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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS