3 ms·

First of all, I never said "wealthy people are mutually exclusive with economic mobility." For one thing, I think earned wealth is actually very helpful for eco

First of all, I never said "wealthy people are mutually exclusive with economic mobility." For one thing, I think earned wealth is actually very helpful for economic mobility and is actually a huge part of why places like NY/CA succeed—successful entrepreneurs continue to invest in the ecosystem and funnel money towards new entrepreneurs. Moreover, something could be a depressant on economic mobility without eliminating economic mobility entirely. The stability of capital is in fact a huge part of how NY/CA remain successful—if you're ambitious, you have to move towards the capital to access it. Also, keep in mind we're in the context of a thread where people are already discussing how to soak the rich. I'd much rather tax estates than dramatically increase taxes for people who have earned their money.

prostoalex 10y ago
Good point, I misread on mutual exclusivity. For what it's worth high estate taxes don't seem to correlate with economic growth (neither are zero estate taxes, to be fair) - I am reading this graph http://taxfoundation.org/article/estate-and-inheritance-taxes-around-world http://taxfoundation.org/article/estate-and-inheritance-taxe... and Japan, for example, being high on the GDP ranking is kinda dead in the water as far as economic growth ranking. I think eventually the estates succumb to "three generations" rule, so the problem might be self-correcting.
- morgante 10y ago
  My argument isn't necessarily an economic one. I don't particularly think that a high estate tax will stimulate the economy, but I also don't think it will hurt. The advantage of a high estate tax is more a social one of removing unearned wealth and freeing up some money to spend on social programs. But you're right that it might be more efficient to make the tax 95% so the beneficiary has an incentive to handle the liquidation so they can get their 5%.

prostoalex 10y ago

Good point, I misread on mutual exclusivity. For what it's worth high estate taxes don't seem to correlate with economic growth (neither are zero estate taxes, to be fair) - I am reading this graph http://taxfoundation.org/article/estate-and-inheritance-taxes-around-world http://taxfoundation.org/article/estate-and-inheritance-taxe... and Japan, for example, being high on the GDP ranking is kinda dead in the water as far as economic growth ranking. I think eventually the estates succumb to "three generations" rule, so the problem might be self-correcting.

morgante 10y ago
My argument isn't necessarily an economic one. I don't particularly think that a high estate tax will stimulate the economy, but I also don't think it will hurt. The advantage of a high estate tax is more a social one of removing unearned wealth and freeing up some money to spend on social programs. But you're right that it might be more efficient to make the tax 95% so the beneficiary has an incentive to handle the liquidation so they can get their 5%.