3 ms·

Say I'm 47, planning for retirement but haven't yet given my things to my relatively young kids. I am worth a few million. I am shot and killed in a random acci

Say I'm 47, planning for retirement but haven't yet given my things to my relatively young kids. I am worth a few million. I am shot and killed in a random accident but I have not given my estate to my kids. I am a widow. Because I didn't "experience that loss," all of my wealth is now transferred to the state because I was randomly killed?

yequalsx 10y ago
I think in a country as large and as complicated as modern societies one will encounter edge cases regardless of inheritance laws. If I walk down the road and find $1 million I owe tax. If I win the the lottery I owe tax. If I work for the $1 million I owe tax. But if someone dies and I'm their heir I don't owe tax. To me if you didn't do anything to earn the money you ought to pay more tax than someone who did earn the money. I don't advocate for a 100% estate tax but I be.ieve it should be much higher than it is in the U.S.
- donretag 10y ago
  The money was already tax when the original "owner" received it.
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    All money is taxed multiple times. The basic principle behind taxation is that when you receive a profit you pay a tax on it. There are exceptions. The money I earn is taxed. When I spend my after tax money to buy a car it gets taxed. The car dealership pays tax on the profit generated by my purchase even though I already payed income tax on the money I used to buy the car. All money is "infinitely" taxed. When I find a million dollars on the street I owe tax on it. Why not when I get the money because someone died?
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    When I buy a chocolate bar, the store owner shouldn't pay tax because I already did, and the store employees likewise shouldn't pay tax because I paid tax on the money they're being paid with. Extend to everything else anyone ever spends money on. I can see a problem with this system.
EliRivers 10y ago
In principle, yes. That principle is that I believe that people should, broadly speaking, benefit from their own efforts, their own work, their own risks and indeed their own luck (and not the results of someone else's luck passed on by default because they get shot), and that we should aim for a society where this is the case and the opportunities to do so exist; not to benefit by default because someone else died rich. As I said, there's a middle-ground to be found, perhaps in this case based on the belief that had you not been shot you would have given to your children for education or other such, and that can be accounted for (on the other hand, if you knew that in the event of your death, all your stuff goes back in the pot rather than to your children, perhaps you'd have bought some insurance against this event). If you make it to the age of 90 and you're still holding onto all your stuff, it's another matter. In terms of middle-ground, if we're talking a few thousand dollars, it's not such a big deal. If we're seeing the rich get richer in each generation through accumulation of capital and passing it on, creating a new society of aristocracy and peasantry, it's a bigger deal.
- icelancer 10y ago
  I have a strong suspicion you have not evaluated the effects of variance if such an extreme policy such as yours was enacted.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    When you say variance, I guess you don't mean the statistical value? Or you do mean that? Is your objection to this moral (you disagree with my position that people should principally benefit from their own success in life) or practical (you think rich people will find dodges)? I'm certainly not convinced it could be done, but I think we can do better than where we seem to be going with the concentration of wealth through completely unearned income.

yequalsx 10y ago

I think in a country as large and as complicated as modern societies one will encounter edge cases regardless of inheritance laws. If I walk down the road and find $1 million I owe tax. If I win the the lottery I owe tax. If I work for the $1 million I owe tax. But if someone dies and I'm their heir I don't owe tax. To me if you didn't do anything to earn the money you ought to pay more tax than someone who did earn the money. I don't advocate for a 100% estate tax but I be.ieve it should be much higher than it is in the U.S.

donretag 10y ago
The money was already tax when the original "owner" received it.
- yequalsx 10y ago
  All money is taxed multiple times. The basic principle behind taxation is that when you receive a profit you pay a tax on it. There are exceptions. The money I earn is taxed. When I spend my after tax money to buy a car it gets taxed. The car dealership pays tax on the profit generated by my purchase even though I already payed income tax on the money I used to buy the car. All money is "infinitely" taxed. When I find a million dollars on the street I owe tax on it. Why not when I get the money because someone died?
- EliRivers 10y ago
  When I buy a chocolate bar, the store owner shouldn't pay tax because I already did, and the store employees likewise shouldn't pay tax because I paid tax on the money they're being paid with. Extend to everything else anyone ever spends money on. I can see a problem with this system.

EliRivers 10y ago

In principle, yes. That principle is that I believe that people should, broadly speaking, benefit from their own efforts, their own work, their own risks and indeed their own luck (and not the results of someone else's luck passed on by default because they get shot), and that we should aim for a society where this is the case and the opportunities to do so exist; not to benefit by default because someone else died rich. As I said, there's a middle-ground to be found, perhaps in this case based on the belief that had you not been shot you would have given to your children for education or other such, and that can be accounted for (on the other hand, if you knew that in the event of your death, all your stuff goes back in the pot rather than to your children, perhaps you'd have bought some insurance against this event). If you make it to the age of 90 and you're still holding onto all your stuff, it's another matter. In terms of middle-ground, if we're talking a few thousand dollars, it's not such a big deal. If we're seeing the rich get richer in each generation through accumulation of capital and passing it on, creating a new society of aristocracy and peasantry, it's a bigger deal.

icelancer 10y ago
I have a strong suspicion you have not evaluated the effects of variance if such an extreme policy such as yours was enacted.
- EliRivers 10y ago
  When you say variance, I guess you don't mean the statistical value? Or you do mean that? Is your objection to this moral (you disagree with my position that people should principally benefit from their own success in life) or practical (you think rich people will find dodges)? I'm certainly not convinced it could be done, but I think we can do better than where we seem to be going with the concentration of wealth through completely unearned income.