3 ms·

> is consistent with estate taxation reducing either wealth accumulation or inducing avoidance, or both That's correct - as per the very first point in the art

> is consistent with estate taxation reducing either wealth accumulation or inducing avoidance, or both That's correct - as per the very first point in the article, people structure their assets to minimize their estate tax liability. > On a more meta level, it is interesting to observe that for "several decades, total revenues raised by estate and gift taxes have roughly equalled those raised by excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco" [3]. The estate tax attracts attention because of a fundamental disagreement, regarding taxes, in our politics. I'm not really sure why that's relevant? Unlike estates, we don't tax tobacco because of a desire to generate revenue or reduce wealth inequality. Tobacco taxes are actually incredibly regressive: the burden of the taxes is almost entirely paid for by the poor, so they increase inequality. But we tax it regardless, because we believe that the taxes contribute to a decrease in smoking nationwide.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> I'm not really sure why that's relevant? The author is contrasting the disparity in attention given two two relatively-minor taxes with similar economic burdens. > we don't tax tobacco because of a desire to generate revenue or reduce wealth inequality Tobacco taxes are absolutely marketed as revenue raisers. They aren't intended to reduce inequality, but another perceived societal ill--tobacco use and nicotine addiction.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > The author is contrasting the disparity in attention given two two relatively-minor taxes with similar economic burdens. The economic burdens of the estate tax and the tobacco tax could hardly be more different. One is explicitly targeted exclusively at the very wealthy, and the other is effectively (though not explicitly) targeted at the poor. > Tobacco taxes are absolutely marketed as revenue raisers I'm not really interested in how they're marketed; I'm talking about the economic policy-driven justifications for them. > They aren't intended to reduce inequality, but another perceived societal ill--tobacco use and nicotine addiction. That's the Pigovian tax argument, which again, is completely different from the estate tax argument.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > we don't tax tobacco because of a desire to generate revenue >> I'm not really interested in how they're marketed You're either being obtuse or didn't read my original comment and think I'm disagreeing with you. If Policy A is marketed as way to do X, it was passed, in part, as a reflection of a desire to do X.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> I'm not really sure why that's relevant? The author is contrasting the disparity in attention given two two relatively-minor taxes with similar economic burdens. > we don't tax tobacco because of a desire to generate revenue or reduce wealth inequality Tobacco taxes are absolutely marketed as revenue raisers. They aren't intended to reduce inequality, but another perceived societal ill--tobacco use and nicotine addiction.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> The author is contrasting the disparity in attention given two two relatively-minor taxes with similar economic burdens. The economic burdens of the estate tax and the tobacco tax could hardly be more different. One is explicitly targeted exclusively at the very wealthy, and the other is effectively (though not explicitly) targeted at the poor. > Tobacco taxes are absolutely marketed as revenue raisers I'm not really interested in how they're marketed; I'm talking about the economic policy-driven justifications for them. > They aren't intended to reduce inequality, but another perceived societal ill--tobacco use and nicotine addiction. That's the Pigovian tax argument, which again, is completely different from the estate tax argument.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > we don't tax tobacco because of a desire to generate revenue >> I'm not really interested in how they're marketed You're either being obtuse or didn't read my original comment and think I'm disagreeing with you. If Policy A is marketed as way to do X, it was passed, in part, as a reflection of a desire to do X.