4 ms·

A fair point. However, unless they are the kind of libertarian that believes in no tax, the government is still going to tax something. And in doing so will dec

A fair point. However, unless they are the kind of libertarian that believes in no tax, the government is still going to tax something. And in doing so will decide who is taxed and who isn't. Taxing fundamentally must answer the question of what is fair to tax. I believe the reason that income is taxed is mainly because it's much easier than wealth for governments to determine and is generally more liquid. I guess my issue with inheritance is less economic and more moral. It just doesn't seem to fit with modern values yet is untouched as a debate topic. I'm curious as to why that could be.

xyzzy123 3y ago
People want to make sure their loved ones are taken care of / will be financially secure, even after they die. This is a fairly core desire. Family businesses, family farms, family homes - if you hit people there you have to expect an emotional reaction. People who think "bigger than individuals" - their families, their communities, their churches, their businesses, how to build up productivity and abundance in those spheres. Some people view economic activity as a multi-generational effort and the government stepping in to take everything just because an individual happens to die is kind of a norms violation. [I get that none of this justifies generations of economic parasites never having to lift a finger, which is why I think the implementation details matter a lot].
- throwaway13337 3y ago
  I appreciate your sincerity here. It is indeed emotional! This multi-generational effort kind of view is key to many people. And to them, building wealth for their children is the most moral thing they can think of. You're right to point that out and you saying it reminds me of a friend who said something similar about the topic. My critique on this side is that the receiver of the wealth seems often to not be happy with it. I'm sure that is not true up to a certain point but past that, the trope of the meaning crisis in some way seems to be accurate from those I've known. I think the giver does not follow the logic to the end that indeed the giving is a gift to themselves and not to their children. They are granting their own dream at the cost of their child's. This is where I think the moral failing is. I certainly believe in contributing what you can to your community and that those whom have the wealth should indeed allocate it as they see fit. I guess my question is in the wisdom of some specific allocations. The generational economic parasite is not happy to be so but is made into the unhappy abomination. It costs both them and society.
ericd 3y ago
>I guess my issue with inheritance is less economic and more moral. It just doesn't seem to fit with modern values yet is untouched as a debate topic. Ensuring that your kids are well taken care of is a core biological imperative, let alone a "modern value".

xyzzy123 3y ago

People want to make sure their loved ones are taken care of / will be financially secure, even after they die. This is a fairly core desire. Family businesses, family farms, family homes - if you hit people there you have to expect an emotional reaction. People who think "bigger than individuals" - their families, their communities, their churches, their businesses, how to build up productivity and abundance in those spheres. Some people view economic activity as a multi-generational effort and the government stepping in to take everything just because an individual happens to die is kind of a norms violation. [I get that none of this justifies generations of economic parasites never having to lift a finger, which is why I think the implementation details matter a lot].

throwaway13337 3y ago
I appreciate your sincerity here. It is indeed emotional! This multi-generational effort kind of view is key to many people. And to them, building wealth for their children is the most moral thing they can think of. You're right to point that out and you saying it reminds me of a friend who said something similar about the topic. My critique on this side is that the receiver of the wealth seems often to not be happy with it. I'm sure that is not true up to a certain point but past that, the trope of the meaning crisis in some way seems to be accurate from those I've known. I think the giver does not follow the logic to the end that indeed the giving is a gift to themselves and not to their children. They are granting their own dream at the cost of their child's. This is where I think the moral failing is. I certainly believe in contributing what you can to your community and that those whom have the wealth should indeed allocate it as they see fit. I guess my question is in the wisdom of some specific allocations. The generational economic parasite is not happy to be so but is made into the unhappy abomination. It costs both them and society.

ericd 3y ago

>I guess my issue with inheritance is less economic and more moral. It just doesn't seem to fit with modern values yet is untouched as a debate topic. Ensuring that your kids are well taken care of is a core biological imperative, let alone a "modern value".