4 ms·

Morally and practically I think the best thing to do is implement a confiscatory estate tax. I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy

Morally and practically I think the best thing to do is implement a confiscatory estate tax. I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy for individuals to amass a large amount of wealth in their life time. The danger is when people then pass down these massive stores of wealth to their children and grandchildren who have done nothing to earn it, and yet will be able to use it to distort the political system for their personal gain or simply sit idle while accruing more wealth through rents and interest. Wealthy people should be able to pass down no more wealth to their kids than would be needed for them to live a decent lifestyle without needing to work, or to continue a family business of reasonable size for another generation, but no more.

pjc50 7y ago
> I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy for individuals to amass a large amount of wealth in their life time. It is when the political system runs entirely on money and one rich elderly person can have a huge influence on public opinion.
- npongratz 7y ago
  > It is when the political system runs entirely on money and one rich elderly person can have a huge influence on public opinion. Then, I'd argue, the root problem is with the political system itself.
- empath75 7y ago
  Let's pick an example that a lot of people think have a negative influence on politics -- the Koch brothers. They inherited their wealth from their father, Fred.
- everybodyknows 7y ago
  Recall that Warren Buffett has repeatedly called for higher taxes on the wealthy. Back around the GFC in 2019 he told the press "The 1% are at war with the 99%, and they're winning, big time".
CoolGuySteve 7y ago
I thought the same thing so I looked it up. Sander’s proposal to increase the estate tax to near Clinton era levels and recover some of the trust loophole would only recover about $300 billion over the next 10 years (about 1% of federal revenue). Warren estimates her wealth tax will generate $2.75 trillion over the same time period. I’m skeptical she’ll hit that target but it’s still many times greater. The Atlantic says Medicare for all would cost $34 trillion over 10 years.
- etrautmann 7y ago
  yes but it also has the added benefit of preventing heirs of plutocrats from hijacking democracy.
  - CoolGuySteve 7y ago
    There are so many loopholes involving trusts, corporate ownership, family foundations, and offshore assets that the effective tax rate is actually not that high. The Walton family is a good case study. So heirs are still gonna heir, for the most part.
athenot 7y ago
> I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy for individuals to amass a large amount of wealth in their life time. "Large" is hard to represent when it's multiple orders of magnitude more than the righest we can relate to. $27b in rolls of quarters put end-to-end is enough to go around the entire earth. I think an Elephant is "large" compared to a human. The size of any continent is already a lot more than "large" compared to a person. Here, "large" is more like comparing the diameter of Jupiter to your own height (80 million times the average person). That adjective doesn't quite do it justice.
mattrp 7y ago
Morally and practically I think this point of view is repugnant. And it is easily defeated by a life insurance policy. Simply buy a life insurance policy equal to your entire net worth, die, give the payout to your heirs tax free. Thank you Warren Buffett.

pjc50 7y ago

> I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy for individuals to amass a large amount of wealth in their life time. It is when the political system runs entirely on money and one rich elderly person can have a huge influence on public opinion.

npongratz 7y ago
> It is when the political system runs entirely on money and one rich elderly person can have a huge influence on public opinion. Then, I'd argue, the root problem is with the political system itself.
empath75 7y ago
Let's pick an example that a lot of people think have a negative influence on politics -- the Koch brothers. They inherited their wealth from their father, Fred.
everybodyknows 7y ago
Recall that Warren Buffett has repeatedly called for higher taxes on the wealthy. Back around the GFC in 2019 he told the press "The 1% are at war with the 99%, and they're winning, big time".

CoolGuySteve 7y ago

I thought the same thing so I looked it up. Sander’s proposal to increase the estate tax to near Clinton era levels and recover some of the trust loophole would only recover about $300 billion over the next 10 years (about 1% of federal revenue). Warren estimates her wealth tax will generate $2.75 trillion over the same time period. I’m skeptical she’ll hit that target but it’s still many times greater. The Atlantic says Medicare for all would cost $34 trillion over 10 years.

etrautmann 7y ago
yes but it also has the added benefit of preventing heirs of plutocrats from hijacking democracy.
- CoolGuySteve 7y ago
  There are so many loopholes involving trusts, corporate ownership, family foundations, and offshore assets that the effective tax rate is actually not that high. The Walton family is a good case study. So heirs are still gonna heir, for the most part.

athenot 7y ago

> I don’t think it’s immoral or particularly hazardous to democracy for individuals to amass a large amount of wealth in their life time. "Large" is hard to represent when it's multiple orders of magnitude more than the righest we can relate to. $27b in rolls of quarters put end-to-end is enough to go around the entire earth. I think an Elephant is "large" compared to a human. The size of any continent is already a lot more than "large" compared to a person. Here, "large" is more like comparing the diameter of Jupiter to your own height (80 million times the average person). That adjective doesn't quite do it justice.

mattrp 7y ago

Morally and practically I think this point of view is repugnant. And it is easily defeated by a life insurance policy. Simply buy a life insurance policy equal to your entire net worth, die, give the payout to your heirs tax free. Thank you Warren Buffett.