5 ms·

> inheritance is a problem because it's un-earned wealth > Inheritance taxes should be high, without being overly punitive What's strange is that when you tal

> inheritance is a problem because it's un-earned wealth > Inheritance taxes should be high, without being overly punitive What's strange is that when you talk to people about inheritance tax they become instantly outraged at the idea of the government taking their money by force, yet they seem to have no problem with the government forcibly taking close to half of their salary. It's a strange paradox and it seems that people just aren't used to the idea, despite it being much fairer. Tax the wealth of the dead rather than the earnings of the living. If we could slash income tax in half but implement an inheritance tax of, for example, 50% above a certain threshold, it would be a win-win for everyone. The rich would still leave lots of money to their kids and the average person would get to keep more of their earned money. It's more meritocratic on every level. Sadly, so many of our leaders now are very wealthy themselves, so this isn't a proposition they're likely to be enthusiastic about.

jandrese 6y ago
The problem with inheritance taxes is that corporations don't have to pass their assets onto their children in order to continue existing. They're a half measure. That said this is an issue that for some reason has a lot of poor people who would never be affected taking up the torch in support of the very same billionaires that are currently screwing them over. It's really remarkable the power of propaganda.
- simonh 6y ago
  Corporations don’t own themselves though, people do. Effective ownership and control are the main goals that benefit society, as long as the organisation is well run and generating useful goods and services, and employing people, we all benefit. Inheritance is an obstacle to that because it’s effectively random in terms of the competence of the inheritors, but there’s nothing random about the leadership of companies. By and large it’s based on merit. If it isn’t, then sure, corporate governance is a legitimate area for policy making.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    I think you might be overestimating how much merit is a factor in the selection of board members. Corporate boards are incredibly incestuous. The most reliable way to get on a board is to be in an old money family and know other people on the board. One could argue that the current system of selecting corporate executives produces no better result than the general election process used to select some government officials. Certainly there is no lack of poorly run companies in the modern world, especially when compared to highly competitive companies like Apple under Steve Jobs and Tesla/SpaceX under Elon Musk. The advantage to corporate boards is that candidates don't have to spend time and energy with public campaigning, but they gravitate towards conservative governance that is unable to adapt to changing times. At any rate, the competence of the leadership at companies doesn't really matter. If they make money they can be taxed on that. How competent the leadership is may or may not impact how much money they make. Poorly managed companies may even make more money in the short term.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Well, badly run companies die and get eaten by their competitors. That’s fine. We do of course need to make sure markets are competitive and that incumbents aren’t unfairly privileged, so there is a role for regulation, but the basic competitive system is fine.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Inherited wealth is already taxed at source. Taxing it again is double taxation. What is being levied is basically a death tax. You are taxed because you died. Your statement is a gross misunderstanding of tax codes. Inheritance should not only be protected from excessive taxation, it shouldn’t be taxed at all in the first place. It is literally taxing Death.
- stolsvik 6y ago
  Why is “taxing Death” a problem?
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    A death tax says that the govt would gain/profit from someone dying. Family is the only way to remain immortal and inheritance is transferring assets to extensions of one’s own DNA. Because DNA..it can be argued is ‘property’. The state can levy a small fee to retire identity of the deceased for legal purposes. But other than that, transfer of wealth being taxed is theft.

jandrese 6y ago

The problem with inheritance taxes is that corporations don't have to pass their assets onto their children in order to continue existing. They're a half measure. That said this is an issue that for some reason has a lot of poor people who would never be affected taking up the torch in support of the very same billionaires that are currently screwing them over. It's really remarkable the power of propaganda.

simonh 6y ago
Corporations don’t own themselves though, people do. Effective ownership and control are the main goals that benefit society, as long as the organisation is well run and generating useful goods and services, and employing people, we all benefit. Inheritance is an obstacle to that because it’s effectively random in terms of the competence of the inheritors, but there’s nothing random about the leadership of companies. By and large it’s based on merit. If it isn’t, then sure, corporate governance is a legitimate area for policy making.
- jandrese 6y ago
  I think you might be overestimating how much merit is a factor in the selection of board members. Corporate boards are incredibly incestuous. The most reliable way to get on a board is to be in an old money family and know other people on the board. One could argue that the current system of selecting corporate executives produces no better result than the general election process used to select some government officials. Certainly there is no lack of poorly run companies in the modern world, especially when compared to highly competitive companies like Apple under Steve Jobs and Tesla/SpaceX under Elon Musk. The advantage to corporate boards is that candidates don't have to spend time and energy with public campaigning, but they gravitate towards conservative governance that is unable to adapt to changing times. At any rate, the competence of the leadership at companies doesn't really matter. If they make money they can be taxed on that. How competent the leadership is may or may not impact how much money they make. Poorly managed companies may even make more money in the short term.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Well, badly run companies die and get eaten by their competitors. That’s fine. We do of course need to make sure markets are competitive and that incumbents aren’t unfairly privileged, so there is a role for regulation, but the basic competitive system is fine.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago

Inherited wealth is already taxed at source. Taxing it again is double taxation. What is being levied is basically a death tax. You are taxed because you died. Your statement is a gross misunderstanding of tax codes. Inheritance should not only be protected from excessive taxation, it shouldn’t be taxed at all in the first place. It is literally taxing Death.

stolsvik 6y ago
Why is “taxing Death” a problem?
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  A death tax says that the govt would gain/profit from someone dying. Family is the only way to remain immortal and inheritance is transferring assets to extensions of one’s own DNA. Because DNA..it can be argued is ‘property’. The state can levy a small fee to retire identity of the deceased for legal purposes. But other than that, transfer of wealth being taxed is theft.