3 ms·

interesting idea, but I think I would decline. I don't plan on having children, but I would like the primary beneficiaries of my excess productivity to be my fr

interesting idea, but I think I would decline. I don't plan on having children, but I would like the primary beneficiaries of my excess productivity to be my friends and family. plus, I think it sets up a weird incentive to spend as much of your money as possible before you die, which causes a big problem if you live longer than you planned. I actually think the current US estate tax rules (minus the loopholes) are pretty reasonable. you get to pass on $10mm or so to your beneficiaries untaxed, but any wealth past that is subject to a steep tax. if you remove the basis step-up for assets and somehow prevent super-wealthy people from avoiding the tax altogether, I think it would be a pretty good system. enormous estates would decay quickly through the generations, but ordinary to upper-middle class folks could still leave their life's excess productivity to people they care about.

joelhoffman 6y ago
If you're working for a firm that isn't actively tanking, then the primary beneficiaries of your excess productivity are always your employers. As many other people here have said the floor of any wealth tax is far higher than anything you could ever accumulate on a salary income.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  note that I am replying to a comment asking whether I would accept an unconditional 100% inheritance tax in exchange for paying no other taxes while I'm alive. regarding the wealth tax in general, I see no reason to prefer it over a capital gains tax. if it's not possible to eliminate the loopholes that allow very rich people to avoid paying capital gains, I don't see why the same wouldn't be true for a wealth tax. with the possible exception of LVT, I would greatly prefer to see the existing tax structures get fixed than to add an entirely new tax into the mix.
  - joelhoffman 6y ago
    Fair point, I misread that. But even so, the inheritance tax is still a delayed wealth tax and a 100% tax would generally be easily avoided with gifts -- still taxable, but presumably not at 100%. (Edit: if we had a combination of capital gains + personal income tax that effectively achieved the same goal as a wealth tax, wouldn't that be basically a maximum wage? Seems even harder to sell. It seems to me the main difference would be that a capital gains tax still encourages holding on to assets and a wealth tax encourages spending.)

joelhoffman 6y ago

If you're working for a firm that isn't actively tanking, then the primary beneficiaries of your excess productivity are always your employers. As many other people here have said the floor of any wealth tax is far higher than anything you could ever accumulate on a salary income.

leetcrew 6y ago
note that I am replying to a comment asking whether I would accept an unconditional 100% inheritance tax in exchange for paying no other taxes while I'm alive. regarding the wealth tax in general, I see no reason to prefer it over a capital gains tax. if it's not possible to eliminate the loopholes that allow very rich people to avoid paying capital gains, I don't see why the same wouldn't be true for a wealth tax. with the possible exception of LVT, I would greatly prefer to see the existing tax structures get fixed than to add an entirely new tax into the mix.
- joelhoffman 6y ago
  Fair point, I misread that. But even so, the inheritance tax is still a delayed wealth tax and a 100% tax would generally be easily avoided with gifts -- still taxable, but presumably not at 100%. (Edit: if we had a combination of capital gains + personal income tax that effectively achieved the same goal as a wealth tax, wouldn't that be basically a maximum wage? Seems even harder to sell. It seems to me the main difference would be that a capital gains tax still encourages holding on to assets and a wealth tax encourages spending.)