10 ms·

> the tax system treats unearned income and wealth more favourably than earned income. The income was taxed when it was earned. What reason is there to tax it

> the tax system treats unearned income and wealth more favourably than earned income. The income was taxed when it was earned. What reason is there to tax it twice? > how you feel about in increase in unearned income flowing to the wealthy I guess. Or about how you feel about the government's use of it's citizen's resources. Why should wealth earned by the breadwinner of the family, not remain with the family? It's arguably better than expropriating citizen's wealth to fund expaditionary warfare.

rtpg 9y ago
Double taxation doesn't mean anything in this context. We tax transactions, not specific euros. Income tax when an employer pays their employee. Inheritance tax once the money goes from the deceased to the heirs. These are separate things! And no different than, say, VAT on that iPhone. Sure it's between family members , but in the vast majority of cases all parties are independent adults. The land you inherit is not "justly yours". It was the previous owner's thing. You are getting it but it is not your divine right, except that you won the birth lottery by being born into this family. Of course a lot of families also have smaller domains, and it makes since to have some lower limit... But let's not forget people affected by inheritance tax are overwhelmingly very rich. Most of the population ends up with nothing.
- julian_1 9y ago
  > The land you inherit is not "justly yours". It was the previous owner's thing. You are getting it but it is not your divine right, except that you won the birth lottery by being born into this family. Of course those arguments apply to governments as well, since they don't derive their law-making authority by claim to divinity - at least in modern times. Why should a government be specially privileged over a citizens wishes to provide for their family and/or community after death?
  - twblalock 9y ago
    > Of course those arguments apply to governments as well, since they don't derive their law-making authority by claim to divinity - at least in modern times. You could use that statement to argue about anything a government does. Why does the inheritance tax need a special justification?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - julian_1 9y ago
      Why do laws that appropriate private citizens wealth need to be justified? Well, the alternative is wonderful stuff like civil forfeiture law. Whereby a policeman without evidence or proof of criminal wrongdoing can take that $2000 in your glovebox in the name of a defacto beneficiary (the state), because on a balance of probabilities he thinks he has a better claim than you do.
      - crdoconnor 9y ago
        >Why do laws that appropriate private citizens wealth need to be justified? What moral authority does a private citizen have to own land in Manhattan created 3 billion years ago and made valuable by the infrastructure he didn't build and community he charges rent to?
        julian_1 9y ago
        I would argue that indigenous inhabits as private citizens have the better claim by virtue of tradition and generational succession, than the 'state' as defacto beneficiary and law-maker everytime. The dispossession of native peoples by colonial governments is just another example. Government confiscation of private wealth in the name of perceived inequality, should be examined very carefully when modern economies are structurally indebted, and budget for foreign policy objectives over domestic improvement.
MisterBastahrd 9y ago
The income by the inheritor was never earned. Hence it's perfectly logical to tax it.
- julian_1 9y ago
  So you would be in favor of taxing someone's social security or charitable receipts - since the benefits are not earned?
  - twblalock 9y ago
    Social security benefits are taxed.
    - votepaunchy 9y ago
      Twice.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Taxing a transfer payment is an accounting fiction equivalent to simply providing a larger benefit. (Social Security, by the way, is simply deferred earnings. You may be thinking of Medicare or disability?)
- walshemj 9y ago
  I think you mean capital not income
- RhysU 9y ago
  But then it does not make sense to consider the size of the deceased's estate when deciding if the inheritance should be taxed. And the US does precisely that.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Yes it was. It was earned by the person who made the money. Would you rather all the wealthy people in the world just blow all their money on yachts or something? Because that is the alternative. Why bother saving money if it is all just going to be confiscated when you die. Instead you should just blow it all on ridiculous things that help nobody but yourself in the immediate time frame.
isostatic 9y ago
Why do you tax income? That's a disincentive to be productive, that's not good - we want people to be productive. Taxing wealth is basically paying a rent to the society that allows that wealth to exist. Your land in manhattan is only worth $10m because society hasn't gone all Syrian. Your copyright holding over your film is only worth anything because we don't let people freely copy it. When the wealth is owned by the people who aren't productive, you have a problem. It may be that those that are productive Leave and move elsewhere - who runs your hospital/golf course/power station then. It may be that the productive say "enough is enough" and decide to invent the guileteen. Either way when people have less to lose than you, it's a dangerous place to be.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jopsen 9y ago
  Interesting idea.. so instead of taxing income, you would tax wealth carried from one year to another... That would massively discourage saving. I'm not sure that's great in the long run. In the short run I'll probably lead to massive growth as every goes to burn their dollars on something :) (Arguably it might be a low tax, might even limited to people with a lot of wealth)
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Saving money is already discouraged by inflation. A wealth tax would be functionally equivalent to a fixed inflation rate, just the numerical values would be different. Since the numbers would be going down instead of the increasing money supply devaluing savings, I guess people wouldn't like it, because losing wealth would actually feel like losing wealth.
    - aninhumer 9y ago
      Not really. Inflation reduces the value of money, but not assets. A wealth tax would tax assets as well.
marxwasright 9y ago
Each individual pays income tax once, when they obtain the income. There’s no double taxation any more than it’s double taxation to tax my income then to tax the entrepreneurs who I do business with. And while I agree that money staying with a family and creating economic inefficiencies and pointless disparities is better than war, that’s an absurd false dichotomy.
gbacon 9y ago
We hear a lot in these parts about corporate greed, but curiously nothing about state greed.
gech 9y ago
I'm not so simple-minded to think that when I pay taxes I can relate to a billionaire having to pay taxes
justicezyx 9y ago
The powerful does not earn income, they seize the fortune, and those are not subject of tax system. Let’s see how richer the trump family will become after the presidency...
dd36 9y ago
You don’t. You tax the new income that old income generates. Frankly, all income should be taxed the same and there shouldn’t be deductions.
EliRivers 9y ago
The income was taxed when it was earned. What reason is there to tax it twice? I paid tax on my income, so when I buy milk at the store, the store shouldn't pay tax because the income was already taxed and the employees there shouldn't pay tax when they get paid, because the income was already taxed.

rtpg 9y ago

Double taxation doesn't mean anything in this context. We tax transactions, not specific euros. Income tax when an employer pays their employee. Inheritance tax once the money goes from the deceased to the heirs. These are separate things! And no different than, say, VAT on that iPhone. Sure it's between family members , but in the vast majority of cases all parties are independent adults. The land you inherit is not "justly yours". It was the previous owner's thing. You are getting it but it is not your divine right, except that you won the birth lottery by being born into this family. Of course a lot of families also have smaller domains, and it makes since to have some lower limit... But let's not forget people affected by inheritance tax are overwhelmingly very rich. Most of the population ends up with nothing.

julian_1 9y ago
> The land you inherit is not "justly yours". It was the previous owner's thing. You are getting it but it is not your divine right, except that you won the birth lottery by being born into this family. Of course those arguments apply to governments as well, since they don't derive their law-making authority by claim to divinity - at least in modern times. Why should a government be specially privileged over a citizens wishes to provide for their family and/or community after death?
- twblalock 9y ago
  > Of course those arguments apply to governments as well, since they don't derive their law-making authority by claim to divinity - at least in modern times. You could use that statement to argue about anything a government does. Why does the inheritance tax need a special justification?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - julian_1 9y ago
    Why do laws that appropriate private citizens wealth need to be justified? Well, the alternative is wonderful stuff like civil forfeiture law. Whereby a policeman without evidence or proof of criminal wrongdoing can take that $2000 in your glovebox in the name of a defacto beneficiary (the state), because on a balance of probabilities he thinks he has a better claim than you do.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >Why do laws that appropriate private citizens wealth need to be justified? What moral authority does a private citizen have to own land in Manhattan created 3 billion years ago and made valuable by the infrastructure he didn't build and community he charges rent to?
      - julian_1 9y ago
        I would argue that indigenous inhabits as private citizens have the better claim by virtue of tradition and generational succession, than the 'state' as defacto beneficiary and law-maker everytime. The dispossession of native peoples by colonial governments is just another example. Government confiscation of private wealth in the name of perceived inequality, should be examined very carefully when modern economies are structurally indebted, and budget for foreign policy objectives over domestic improvement.

MisterBastahrd 9y ago

The income by the inheritor was never earned. Hence it's perfectly logical to tax it.

julian_1 9y ago
So you would be in favor of taxing someone's social security or charitable receipts - since the benefits are not earned?
- twblalock 9y ago
  Social security benefits are taxed.
  - votepaunchy 9y ago
    Twice.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Taxing a transfer payment is an accounting fiction equivalent to simply providing a larger benefit. (Social Security, by the way, is simply deferred earnings. You may be thinking of Medicare or disability?)
walshemj 9y ago
I think you mean capital not income
RhysU 9y ago
But then it does not make sense to consider the size of the deceased's estate when deciding if the inheritance should be taxed. And the US does precisely that.
stale2002 9y ago
Yes it was. It was earned by the person who made the money. Would you rather all the wealthy people in the world just blow all their money on yachts or something? Because that is the alternative. Why bother saving money if it is all just going to be confiscated when you die. Instead you should just blow it all on ridiculous things that help nobody but yourself in the immediate time frame.

isostatic 9y ago

Why do you tax income? That's a disincentive to be productive, that's not good - we want people to be productive. Taxing wealth is basically paying a rent to the society that allows that wealth to exist. Your land in manhattan is only worth $10m because society hasn't gone all Syrian. Your copyright holding over your film is only worth anything because we don't let people freely copy it. When the wealth is owned by the people who aren't productive, you have a problem. It may be that those that are productive Leave and move elsewhere - who runs your hospital/golf course/power station then. It may be that the productive say "enough is enough" and decide to invent the guileteen. Either way when people have less to lose than you, it's a dangerous place to be.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jopsen 9y ago
Interesting idea.. so instead of taxing income, you would tax wealth carried from one year to another... That would massively discourage saving. I'm not sure that's great in the long run. In the short run I'll probably lead to massive growth as every goes to burn their dollars on something :) (Arguably it might be a low tax, might even limited to people with a lot of wealth)
- yorwba 9y ago
  Saving money is already discouraged by inflation. A wealth tax would be functionally equivalent to a fixed inflation rate, just the numerical values would be different. Since the numbers would be going down instead of the increasing money supply devaluing savings, I guess people wouldn't like it, because losing wealth would actually feel like losing wealth.
  - aninhumer 9y ago
    Not really. Inflation reduces the value of money, but not assets. A wealth tax would tax assets as well.

marxwasright 9y ago

Each individual pays income tax once, when they obtain the income. There’s no double taxation any more than it’s double taxation to tax my income then to tax the entrepreneurs who I do business with. And while I agree that money staying with a family and creating economic inefficiencies and pointless disparities is better than war, that’s an absurd false dichotomy.

gbacon 9y ago

We hear a lot in these parts about corporate greed, but curiously nothing about state greed.

gech 9y ago

I'm not so simple-minded to think that when I pay taxes I can relate to a billionaire having to pay taxes

justicezyx 9y ago

The powerful does not earn income, they seize the fortune, and those are not subject of tax system. Let’s see how richer the trump family will become after the presidency...

dd36 9y ago

You don’t. You tax the new income that old income generates. Frankly, all income should be taxed the same and there shouldn’t be deductions.

EliRivers 9y ago

The income was taxed when it was earned. What reason is there to tax it twice? I paid tax on my income, so when I buy milk at the store, the store shouldn't pay tax because the income was already taxed and the employees there shouldn't pay tax when they get paid, because the income was already taxed.