7 ms·

> (2) The children didn't earn it, so they deserve it as much as anyone else. Inheriting it may adversely affect who they turn into as humans. This goes agains

> (2) The children didn't earn it, so they deserve it as much as anyone else. Inheriting it may adversely affect who they turn into as humans. This goes against the idea that I should have the freedom to do whatever I want with my post-tax money. What if I decided I want to give my money to a bunch of random strangers on the street? Would you insist "they deserve it as much as anyone else"? It's an essential matter of freedom. Where do you draw the line? Would you say I can't donate too much to X charity, and must donate equally to all registered 501(c)(3) orgs? What about me just going out and buying stuff? What if a super-rich person decided screw my kids, and chose to splurge everything they earned on incredibly-expensive vacations, cruises, food, hotels, etc. Are you going to attempt to use the force/violence of the state to prevent them from giving their money to whomever they want to give it to? Reductio ad absurdum. The ultimate consequence of carrying your line of thought would be the appropriation of all income and wealth, a.k.a. communism -- which we know doesn't work very weell. > (3) I believe in a large social safety net so that those who cannot succeed don't have to die, but rather can live out their lives comfortably. Basic income, socialized medicine, education, etc. Ignoring the fact that every European country that does this has an absurd and shocking tax-as-a-percentage-of-GDP (it's nearly 50% in France) -- your "large social safety net" is only going to work in very wealthy countries (with high per-capita income). This wouldn't work in most middle/low-income countries, where annual incomes 30 to 40 times to lower than very-high-income countries. And my point being -- I think we should aspire to develop universal political principles -- not ones that break in certain economies, while barely-working (with extremely high taxes) in others. > (1) ... Allowing people to hand down massive wealth I don't really know what the solution is to this. I'd have to reflect more. What I can say it's unfair to completely take away something that someone truly worked to build/earn. Perhaps we could frame things to say that there is a moral limit to how much someone can "fairly"/"ethically" earn in their life, and anything above that limit, is society's to plunder. I don't know. I haven't found an idea that I find comfortable or confident supporting.

yladiz 8y ago
> absurd and shocking tax-as-a-percentage-of-GDP Define absurd and shocking. Is it shocking to an American with a seemingly lower tax rate or to a European who has to pay these taxes every month?
- winter_blue 8y ago
  It's shocking in a timeless sense. If I built a time machine, and traveled to the 1st century AD, and asked a random farmer in some random place on Earth how he felt about giving 50% of what he produced to the state, his reaction wouldn't differ much from a person alive today. That the French (or other Europeans) are acclimatized to nearly 50% of their country's GDP being taxed, doesn't really say much. Fact is, 50% is incredibly high -- even a little child would agree.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    A farmer in the 1st century? They’re likely slaves or serfs, so I’d wager they’re giving 100% of what they make away, and to their master, not to the state. They’d be shocked at how much they would be allowed to keep. “In 332 AD Emperor Constantine issued legislation that greatly restricted the rights of the coloni and tied them to the land. Some see these laws as the beginning of medieval serfdom in Europe.” [1] Not everything was better in the past. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom
arcticbull 8y ago
> This goes against the idea that I should have the freedom to do whatever I want with my post-tax money. What if I decided I want to give my money to a bunch of random strangers on the street? Would you insist "they deserve it as much as anyone else"? It's an essential matter of freedom. Where do you draw the line? Would you say I can't donate too much to X charity, and must donate equally to all registered 501(c)(3) orgs? You don't have the freedom to do whatever you want with your post-tax money. That's constrained by law. You can't give it to someone else, for instance, in excess of $14K per year you have to pay a gift tax. You can't pass it on to your children without paying an estate tax. You can't open a brokerage account in a foreign country and buy assets there. You can't pay anyone on the OFAC list. The list goes on, and on, and on. If you gave a stranger on the street <$14K sure. More than $14K prepare to pay the gift tax, which treats it as income. I don't draw the line, you're welcome to spend it anywhere. You just can't give it to your children as an estate. > Ignoring the fact that every European country that does this has an absurd and shocking tax-as-a-percentage-of-GDP (it's nearly 50% in France). The top marginal tax rate in California is over 50%. > I don't really know what the solution is to this. I'd have to reflect more. Force people to spend it or tax it at 90% when it's passed on.
- winter_blue 8y ago
  > Force people to spend it or tax it at 90% when it's passed on. Your whole line of thinking seems absurd to me. Why is it totally fine (by you) for someone to spend all their money on themselves, but not okay for them to gift it to someone? You're saying if it's a gift (or estate passed to children/spouse), tax it a second time at 90%. But if they spend it on fancy hotels, luxury cruises, etc. there's no double tax. This is absurd, and irrational. > The top marginal tax rate in California is over 50%. How is this relevant? Marginal tax rate is a different unrelated thing. I for one, support a marginal tax rate of at least 70% on very high incomes. I think the people making less than $100k should pay a near-zero income tax, and people making above, say $2 million, should be taxed at least 70%. (Or, even better, at 90%.) But I want to keep taxes zero or nearly-zero for the middle-class, especially for the poor. In a tax system like mine, the tax-as-a-percentage-of-GDP would remain fairly low. So your comment on the "top marginal tax rate in California" is absolutely irrelevant. > You can't give it to someone else, for instance, in excess of $14K per year you have to pay a gift tax. I'm well aware of the gift tax, and I support it (at the current rate). It was created to prevent people from circumventing the estate tax (which I also support at the current rate). Now, notwithstanding the fact that this also is irrelevant to the point I raised, I'll point out another error: you and a lot of people think the gift tax exclusion is the only things there is, and forget about the lifetime gift tax exemption. You have a lifetime gift tax exemption of $11.18 million, and an annual gift tax exclusion of $15K, as of 2018. Only after you've given away $11.18 million, does the annual $15K limit kick in. > You can't open a brokerage account in a foreign country and buy assets there This is patently not true. Plenty of countries let you open brokerage accounts without being a citizen or resident there. And US law doesn't prevent you from opening brokerage accounts abroad. (The FATCA has made it a PITA for foreign financial firms to deal with American clients, and they might turn you away; but for those who are not American, that's not an issue.)

yladiz 8y ago

> absurd and shocking tax-as-a-percentage-of-GDP Define absurd and shocking. Is it shocking to an American with a seemingly lower tax rate or to a European who has to pay these taxes every month?

winter_blue 8y ago
It's shocking in a timeless sense. If I built a time machine, and traveled to the 1st century AD, and asked a random farmer in some random place on Earth how he felt about giving 50% of what he produced to the state, his reaction wouldn't differ much from a person alive today. That the French (or other Europeans) are acclimatized to nearly 50% of their country's GDP being taxed, doesn't really say much. Fact is, 50% is incredibly high -- even a little child would agree.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  A farmer in the 1st century? They’re likely slaves or serfs, so I’d wager they’re giving 100% of what they make away, and to their master, not to the state. They’d be shocked at how much they would be allowed to keep. “In 332 AD Emperor Constantine issued legislation that greatly restricted the rights of the coloni and tied them to the land. Some see these laws as the beginning of medieval serfdom in Europe.” [1] Not everything was better in the past. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom

arcticbull 8y ago

> This goes against the idea that I should have the freedom to do whatever I want with my post-tax money. What if I decided I want to give my money to a bunch of random strangers on the street? Would you insist "they deserve it as much as anyone else"? It's an essential matter of freedom. Where do you draw the line? Would you say I can't donate too much to X charity, and must donate equally to all registered 501(c)(3) orgs? You don't have the freedom to do whatever you want with your post-tax money. That's constrained by law. You can't give it to someone else, for instance, in excess of $14K per year you have to pay a gift tax. You can't pass it on to your children without paying an estate tax. You can't open a brokerage account in a foreign country and buy assets there. You can't pay anyone on the OFAC list. The list goes on, and on, and on. If you gave a stranger on the street <$14K sure. More than $14K prepare to pay the gift tax, which treats it as income. I don't draw the line, you're welcome to spend it anywhere. You just can't give it to your children as an estate. > Ignoring the fact that every European country that does this has an absurd and shocking tax-as-a-percentage-of-GDP (it's nearly 50% in France). The top marginal tax rate in California is over 50%. > I don't really know what the solution is to this. I'd have to reflect more. Force people to spend it or tax it at 90% when it's passed on.

winter_blue 8y ago
> Force people to spend it or tax it at 90% when it's passed on. Your whole line of thinking seems absurd to me. Why is it totally fine (by you) for someone to spend all their money on themselves, but not okay for them to gift it to someone? You're saying if it's a gift (or estate passed to children/spouse), tax it a second time at 90%. But if they spend it on fancy hotels, luxury cruises, etc. there's no double tax. This is absurd, and irrational. > The top marginal tax rate in California is over 50%. How is this relevant? Marginal tax rate is a different unrelated thing. I for one, support a marginal tax rate of at least 70% on very high incomes. I think the people making less than $100k should pay a near-zero income tax, and people making above, say $2 million, should be taxed at least 70%. (Or, even better, at 90%.) But I want to keep taxes zero or nearly-zero for the middle-class, especially for the poor. In a tax system like mine, the tax-as-a-percentage-of-GDP would remain fairly low. So your comment on the "top marginal tax rate in California" is absolutely irrelevant. > You can't give it to someone else, for instance, in excess of $14K per year you have to pay a gift tax. I'm well aware of the gift tax, and I support it (at the current rate). It was created to prevent people from circumventing the estate tax (which I also support at the current rate). Now, notwithstanding the fact that this also is irrelevant to the point I raised, I'll point out another error: you and a lot of people think the gift tax exclusion is the only things there is, and forget about the lifetime gift tax exemption. You have a lifetime gift tax exemption of $11.18 million, and an annual gift tax exclusion of $15K, as of 2018. Only after you've given away $11.18 million, does the annual $15K limit kick in. > You can't open a brokerage account in a foreign country and buy assets there This is patently not true. Plenty of countries let you open brokerage accounts without being a citizen or resident there. And US law doesn't prevent you from opening brokerage accounts abroad. (The FATCA has made it a PITA for foreign financial firms to deal with American clients, and they might turn you away; but for those who are not American, that's not an issue.)