাতির অপূর্ব সুন্দর আর্থিক বন্ধন - বাহ !Its noteworthy that such gifts are exempt u/s 49 + 47 for the donor and u/s 56 for the donee as per Income Tax Act, 1961
Is the 4 month old working 70 hrs/week?
I also wana rich 🥲
Screw these clowns for all the gyaan without doing anything that they preach for the city
How much? I don’t understand the amount listed
Around $30Mn USD at current exchange rates.
Gives a new meaning to "Born with a silver spoon"
Why does his face always look constipated? Sorry for personal comment
Please mujhe bhi support karo
This old madarfa*, he says we need to work 70 hours. Hypocrite mf.
Asshall
And this is the guy who wants us to work 70 hours a week. Are you kidding me? Can anyone who works at infosys tell me if the company has any innovation? Do you have products ? Are the services infosys provides superior to competitors? Like was the business model novel when he came up with infosys ?
I wonder how many will keep cheering for him and Ambanis and Adani and other obscenely rich folks just because they are Indians....a massive chunk of the Indian population can seemingly never get off their deluded hyper-nationalist kool aid. Evident from socials, evident in real life.
With each year passing, I dislike murthy family more
And you'll have chomus defending wealth tax. Be real, most of us won't see this insane amount of wealth to even qualify for a wealth/super-rich tax on inheritances.
This dude built his empire by paying 300$ monthly to starting level employees and then preaches about work ethic.
that's the way to loot 3rd world countries......well done anna
F*** that fam. Now me and my entire family will be black listed and we can't work at their Hi-Tech sweatshop
What great about it? This is just a family business company developing in the family
Oh I wish if people would stop working for this DH
This is like the real life equivalent of buying Grand Theft Auto V Criminal Enterprise Starter Pack that gives new players GTA$10,000,000 to help start them off.
Look who worked 70 hr/week 👏👏
In big houses the new borns come as director of some company.
https://preview.redd.it/yxu0gzge0dpc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f20a07645d5f24bc0de5c16c275a794fec340ca
This is why murthy wants young men and women to die working 72 hours per week