5 ms·

I've never understood why the government thinks that just because someone has died, they deserve 40+% of money that has already been taxed.

wrren 6y ago
Because we live in a society.
- rs999gti 6y ago
  > Because we live in a society. Why don't I have a downvote button for this?
  - boxfire 6y ago
    because you don't have 501 karma, and you probably won't at this pace.
rs999gti 6y ago
What the government gives it must first take away
happytoexplain 6y ago
This is a poor argument - it contains no distinction from any taxed transaction. All money changing hands has "already been taxed" in the way you are using the phrase. Unless you are saying that all tax is wrong, in which case you should definitely make that argument rather than this much more specific one.
jnwatson 6y ago
It isn't about "deserving" anything. The societal problems behind inter-generational wealth are wide and deep. This was recognized by the founders of the US, in particular Thomas Jefferson. Adam Smith: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." This is taxation for policy reasons, not income.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  This starts with an excellent point - many bad, emotionally-driven arguments about how society works are predicated on the concept of "deserving". Bad people "deserve" to suffer in prison. Good people "deserve" every penny they make. The arguments rarely bother to go beyond those assumptions. The concept of "deserving" is real and important, but it's also commonly the linch pin of bad-faith arguments.
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  The purpose of taxes is to fund the budget. This feels like back door social engineering.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    It's front door social engineering. See also tobacco and alcohol.
  - supergarfield 6y ago
    There are other purposes for taxes, the most famous one being Pigovian taxes, which attempt to price negative externalities into a market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax. The inheritance tax is not a Pigovian tax, but its purpose can also be primarily non-budgetary.
- maerF0x0 6y ago
  This is creating a false narrative that the only way to economic mobility is through theft upon generational transfer. It conveys a message of helplessness rather than rewarding usefulness and it's a vicious cycle. Economic mobility should be solely predicated on the expression of competence/ability in the pursuit of providing value to others in your society. It's not even that hard[1]. Get an education and a job, avoid the big economic sinks. > This means that 40 percent of why some Americans are extraordinarily well off has nothing to do with smarts, hard work, frugality, lucky gambles or entrepreneurial ingenuity. It is simply because they were born to rich parents. We should not fear the money landing in undeserving hands, it will rapidly be drained away if that is the case. Many(most?) very wealthy families employ wealth managers that ensure that money is profitably engaged with the society anyways, so in reality the money is not really in the heir's hands anyways, but is tied up in companies that are serving the country and employing others. [1]: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-t...
metzby 6y ago
Lots of the money hasn't been taxed. If you owned stock for decades but never sold it, it wouldn't have been taxed.
- beamatronic 6y ago
  The money that was used to purchase the stock originally was probably post-tax dollars
  - oplav 6y ago
    Are you suggesting that capital gains taxes on stock sales are also wrong because the stock was purchased with post-tax dollars?
  - parineum 6y ago
    And you aren't taxed that amount when you sell it, you're only taxed the profits.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Unless it’s stock in e.g. a 401k or IRA.
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    They money I used to buy a candy bar is post-tax dollars dollars, but I still pay sales tax on it. They money I use to pay for a taxi ride are post-tax dollars, but the taxi driver still pays income tax on it. When I sell that stock I bought with post-tax dollars, I still pay capital gain taxes on the profits. Post-tax dollars aren't magical things that mean you never pay taxes again. They're just an accounting tool that makes dealing with some tax-exempt activities easier.
  - bobbytherobot 6y ago
    You pay taxes on the gains. (Unless you purchases them through a Roth 401K/IRA where you don't, but those have tight limits on it.)
simfoo 6y ago
In fact I think the government has all the rights to take all belongings after someone dies. After all the person earned it from society, not its descendants.
- robdachshund 6y ago
  You wouldn't have that opinion if you worked hard and achieved any sort of success in life You have a right to your own property. This isn't communism.
noja 6y ago
If you read the article it will help: "Some will argue that this example ignores any income and payroll tax the wealthy parents paid when they originally earned the $50 million. But if the couple paid their personal chef’s wages out of after-tax income, we wouldn’t think their personal chef should get credit for the taxes they paid. Similarly, we should ignore any income or payroll tax the couple paid when considering how much their son should contribute to the costs of government."
elric 6y ago
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the question honestly. Assuming we're talking about a country where "The Government" is pretty well behaved, said government doesn't put that money in its pockets. It makes it work for the people it represents. Working for your money and becoming filthy rich is fine. But when you die, you die. None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide what we do with what's left of you and your belongings. In an ideal world, we can use that to better the lives of others. Unless you were a truly stingy person in life, your affluence will have already have had huge positive impacts on those near and dear to you. Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person?
- valuearb 6y ago
  How does government pork benefit me? Other than burying me in taxes and my children in debt?
- richwater 6y ago
  > None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide with what's left of you and your belongings. This is absolutely absurd. Your belongings and wealth belong to your estate and as the owner of it you decide how it should be distributed. All your doing is using your disdain of wealthy people to advocate theft. > Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person? Because it's none of your business. Why on earth are you vilifying people for wanting to pass down their hard-earned money to their children?
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    >absolutely absurd. >disdain of wealthy people >advocate theft. >none of your business >vilifying people for wanting to pass down their hard-earned money In the context of the comment you're replying to, none of this is reasonable, and some of it isn't even relevant. You should consider that you're forming an emotional, hostile argument.
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
choeger 6y ago
It's not just the money. Imagine real estate. Today's value might be completely out of the owners. Say granny wants you to inherit their old penthouse in downtown New York (just an example, I have no idea if it is technically possible to own such a thing) or any other real estate that they used for living and is now worth tens of millions. The government won't let you have it. Or Grandpa's old company. It makes a little profit but was always in the hands of the family and it is now evaluated for tens of millions. Government forces you to sell it. I could go on. Art collection, old cars, even immaterial rights or stocks that are massively undervalued right now for one reason or another (for instance because the founder just died suddenly). Inheritance taxation is inherently unjust because it cannot distinguish between goods that are easily traded for and the ones that cannot easily be sold.
bobbytherobot 6y ago
The government doesn't tax anyone who dies. They tax the estate of the wealthy. Few people will be affected by it. There is plenty more you can read on the topic. The general idea is that it helps create a meritocratic society.
whytaka 6y ago
Because dynastic wealth is unearned and aggravates unequal circumstances of birth and accumulates capital in less competitive markets thus delegitimizing the purported meritocracy that is capitalism.
munificent 6y ago
Tax money must come from somewhere. Imagine this as a zero-sum game where you have some fixed total amount of taxation that you're trying to reach and the question is just who pays how much. Given that, is there anyone who could possibly need their money less than the dead?

wrren 6y ago

Because we live in a society.

rs999gti 6y ago
> Because we live in a society. Why don't I have a downvote button for this?
- boxfire 6y ago
  because you don't have 501 karma, and you probably won't at this pace.

rs999gti 6y ago

What the government gives it must first take away

happytoexplain 6y ago

This is a poor argument - it contains no distinction from any taxed transaction. All money changing hands has "already been taxed" in the way you are using the phrase. Unless you are saying that all tax is wrong, in which case you should definitely make that argument rather than this much more specific one.

jnwatson 6y ago

It isn't about "deserving" anything. The societal problems behind inter-generational wealth are wide and deep. This was recognized by the founders of the US, in particular Thomas Jefferson. Adam Smith: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." This is taxation for policy reasons, not income.

happytoexplain 6y ago
This starts with an excellent point - many bad, emotionally-driven arguments about how society works are predicated on the concept of "deserving". Bad people "deserve" to suffer in prison. Good people "deserve" every penny they make. The arguments rarely bother to go beyond those assumptions. The concept of "deserving" is real and important, but it's also commonly the linch pin of bad-faith arguments.
disposekinetics 6y ago
The purpose of taxes is to fund the budget. This feels like back door social engineering.
- jacobush 6y ago
  It's front door social engineering. See also tobacco and alcohol.
- supergarfield 6y ago
  There are other purposes for taxes, the most famous one being Pigovian taxes, which attempt to price negative externalities into a market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax. The inheritance tax is not a Pigovian tax, but its purpose can also be primarily non-budgetary.
maerF0x0 6y ago
This is creating a false narrative that the only way to economic mobility is through theft upon generational transfer. It conveys a message of helplessness rather than rewarding usefulness and it's a vicious cycle. Economic mobility should be solely predicated on the expression of competence/ability in the pursuit of providing value to others in your society. It's not even that hard[1]. Get an education and a job, avoid the big economic sinks. > This means that 40 percent of why some Americans are extraordinarily well off has nothing to do with smarts, hard work, frugality, lucky gambles or entrepreneurial ingenuity. It is simply because they were born to rich parents. We should not fear the money landing in undeserving hands, it will rapidly be drained away if that is the case. Many(most?) very wealthy families employ wealth managers that ensure that money is profitably engaged with the society anyways, so in reality the money is not really in the heir's hands anyways, but is tied up in companies that are serving the country and employing others. [1]: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-t...

metzby 6y ago

Lots of the money hasn't been taxed. If you owned stock for decades but never sold it, it wouldn't have been taxed.

beamatronic 6y ago
The money that was used to purchase the stock originally was probably post-tax dollars
- oplav 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that capital gains taxes on stock sales are also wrong because the stock was purchased with post-tax dollars?
- parineum 6y ago
  And you aren't taxed that amount when you sell it, you're only taxed the profits.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Unless it’s stock in e.g. a 401k or IRA.
- saalweachter 6y ago
  They money I used to buy a candy bar is post-tax dollars dollars, but I still pay sales tax on it. They money I use to pay for a taxi ride are post-tax dollars, but the taxi driver still pays income tax on it. When I sell that stock I bought with post-tax dollars, I still pay capital gain taxes on the profits. Post-tax dollars aren't magical things that mean you never pay taxes again. They're just an accounting tool that makes dealing with some tax-exempt activities easier.
- bobbytherobot 6y ago
  You pay taxes on the gains. (Unless you purchases them through a Roth 401K/IRA where you don't, but those have tight limits on it.)

simfoo 6y ago

In fact I think the government has all the rights to take all belongings after someone dies. After all the person earned it from society, not its descendants.

robdachshund 6y ago
You wouldn't have that opinion if you worked hard and achieved any sort of success in life You have a right to your own property. This isn't communism.

noja 6y ago

If you read the article it will help: "Some will argue that this example ignores any income and payroll tax the wealthy parents paid when they originally earned the $50 million. But if the couple paid their personal chef’s wages out of after-tax income, we wouldn’t think their personal chef should get credit for the taxes they paid. Similarly, we should ignore any income or payroll tax the couple paid when considering how much their son should contribute to the costs of government."

elric 6y ago

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the question honestly. Assuming we're talking about a country where "The Government" is pretty well behaved, said government doesn't put that money in its pockets. It makes it work for the people it represents. Working for your money and becoming filthy rich is fine. But when you die, you die. None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide what we do with what's left of you and your belongings. In an ideal world, we can use that to better the lives of others. Unless you were a truly stingy person in life, your affluence will have already have had huge positive impacts on those near and dear to you. Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person?

valuearb 6y ago
How does government pork benefit me? Other than burying me in taxes and my children in debt?
richwater 6y ago
> None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide with what's left of you and your belongings. This is absolutely absurd. Your belongings and wealth belong to your estate and as the owner of it you decide how it should be distributed. All your doing is using your disdain of wealthy people to advocate theft. > Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person? Because it's none of your business. Why on earth are you vilifying people for wanting to pass down their hard-earned money to their children?
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >absolutely absurd. >disdain of wealthy people >advocate theft. >none of your business >vilifying people for wanting to pass down their hard-earned money In the context of the comment you're replying to, none of this is reasonable, and some of it isn't even relevant. You should consider that you're forming an emotional, hostile argument.
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

choeger 6y ago

It's not just the money. Imagine real estate. Today's value might be completely out of the owners. Say granny wants you to inherit their old penthouse in downtown New York (just an example, I have no idea if it is technically possible to own such a thing) or any other real estate that they used for living and is now worth tens of millions. The government won't let you have it. Or Grandpa's old company. It makes a little profit but was always in the hands of the family and it is now evaluated for tens of millions. Government forces you to sell it. I could go on. Art collection, old cars, even immaterial rights or stocks that are massively undervalued right now for one reason or another (for instance because the founder just died suddenly). Inheritance taxation is inherently unjust because it cannot distinguish between goods that are easily traded for and the ones that cannot easily be sold.

bobbytherobot 6y ago

The government doesn't tax anyone who dies. They tax the estate of the wealthy. Few people will be affected by it. There is plenty more you can read on the topic. The general idea is that it helps create a meritocratic society.

whytaka 6y ago

Because dynastic wealth is unearned and aggravates unequal circumstances of birth and accumulates capital in less competitive markets thus delegitimizing the purported meritocracy that is capitalism.

munificent 6y ago

Tax money must come from somewhere. Imagine this as a zero-sum game where you have some fixed total amount of taxation that you're trying to reach and the question is just who pays how much. Given that, is there anyone who could possibly need their money less than the dead?