3 ms·

I'd expect that many of these people inherit money, or "spend" money by giving it to their children. If the argument is that people who worked hard shouldn't be

by geofft 8y ago

I'd expect that many of these people inherit money, or "spend" money by giving it to their children. If the argument is that people who worked hard shouldn't be penalized, then that argues in favor of an extremely high estate tax; children who happened to be born to parents who worked hard shouldn't be significantly better off than children who happened not to have that fortune.

RickJWagner 8y ago
I'm of mixed opinion on this one. On one hand, I think 'That person earned their money, they can spend it as they see fit. If the kids splurge it, it still gets distributed.' On the other hand, I see how this makes it hard for life to seem fair. (But then again, some people are born attractive, tall, athletic, smart, etc. The upshot: life just isn't fair.) Even if we agreed that high taxes on inherited wealth were proper, I doubt if it'd become law. The Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc. wouldn't like it for obvious reasons.
- geofft 8y ago
  Life isn't fair but the legitimate purpose of government policy is to shape society in the ways people want it shaped. Otherwise we'd just have a monarchy and say "Life isn't fair." (And it is worth remembering that the people can always revolt and slaughter the rich who don't like their policies, that's a legitimate way of establishing a government.) I'm a fan of saying, first, that people did not earn their money past a certain point (my income has more than doubled since I entered tech and I am certainly not working more than twice as hard, I just joined a hedge fund instead of an unprofitable startup, and as a result I am firmly comfortable with any of these high tax brackets affecting me personally). Then you can say, we'll tax much more heavily at the point that you don't need the money to live. Then you simply don't accumulate the money needed for your children to live off passive income, and the question doesn't arise.

by geofft 8y ago

RickJWagner 8y ago

I'm of mixed opinion on this one. On one hand, I think 'That person earned their money, they can spend it as they see fit. If the kids splurge it, it still gets distributed.' On the other hand, I see how this makes it hard for life to seem fair. (But then again, some people are born attractive, tall, athletic, smart, etc. The upshot: life just isn't fair.) Even if we agreed that high taxes on inherited wealth were proper, I doubt if it'd become law. The Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc. wouldn't like it for obvious reasons.

geofft 8y ago
Life isn't fair but the legitimate purpose of government policy is to shape society in the ways people want it shaped. Otherwise we'd just have a monarchy and say "Life isn't fair." (And it is worth remembering that the people can always revolt and slaughter the rich who don't like their policies, that's a legitimate way of establishing a government.) I'm a fan of saying, first, that people did not earn their money past a certain point (my income has more than doubled since I entered tech and I am certainly not working more than twice as hard, I just joined a hedge fund instead of an unprofitable startup, and as a result I am firmly comfortable with any of these high tax brackets affecting me personally). Then you can say, we'll tax much more heavily at the point that you don't need the money to live. Then you simply don't accumulate the money needed for your children to live off passive income, and the question doesn't arise.