3 ms·

A 100% inheritance tax is quite silly imho and very unfair for the parents. One of the reasons many people strive for success is to secure some well-being to th

A 100% inheritance tax is quite silly imho and very unfair for the parents. One of the reasons many people strive for success is to secure some well-being to their children... well at least myself and many people i know.

tirant 2y ago
Exactly. It creates perverse incentives. One of the main drivers for millions of humans to work harder is to leave a better economic situation for their children and grandchildren. You remove that incentive and the economy will tank immediately. It’s not only perverse but completely anti-human.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  ... the perverse incentive to raise your children to stand on their own two feet?
  - pqtyw 2y ago
    The potentially perverse incentive to spend every single $ you have before you die? If everything you have goes to the government after you're dead and you have more money than you personally need you can still spend it all on your children before you die. Presumably this 100% tax would also apply to gifts cause otherwise it wouldn't really work but where does it stop? Parents can't pay for college? Buy their children a car? Go on vacation with them? Spend any money on them at all so that they would "stand on their own two feet"? Be banned from giving any financial support to their children when they reach 18? I mean... it's an obviously not a good idea. Also the most optimal strategy would be to spend all the money you have in addition to getting a reverse mortgages on any property so that by the time you die your net worth would be as close to 0 as possible. Or just selling everything and buying an annuity.
    - unusualmonkey 2y ago
      Why is spending everything before you die a perverse incentive?
      - pqtyw 2y ago
        Lower savings rate, higher inflation, higher interest rates, less capital available for investment. So most capital intensive sectors wouldn't do well. A lot more volatility, without a (or much smaller one) buffer most economic shocks would have a bigger impact on the economy. Also there would still be a lot of inequality it would just be intra-generational. Then again.. all the annuity money has have to go somewhere. So maybe the insurance companies would become the primary sources of investment capital (which wouldn't be great). A lot of uncertainty though i.e. buying a house if you have a family would become much riskier..
        unusualmonkey 2y ago
        I'd need a source to back up those claims, as you note it's not trivial to understand how economy would react. I also don't see why buying a house would be much riskier? If you buy a house for your family it's because you either prefer the lifestyle or think it provides economic advantages over renting. Given you only need housing when your alive, I think what happens after you pass is not as major a concern as presented.
        pqtyw 2y ago
        > I'd need a source to back up those claims A source like what? I don't think there are many studies refuting bizarre not well thought out policies. Also it's pretty hard for me to argue against a suggestion that's so ill defined. Albeit a massive increase in consumption and a reduction in savings would be the most obvious outcome (with all the implications of that). > after you pass is not as major a concern as presented Therefore there is no point for you to own your house. When you get older you either get a reverse mortgage or don't buy property in the first place. There would be no rational reason to own property beyond a certain age.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    The goal are in no way mutually exclusive. I can want my children capable of providing for themselves. I can also want improve their situation beyond that.

tirant 2y ago

Exactly. It creates perverse incentives. One of the main drivers for millions of humans to work harder is to leave a better economic situation for their children and grandchildren. You remove that incentive and the economy will tank immediately. It’s not only perverse but completely anti-human.

ForHackernews 2y ago
... the perverse incentive to raise your children to stand on their own two feet?
- pqtyw 2y ago
  The potentially perverse incentive to spend every single $ you have before you die? If everything you have goes to the government after you're dead and you have more money than you personally need you can still spend it all on your children before you die. Presumably this 100% tax would also apply to gifts cause otherwise it wouldn't really work but where does it stop? Parents can't pay for college? Buy their children a car? Go on vacation with them? Spend any money on them at all so that they would "stand on their own two feet"? Be banned from giving any financial support to their children when they reach 18? I mean... it's an obviously not a good idea. Also the most optimal strategy would be to spend all the money you have in addition to getting a reverse mortgages on any property so that by the time you die your net worth would be as close to 0 as possible. Or just selling everything and buying an annuity.
  - unusualmonkey 2y ago
    Why is spending everything before you die a perverse incentive?
    - pqtyw 2y ago
      Lower savings rate, higher inflation, higher interest rates, less capital available for investment. So most capital intensive sectors wouldn't do well. A lot more volatility, without a (or much smaller one) buffer most economic shocks would have a bigger impact on the economy. Also there would still be a lot of inequality it would just be intra-generational. Then again.. all the annuity money has have to go somewhere. So maybe the insurance companies would become the primary sources of investment capital (which wouldn't be great). A lot of uncertainty though i.e. buying a house if you have a family would become much riskier..
      - unusualmonkey 2y ago
        I'd need a source to back up those claims, as you note it's not trivial to understand how economy would react. I also don't see why buying a house would be much riskier? If you buy a house for your family it's because you either prefer the lifestyle or think it provides economic advantages over renting. Given you only need housing when your alive, I think what happens after you pass is not as major a concern as presented.
        pqtyw 2y ago
        > I'd need a source to back up those claims A source like what? I don't think there are many studies refuting bizarre not well thought out policies. Also it's pretty hard for me to argue against a suggestion that's so ill defined. Albeit a massive increase in consumption and a reduction in savings would be the most obvious outcome (with all the implications of that). > after you pass is not as major a concern as presented Therefore there is no point for you to own your house. When you get older you either get a reverse mortgage or don't buy property in the first place. There would be no rational reason to own property beyond a certain age.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The goal are in no way mutually exclusive. I can want my children capable of providing for themselves. I can also want improve their situation beyond that.