Rich people things that legitimately rich people don't do?

cuckoo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The stats are very clear on this. http://www.publichealth.ie/healthinequalities/Fuelpovertyandhow

Another influence on those stats is probably smoking - wealthier socioeconomic groups have lower smoking rates than poorer groups.

So, rich people aren't actually lighting cigars with 50 euro bills.

animaal

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not unusual in my opinion. And these same people will give out about the "wealthy" who can't afford holidays and new cars, because they prefer to put money into health insurance and/or education.

stevedublin

cuckoo wrote: »

So, rich people aren't actually lighting cigars with 50 euro bills.

Whats the point of being rich then?

burnhardlanger

The rich don't buy Rolex* watches.

Read The Millionaire Next Door years ago and the pop culture image of The Rich is that of those driving sports cars, wearing Armani etc. It is the image of the 1%.

The reality for the majority of millionaires (North America) would atypically come from self employed businesses and live frugal, simple lives with frugal and simple tastes.

If I recall, the survey said that Seiko was the top watch brand and those surveyed who wore Rolex, were generally gifted the watch.

razorblunt

They never dive into their pool full of gold coins.
Damn you Scrooge McDuck!

Truth wins

I am not rich so I am thinking what do I do.

First of all I want to say that I do not like to show off but feel good so here is the list.

Bought bmw 530D and paid €1643 road tax with arrears
Bought tom ford glasses worth €350
Wouldnt buy a rolex cos thats just foolish.Did buy tommy Hil watch worth €350

Its fine to buy such stuff once in a while

Wibbs

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh I have. Little above average earners anyway, the oul Rolex is their go to brand to "show off". For the less well heeled, Tag Heuer is the go to brand. The scarily wealthy either go for a cheap arse Casio or a handmade mechanical work of art costing crazy money with a name no one has really heard about.

Seaneh wrote:

The richest person I know personally, who makes about $3.5million per year, drives a mid range honda in the states and an opel zaffira in Ireland and flies economy class with delta everywhere.

Most people assume rich people drive stupidily expensive cars and fly first class. I find this to be false in reality.

+1. There tends to be less buying into the consumer culture/keeping up with the joneses on items like that(unless that's part of their lifestyle as PR) as most have spotted that there's a fair bit of a con going on with that stuff, never mind the money lost on assets that fall like a stone in value from new. For the price of say a ford Mondeo, you could have a very tidy collection of very nice secondhand cars. I recall watching an Antiques roadshow a while back and one of the items was an original Durer print. Anyway it came to the value and it was 15k IIRC. Cue "oohs and ahhs". On the watches front there was an auction a few years back and one lot was an original Omega speedmaster sourced by NASA and actually worn and flown on Apollo 10 around the moon. 18,000 dollars. Brand new entry level hatchback(if you could even get such at that price) or an original Durer, or a watch that has history like that? Price and worth mean different things to different people.

Cool Mo D

georgiecasey wrote: »

relative to their income, they do. income tax in this country is progressive last i checked.

If you're paying income tax, you're might be pretty well off, but your not RICH rich.

The truly filthy rich pay no income tax, because they got their money the old fashioned way: inheriting it.
They make their money from the interest gained on their wealth, and they can get away with paying feck all tax on that if they're smart. Just remember not to start eating into the principle, or you won't be rich for long.

Ray Palmer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FFS

That only applies to declared PAYE.


Rich people can avoid most taxes and can claim rebates that poor people can't.

Top rate taxpayer doesn't pay tax on taxsaver tickets, bike to work, VHI, pensions, bin charges , mortgage interest relief
Poor person can't get the funds together to pay for such stuff up front.

Rich people pay themselves via shell companies , and tax free loans and shares and thus almost avoid income tax completely. Ignore wages and look at the tax rate paid on total income. Rich people pay far less than the average industrial wage.

Rich people can afford accountants to look for loopholes. You'd be amazed at the tax writeoffs you can get.

Unless you've been living under a rock you may have heard about the recent recession, well for us anyway, the rich haven't suffered.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/billionaires-worth-3-7-trillion-surge-as-gates-wins-2013.html

Stock markets are at a high. The last few years have shown that the theory that wealth created at the top will trickle down to benefit everyone is just complete tosh.

On a micro economic level why are wages still low but service charges still rising ? Because the only place I can see the difference going on is to shareholder pockets. Fuel is more expensive but only accounts for a few % of GDP so it's not that.

What a load of nonsense.
You are talking about the mega rich being able to avail of a lot of this not people earning high salaries. Very few people can use a shell company or any of the other ways to redirect their income.

They also cut most of the tax breaks of high rate tax benefits to be the lower rate. A person taking care of private health care and pension are saving the government money. That is why there are tax breaks.

You have bunched a lot of things together and incorrectly connected them to a high rate of tax.

What rate of income do you think all your rich benefits are applicable at?

You may also like to know that those tax schemes with loans involved have not be made legitimate and at the moment all it does is give you an interest free tax loan until the schemes are made legitimate or not. Nobody expects them to be made legitimate now as they are too well known.

In Ireland the top earners pay more relative and actual tax. There are some avoiding tax but not the majority, I would suspect more tradesmen evading tax than high earners

The_Captain

Rich people that like to look rich wear Patek Phillippe watches.

Rich people that don't, wear €12 Casio watches


My neighbour/landlord is stinking rich, as in owns many large detached houses rich and he drives a 20 year old car, but only when he can't cycle to a place to save petrol, dresses like a homeless man and lives in virtual squalor to the point where I genuinely wonder what the point of all his hard work was.

Rocket19

I find it pretty funny that people are saying "oh 'real' rich people would never be flashy, never wear a Rolex", etc.
It's just not correct.

Many are suggesting that perhaps a person coming from "generational wealth" may be more secure in their social position, will be "used to" having money, and will therefore be less likely to be flashy, or showy with their wealth.
Conversely, you could also say that these people are so used to having money, that they live in la-la land when it comes to relating to people who have less than them.
I have certainly encountered people like this.

A person labelled "nouveau rich" (a vulgar term, imo) may be flashy and ostentatious, but many others in this 'category' will be very aware of their (potentially) more modest upbringing, and, as a result, will be much more down to earth when it comes to money.

It just 100% depends of the individual. It's just silly to suggest otherwise!

Irish Lady

are too busy making money to live

Mr. Incognito

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

FFS

That only applies to declared PAYE.


Rich people can avoid most taxes and can claim rebates that poor people can't.

Name one

Top rate taxpayer doesn't pay tax on taxsaver tickets, bike to work, VHI, pensions, bin charges , mortgage interest relief
Poor person can't get the funds together to pay for such stuff up front.

Yes they do. Is there some sort of rich person loop hole I haven't heard about?

If they take public transport they pay the same tax as anyone else. If they buy a bike they can avail of the same relief as anyone else. Rich people don't have health insurance you say?? Kinda the opposiate in practice. Bin charges? Do they feed their leftovers to the slaves chained in the barn?? If they are being driven about they are paying someone a wage, and employers PRSI and car tax, and petrol which adds up to a LOT more than an annual bus or train ticket.

Rich people pay themselves via shell companies , and tax free loans and shares and thus almost avoid income tax completely. Ignore wages and look at the tax rate paid on total income. Rich people pay far less than the average industrial wage.

What??

Firstly a shell company doesn't have employees. However, If you pay yourself via a company you are suffering corporation tax THEN income tax.

Tax free loans are illegal and are taxed at with implied interest at 13% where loans are made to participators.

Any capital disposal- 33% CGT.

Any extraction of capital suffers tax.



Rich people can afford accountants to look for loopholes. You'd be amazed at the tax writeoffs you can get.

I am one of them. I am actually amazed at the tax write offs you can't get. Please tell me of these tax write offs. I'd love to hear of them.


Unless you've been living under a rock you may have heard about the recent recession, well for us anyway, the rich haven't suffered.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/billionaires-worth-3-7-trillion-surge-as-gates-wins-2013.html

Stock markets are at a high. The last few years have shown that the theory that wealth created at the top will trickle down to benefit everyone is just complete tosh.

Stock markets are at a high compared to historically low levels. And stock is not wealth, it is speculation. It only becomes wealth when you sell your shares triggering 33% CGT unless you have available losses to offset the gains.

On a micro economic level why are wages still low but service charges still rising ? Because the only place I can see the difference going on is to shareholder pockets. Fuel is more expensive but only accounts for a few % of GDP so it's not that.

This is becase the government decided that employers don't have to pay for a certain number of employees and that the state would subsidise them. This brought the overall wage bill down and served to deflate wage costs without cutting minimum wage. It is State sanctioned expolitation.

There is no Scrooge McDuck figure hiding out in his merc smoking cigars on the back of the common man. Wealth is mobile. If you attempt to tax the super rick they leave. Ask any number of our tax exiles. Ireland is not an attractive place for income tax. Now, corporation tax however it is and may reliefs such as generous R&D breaks apply. This leads to employment and is the reason that we are still afloat and Greece is a mess. For every employee here they are paying nearly 50% of their salary in income tax. That is all that is keeping Ireland alive.

If you want to try and tax company profits, they will leave too. Ask Dell.

We have a fair tax system. One of the most equitable in the world. However we have a horrific state sanctioned exploitation scheme in Job Bridge and then blame the boogey man. We also have a bloated civil service where we have no employees under 30 as we cannot afford them due to the joke of the high levels of pay for civil servants.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Great response Mr. Incognito

@Capt'n Midnight and the other rich-haters, how much wealth is rich in your opinion? What's the threshold?

salad_monster

prince of peasants wrote: »

Join protest groups like 'Occupy Dame Street'.

yes but rich peoples ( rebellious ) kids do

salad_monster

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think people who started out with nothing and made their fortune through hard work are the people who have no airs and graces about them compared with the spoilt little shítes who were born into wealth and who live off their parents money.

its usually the opposite , old money is usually very relaxed about wealth , new money is obnoxious and super defensive

Electric Sheep

salad_monster wrote: »

its usually the opposite , old money is usually very relaxed about wealth , new money is obnoxious and super defensive

New money pays 100K Euros for a wedding cake.

salad_monster

Electric Sheep wrote: »

New money pays 100K Euros for a wedding cake.

I was generalising a little but new money can be very insecure about it


old money is often very eccentric and unusual , they go to the finest schools yet drive a 1972 landrover

steddyeddy

georgiecasey wrote: »

Great response Mr. Incognito

@Capt'n Midnight and the other rich-haters, how much wealth is rich in your opinion? What's the threshold?

Rich haters? I'll sum up my position. Those who are poorer are affected by the recession more so than those who are better off. A small reduction in a less well off person's wages will have a greater impact on them than a reduction in a better ff person's wages. Summing that up as someone hating those with wealth is misguided at best. I greatly admire anyone who worked hard to accumulate wealth.


The fact you made an ad hominem attack is indicative of your argument.

steddyeddy

salad_monster wrote: »

its usually the opposite , old money is usually very relaxed about wealth , new money is obnoxious and super defensive

I would disagree. Besides that old money wasn't old forever. Associating someone who worked hard to get wealthy is a perfect example of begrudgery.

Electric Sheep

salad_monster wrote: »

I was generalising a little but new money can be very insecure about it


old money is often very eccentric and unusual , they go to the finest schools yet drive a 1972 landrover

Education is more important than impressing other people with your car. Nothing very eccentric about that.

I guess in my experience, new money is about impressing other people, old money is not caring what other people think.

Irishmale0399

Big question is.....what is rich in your estimation. Someone you consider rich I may consider poor or middle class.
Does a fancy car, watch, 2-3 holidays a year or a big house make you rich???
Is the bloke at the end of the street that goes into Aldi once a week to buy what he needs, doesnt go out, doesnt flash it, drive a 10 year old car or buy his clothes in Pennys or Dunnes poor??? Problem is we dont know what they have under the bed or in the bank.

From what i have seen thru the years is very simple....those who have it generally dont feel comfortable showing it, those who dont have it want you to believe they have it and those in the middle are never happy with what they have.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

Associating someone who worked hard to get wealthy is a perfect example of begrudgery.

Let's be very blunt

most people got rich by having employees do most of the work

Like they say "your first million is the hardest"

Plenty of legitimately rich people do the things people see saying that they don't. Actually I think people are finding the exceptions, most people who have money will live a life style to reflect it and the rest are foolish.

Who do people think buy the yachts, private jets, multimillion euro houses and crazy expensive cars etc. it's not people getting a loan from the credit union that's for sure.

Electric Sheep

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

Big question is.....what is rich in your estimation. Someone you consider rich I may consider poor or middle class.
Does a fancy car, watch, 2-3 holidays a year or a big house make you rich???
Is the bloke at the end of the street that goes into Aldi once a week to buy what he needs, doesnt go out, doesnt flash it, drive a 10 year old car or buy his clothes in Pennys or Dunnes poor??? Problem is we dont know what they have under the bed or in the bank.

From what i have seen thru the years is very simple....those who have it generally dont feel comfortable showing it, those who dont have it want you to believe they have it and those in the middle are never happy with what they have.

It depends - does the person actually OWN the fancy car, watch and house, or is money owed on them in credit or mortgage? If they actually own them, and can afford 2-3 holidays a year, then they are pretty comfortable, though I wouldn't call it rich.

If it is all on borrowed money, then they are in a precarious position and a lot less rich than the guy whose banger and 2 bedroom cottage is owned outright.

steddyeddy

Define rich guys? Education would play a part I guess. Some of the richest people I know are college science lecturers who earn around 140k a year as well as patent money. These guys with combined research patents and wages would have well over 1 million- 2 million a year. One of them a physicist in UCD helped invent the smoke alarm. He owns half the patent and you can guess he's loaded. Another owns the patent for a test for BSE. He is also not poor. Both these gents come from very humble backgrounds and are what some people would vulgarly call nouveau riche.

These guys would be extremely smart hard working people who earned every penny they worked for and by the suggestion of some they would likely be obnoxious and super defensive. I can assure you that isn't the case.

How in the name of all that's good are people like these more obnoxious than someone who has simply inherited wealth through generations. It's a lot harder to make a million than it is to lose it.

But I hate rich people right!

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

steddyeddy wrote: »

Rich haters? I'll sum up my position. Those who are poorer are affected by the recession more so than those who are better off. A small reduction in a less well off person's wages will have a greater impact on them than a reduction in a better ff person's wages. Summing that up as someone hating those with wealth is misguided at best. I greatly admire anyone who worked hard to accumulate wealth.


The fact you made an ad hominem attack is indicative of your argument.

I totally agree with you, I'm all in favour of progressive taxes. I didn't mention you in my post, I mentioned Capt'n Midnight.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let's be very blunt

most people got rich by having employees do most of the work

Like they say "your first million is the hardest"

What do you mean by this, you think the rich only get rich on the backs of labour?

And how much net worth is rich in your opinion?

burnhardlanger

Personally, my definition of being Rich would be if you decided tomorrow to never work again and could maintain your current standard of living (holidays, car, mortgage, school fees etc etc) through passive income (business, rental income, saving interest, share dividends etc) then you are rich.

Ray Palmer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let's be very blunt

most people got rich by having employees do most of the work

Like they say "your first million is the hardest"

Not true but I guess it depends on what you consider rich. Even at that so what an employee is paid for their time. There are massive financial risks to setting up a business with employees and it doesn't mean you will make money. Reward for taking risk and effort in setting up a company seems fair.

If there aren't people doing this or they are punished for doing well there will be no jobs. Over taxation is a killer. I personally think you should never have to pay over 50% in tax on any portion of profits/income.

whiskeyman

steddyeddy wrote: »

Define rich guys?!

Being rich means being rich in your heart and spirit, to show others their true worth and to really understand the value of life.












eh.... fup that!
€5m + in a bank account will do for me.

georgiecasey

georgiecasey wrote: »

I totally agree with you, I'm all in favour of progressive taxes. I didn't mention you in my post, I mentioned Capt'n Midnight.

Progressive taxes = punishing success. The amount of tax already paid by someone on good money is absolutely crazy and some want them to pay more? I really don't know whats going on in the head of some people.

Where is the incentive to go out and try to make more money when you are going to have an unfair proportion of it taken from you in tax?

sbsquarepants

BetterThanThou wrote: »

One I think would be buy Rolex watches, rich people don't tend to do that, whereas many poor/average people buy them to seem rich.

Rich people don't buy rolex' but poor people do?
I think you may have imagined that!

I Heart Internet

Drive in stretch limos - only chavtastic wans get driven around in them.

Real rich people drive some kinda four wheel drive thingy, expensive german car or (really rich) are shuttled around in blacked out people carriers.

loves_tea

im in favour of a flat tax for everyone including corporations , I don't see how its in anyway unfair , id be ok with an inheritance tax of some kind as well by the way

I Heart Internet

whiskeyman wrote: »

eh.... fup that!
€5m + in a bank account will do for me.

Yeah. I'd be a brilliant rich person. A €5m lotto win and I'd be the most relaxed, chilled out guy you could meet. Would help out family and community where possible and send out good vibes all over the place.

I would be a "model" lotto winner......not like some of those chancers you hear about that blow all the money and get divorced 3 times after a win.

Hande hoche!

loves_tea wrote: »

im in favour of a flat tax for everyone including corporations , I don't see how its in anyway unfair , id be ok with an inheritance tax of some kind as well by the way

Considering compliance costs and simplicity there is a rationale behind that. Would also reduce the ability of "creative accounting". Still it's unlikely to ever be attempted here.

EuropeanSon

The rich people I know tend to be fairly educated and reserved (these being distinct qualities, not ones that go hand in hand, obviously one doesn't imply the other), but that's quite possibly just down to who I know. I don't know any property developer types etc., who may in general be different (just a perception, obviously not true for all).

One thing that's been mentioned is watches. Only one person I know has a very expensive watch, and that's a quite old (though not quite antique, I think) Jaeger LeCoultre. Wouldn't be caught dead wearing a Rolex, the flashy vulgar image is just too much, despite the watches themselves being fairly high quality, as far as I understand these things.

loves_tea

loves_tea wrote: »

im in favour of a flat tax for everyone including corporations , I don't see how its in anyway unfair , id be ok with an inheritance tax of some kind as well by the way

Gift and inheritance taxes etc are a total joke. Tax has already been paid on that money why should more tax have to be paid on it? It's totally unfair and the thresholds are crazy low even for close relations apart from parent to child (which isn't even that high either).

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Wouldn't be caught dead wearing a Rolex, the flashy vulgar image is just too much, despite the watches themselves being fairly high quality, as far as I understand these things.

I wouldn't get a Rolex either, I'd get a Breitling or Tag watch if I ever have the funds for one.

Ray Palmer

Jolene Rapid Gold wrote: »

Gift and inheritance taxes etc are a total joke. Tax has already been paid on that money why should more tax have to be paid on it? It's totally unfair and the thresholds are crazy low even for close relations apart from parent to child (which isn't even that high either).

It really has become a complete joke. It was meant to be for the incredible rich and over the years just kept being lowered. Now the mega rich can utilise companies and trust funds to avoid most of it. While more normal earnings and possession are being taxed.

The_Captain

burnhardlanger wrote: »

Personally, my definition of being Rich would be if you decided tomorrow to never work again and could maintain your current standard of living (holidays, car, mortgage, school fees etc etc) through passive income (business, rental income, saving interest, share dividends etc) then you are rich.

That's ludicrous. A guy with a 650K salary with a 450K a year standard of living isn't rich unless he buys property and rents it out or has a very lucrative stock portfolio?

stevedublin

The_Captain wrote: »

That's ludicrous. A guy with a 650K salary with a 450K a year standard of living isn't rich unless he buys property and rents it out or has a very lucrative stock portfolio?

Not according to Robert Kiosaki!

Electric Sheep

The_Captain wrote: »

That's ludicrous. A guy with a 650K salary with a 450K a year standard of living isn't rich unless he buys property and rents it out or has a very lucrative stock portfolio?

No, not in my opinion. If you still NEED to work to maintain your standard of living, you are not rich. Doesn't have to be property, does have to be enough unearned income/capital to retire when you choose to retire.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Agreed regarding the stready increase of the capital taxes. 33% is a fcuking joke. And you don't hear a thing about it in the media, just whining about the dole being cut for people contributing nothing.

@Kayleigh Squeaking Volunteer, ah cmon, income tax has to be progressive. You can't have a flat rate with some mother on €22k paying the same rate as a lawyer on €500k. My big problem is the marginal tax bands here. You're in the top band at only €32,800!

Cool Mo D

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It really has become a complete joke. It was meant to be for the incredible rich and over the years just kept being lowered. Now the mega rich can utilise companies and trust funds to avoid most of it. While more normal earnings and possession are being taxed.

Inheritance taxes are the fairest possible taxes - the person who has owned and enjoyed the property doesn't suffer in any way from the tax, and the person who is getting the stuff hasn't had to do a single thing to earn it, so they can hardly complain that they're being hard done by.

sbsquarepants

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Inheritance taxes are the fairest possible taxes - the person who has owned and enjoyed the property doesn't suffer in any way from the tax, and the person who is getting the stuff hasn't had to do a single thing to earn it, so they can hardly complain that they're being hard done by.

This statement is total ****.
Everything you've earned when alive you've paid tax on. Everything you've bought, you've paid additional taxes on. Then when you die and leave your double taxed shít to your kids, they have to pay yet another tax on it.
Point out the fairness to me?

burnhardlanger

The_Captain wrote: »

That's ludicrous. A guy with a 650K salary with a 450K a year standard of living isn't rich unless he buys property and rents it out or has a very lucrative stock portfolio?

Mark Zuckerburg 'earns' a salary of $1. Is the 650k salary man richer than him for example?

*crude example*

If the 650k earner with the 450k lifesyle for example worked for 5 years, then they'd have 1 million in reserve.

If they stopped working after 5 years, they'd burn through the savings in just over 2 years.
A decision would have to be made. Work again or make a drastic lifestyle change.

IMO having to make that choice doesn't make someone truly Rich.

Hande hoche!

burnhardlanger wrote: »

Mark Zuckerburg 'earns' a salary of $1. Is the 650k salary man richer than him for example?

Can you not just go down the route of wealthy vs. Rich?

Ray Palmer

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Inheritance taxes are the fairest possible taxes - the person who has owned and enjoyed the property doesn't suffer in any way from the tax, and the person who is getting the stuff hasn't had to do a single thing to earn it, so they can hardly complain that they're being hard done by.

All tax has been paid on the goods being inherited. The person leaving the stuff is effected and suffers as they don't want the inheritance they leave to be taxed a second time. They may not suffer after their death but it does upset them prior to their death.

Inheritance tax is one of the most unfair taxes as it is double taxation and the mega rich avoid it and that is who it was designed to take from. Instead you have lower income people paying the tax. It is an extremely unfair tax and it has a international economists saying this and pointing out how it is not a progressive tax as it is handled in the countries that have it.

georgiecasey

georgiecasey wrote: »

@Kayleigh Squeaking Volunteer, ah cmon, income tax has to be progressive. You can't have a flat rate with some mother on €22k paying the same rate as a lawyer on €500k. My big problem is the marginal tax bands here. You're in the top band at only €32,800!

Why not? The person on 500k will be paying vastly more tax than the person on 22k even with a flat rate.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Inheritance taxes are the fairest possible taxes - the person who has owned and enjoyed the property doesn't suffer in any way from the tax, and the person who is getting the stuff hasn't had to do a single thing to earn it, so they can hardly complain that they're being hard done by.

The point is tax has already been paid on it multiple times before and then its expected to pay more on it again.

33% is a crazy amount of tax to have to pay on a gift of money or an inheritance of property etc. The giver does suffer also as they will essentially be handing 33% (of the taxable amount) over to revenue after already paying the tax on it when they earned it.

There should be no tax on gifts of money or inheritances, its absolute robbery. At the very least the threshold should be raised, like the tax free amount is only 30k for say a grandmother to grandson or a brother to a sister. Even the 225k tax free amount from parent to child is very low.

Cool Mo D

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This statement is total ****.
Everything you've earned when alive you've paid tax on. Everything you've bought, you've paid additional taxes on. Then when you die and leave your double taxed shít to your kids, they have to pay yet another tax on it.
Point out the fairness to me?

Your kids are getting stuff for free, that they did absolutely nothing to earn. Sounds like a fair enough thing to tax to me. Certainly better than taxing people who are working for a living.

And the idea that the giver is suffering is ridiculous - they are dead! You could tax someones estate 100% after they die and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to their wealth.