Being drafted is different than doing chores or working in care roles. Everyone capable should be responsible for the defense of those who are not in times of war regardless of sex.

And working in factories, taking care of kids, and just existing are very much part of the war effort. And their lives are very much at risk during a war. Just ask Ukraine.

It is one of those knock-ons from (especially) WW1 and 2 where draft dodging and "conscientious objectors" were such a risk as more and more people came back from the front with grotesque wounds and mental trauma. A culture of "only cowards don't go to war" was built up VERY rapidly... and caused immense issues as young men were unable to fight due to physical ailments or mental trauma so bad that even the 1910s/40s cared.

Except also Rosie the Riveter and all that.

It all ties into the "myth" of "civilian targets" during a full scale war. EVERYONE can agree that blowing up a hospital is evil. What about a factory that makes shoes? What about one that makes boots? Shells? Similarly, EVERYONE can agree that blowing up a residential area is how you go to hell. Now about about a residential area on a military base? Now what about the barracks on a base? Are you only allowed to attack the enemy once they step foot off base?

And going back to that hospital... what about a power plant? Because a LOT of lives are lost when hospitals have extended outages. But those plants ALSO literally power the war effort.

Which is the reality of things. When you just have a massive global north military destroying a country in the name of "counter-terrorism"? Yes, the reality is that a lot of the terrorist/guerilla cells are going to fundamentally be in residential areas and next to hospitals both for optics and convenience. But there is a LOT of "oh... there were some hamas soldiers in that children's ward, sure" evil.

But when an entire country is mobilized for war? The distinction between civilian and military becomes INCREDIBLY murky. Which... we can very much see in Ukraine and russia.

Because, yes, you need people on the front line. You also need people on the backlines for logistics and support. And... you need people just living their lives so that there is something worth fighting for. Rotating troops back for leave is immensely important for morale and... if they return to a skeleton crew raising children in abandoned dormitories? They can never recharge from The War and that leave stops mattering. Which leads to rapid desertion and even worse mental trauma.

And... The Enemy is very aware of that.

*Looks at no man's land.

Yes, your point is beyond idiotic.

You don't pay VAT/GST on the money, you pay it on the product's price (and you can avoid it if the receiptent agrees to get paid in cash and don't show it in the books). For assets, you are buying it with your money that you have already earnd that has been already taxed. You also have to pay a stamp duty to the government when you buy any asset, you pay registration fees, you pay all the property & Municipal taxes and when you sell it, you will be paying a capital gains tax anyways, so what's the point of charging an inheritance tax?

Simple question to you: My networth is just 100k USD, I inherited 500k USD (current market value) house from my parents, and the inheritance tax is at 20%, wouldn't I lose all my existing money and assets I for something that is just worth 500k USD as an unliquid asset?
To sell that house you will have to find a buyer which is not an easy or cost-free task. If the house doesn't sell, you will be paying property taxes anyways, and once you sell it, you will pay the capital gains tax as well so what's the point of inheritance tax?

What I think is a better solution: Define a certain threshold where the value of inheritance is above a level where the person inheriting becomes wealthy beyond their and their family's actual needs, and distribute that wealth among the lower income people in the form of permanent housing.

You don't pay VAT/GST on the money, you pay it on the product's price

And how do you pay that price? With money. This is pure sophism.

And, duh, you can avoid paying taxes if you cheat... that's not exclusive to VAT.

And you are further elaborating my point. You will be taxed on different occasions even when the money or asset doesn't even change ownership. That's my whole point. The argument that you already paid taxes on some money isn't really a solid point against inheritance tax, it's a common occurence in many areas of life. Yet it always comes up when inheritance tax is discussed.

Just like your example with the inheritance of a small home that will ruin the recipient. The example is always constructed in bad faith with a lousy tax policy in the first place. No one is trying to ruin the average joe who happens to inherit grampas house.
A better design, and the one all supporters of inheritance tax I know argue for, is one with a reasonably high allowance, to avoid these scenarios, and even if you cross the allowance threshhold by a little bit, you only have to pay the fictious 20% on the amount exceeding the allowance.
So say we have an (unreasonably low, but just for the sake of the example) allowance of 400K, now you inherit that 500K property you'll have to pay (500K-400K)x0.2=20K.

If you wanted to protect small inheritances even more, you could design a progressive tax, too.

This, with a much more reasonable allowance sounds a bit like your so called 'better solution'.

This, with a much more reasonable allowance sounds a bit like your so called 'better solution'.

That is exactly what I said. Couldn't put it in better words. Exemptions. Only difference I said is exempt the amount upto, let's say, what a family of 3 people needs for let's say 3 years. That way the inheriter won't have to pay a superficial tax while still maintaining a livable lifestyle. Charging inheritance tax on poor people (however little) puts a lot of burden on them for something they are not willingly earning or purchasing. Charging millionaires and billionaires with inheritance tax is better as there will be a continuous cycle of wealth redistribution and thus they won't be able abuse their powers. But wealth tax is more efficient that way as it would prevent someone becoming obscenely wealthy in the first place.

Taxing the poor has never worked, they will hoard more unaccounted whatever wealth they have to avoid those taxes rather than owning real estate, shared, bonds, etc and participating in the economy. No one likes paying taxes — especially on something which they are not willingly earning or purchasing.

And how do you pay that price? With money. This is pure sophism.

Also you pay VAT and GST only once — so it is not an example of double taxation. These have been designed in such a way that the only the final customer pays tax on it as the final entity in the supply chain. Whatever VAT/GST the retailer, supplier and the service provider paid is refunded by the government in the form of ITC (Input Tax Credit).

Charging millionaires and billionaires with inheritance tax is better as there will be a continuous cycle of wealth redistribution and thus they won't be able abuse their powers. But wealth tax is more efficient that way as it would prevent someone becoming obscenely wealthy in the first place.

And that is the point of inheritance tax. There might be other means to achieve that same goal, but I suspect inheritance tax is politically more realistic. In our western societies theres a deeply ingrained narrative of 'rags to riches' and how the rich earned their money because they contribute so much to society and worked hard for it, coupled with the wishful thinking of 'it might be me some day'. I don't have to preach, how flawed those ideas are, but it is much easier within that ideology to argue for an inheritance tax, where it is obvious that the heir didn't have to do anything to really deserve it.

Wealth tax needs a bit more of a marxist understanding of economic mechanisms.