The recent death of Inventec Corp vice president Wen Sayling (
Wen had not done any inheritance planning so an inheritance tax at the highest rate of 50 percent may be levied on his Inventec shares. It is probably safe to say that NT$1.5 billion of his assets will go into the government's coffers.
Wen's case is exceptional among the wealthy. Rich people usually employ sophisticated and professional devices to avoid inheritance taxes. They buy expensive life insurance, purchase land reserved for public infrastructure at low prices, set up foundations under their own or their companies' names or pass their wealth to their children bit by bit before they die.
The failure of the inheritance tax to function as it is intended to indirectly proves how strong a force concentration of wealth is. The phenomenon in which generation after generation of rich people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths rather than with a pair of hard-working hands indicates the bankruptcy of the assumptions of liberal economics about social mobility under capitalism.
The rich, despite the advantages they have, do not want to pay taxes. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp chairman Hsu Wen-lung (
Lam also said that he would promote legislation allowing assets left by rich people to be used for public welfare.
Obviously, all of these individuals think that their accumulated wealth is strictly their own property and has nothing to do with society. That is why even though funds collected through inheritance taxes are intended for the public good, these people believe that it should be up to them to decide on the use and distribution of these funds instead of letting the assets be reallocated as the government sees fit.
The problem is that even when the rich do not use their wealth for their own purposes but for a good cause instead, the results are debatable. Rich people who devote their resources to foundations in the name of public welfare do not make public the reasons for their choice of foundations or the amounts of their funding. Also, the process of choosing a "good cause" is personal and arbitrary. As a result, the actions of wealthy people who contribute to foundations sometimes hurts rather than helps public welfare.
The trend of rich avoiding taxes and yet claiming to be keen on public welfare represents a reactionary force in history. It is similar to the sort of charity that existed in 18th-century capitalist society. At that barbaric time, the rich dressed in furs and made big money while workers starved to death in the streets. Abusers ironically became benefactors.
Public welfare is popular among the rich only when there is injustice in the system.
Bill Gates, the world's richest man and No. 1 philanthropist, is a good example of this. As a global monopoly, Microsoft benefits greatly from current economics. How could Gates engage in charity if his capitalist monopoly had not resulted in social poverty?
No wonder people throw pies at him.
In this respect, the fact that Wen overlooked the importance of inheritance planning is not a cause for regret. It should serve as a model for rich people.
Wu Ting-feng is a candidate for a PhD in sociology at Tunghai University.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS