5 ms·

The parent poster stated that people breaking laws is argument for high estate tax. Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? If it had zero punishment effect

The parent poster stated that people breaking laws is argument for high estate tax. Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? If it had zero punishment effect, why do it? If taking money away was not a form of punishment, why is it used as punishment in so many court cases? It punishes those who would have had the assets otherwise. Especially when the stated reason is to punish them.

charlesu 6y ago
I didn’t say it was a punishment. I said it was a good argument. There’s no legal method of getting back ill-gotten gains from someone who’s dead. But if you can’t pass along your estate, it doesn’t matter. For the record, I don’t think the state taking away most (or all) of a person's estate after they’ve died is a punishment at all.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? It's only punishment if you think there is a natural right to control the disposition of property after death. Otherwise, it's just a argument as to why a purely optional benefit not grounded in rights should not be extended by the state. Not extending a benefit to which there is no entitlement is not inherently a punishment.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  So the state should seize mom and pop shops when mom and pop dies? Then what? Try to sell it? Have it as state run enterprises? Now every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero, and the state seizing all value every time someone dies? Parents die accidentally - too bad for kids, the state seized all value and sent the kids into some state system. Countries that seize this much property don’t do too well economically.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    When the owners of a husband and wife shop die, with no inheritors, then what? If the children of the mom and pop shop die, and the children are preschool aged, with no other inheritors or people designated to handle the estate, then what? Effectively no one says that "every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero". Do you seriously think the children of working/labor class families, living in rental housing, and with no capital, completely pull themselves up from zero? Since they don't, neither do the children you hypothesis. So what's the point of your argument other than to tug at our heartstrings about those orphans? Oh, and if the mom and pop shop is bankrupt, or has little capital, and there isn't family or close friends able and willing to take care of the kids, then who will? Oh, right, "some state system." So if you are so concerned about these children, perhaps we need better orphanages and better support for the foster system. Now, how do we fund those improvements?

charlesu 6y ago

I didn’t say it was a punishment. I said it was a good argument. There’s no legal method of getting back ill-gotten gains from someone who’s dead. But if you can’t pass along your estate, it doesn’t matter. For the record, I don’t think the state taking away most (or all) of a person's estate after they’ve died is a punishment at all.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? It's only punishment if you think there is a natural right to control the disposition of property after death. Otherwise, it's just a argument as to why a purely optional benefit not grounded in rights should not be extended by the state. Not extending a benefit to which there is no entitlement is not inherently a punishment.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
So the state should seize mom and pop shops when mom and pop dies? Then what? Try to sell it? Have it as state run enterprises? Now every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero, and the state seizing all value every time someone dies? Parents die accidentally - too bad for kids, the state seized all value and sent the kids into some state system. Countries that seize this much property don’t do too well economically.
- eesmith 6y ago
  When the owners of a husband and wife shop die, with no inheritors, then what? If the children of the mom and pop shop die, and the children are preschool aged, with no other inheritors or people designated to handle the estate, then what? Effectively no one says that "every generation must completely pull themselves up from zero". Do you seriously think the children of working/labor class families, living in rental housing, and with no capital, completely pull themselves up from zero? Since they don't, neither do the children you hypothesis. So what's the point of your argument other than to tug at our heartstrings about those orphans? Oh, and if the mom and pop shop is bankrupt, or has little capital, and there isn't family or close friends able and willing to take care of the kids, then who will? Oh, right, "some state system." So if you are so concerned about these children, perhaps we need better orphanages and better support for the foster system. Now, how do we fund those improvements?