6 ms·

Are you actually advocating for an inheritance tax close to 100%? Because that is completely unworkable IMO, for several reasons: 1) Unless you introduce comp

Are you actually advocating for an inheritance tax close to 100%? Because that is completely unworkable IMO, for several reasons: 1) Unless you introduce comparable "wealth transfer"/gift taxes, it becomes completely meaningless for the average case. 2) This would be insanely harmful in cases of unexpected deaths; inheritance is a really bad compensation already when someone close dies, this would make it even worse. And dealing with any kind of shared assets would be a nightmare, too (father dies, mother has to pay tax on half the house?) Could be workable with large allowances though, but I don't hink you would ever get this pushed through in a democracy because it is too easy to put negative spin on it (even if it was in the majorities economical best interest). I don't think that inheritance tax is a bad concept, but setting it higher than the gift tax rate is actively harmful and would not achieve anything.

pbhjpbhj 2y ago
You don't normally pay inheritance taxes for spousally shared assets. Is that not the case where you are, or did you purposefully give this the worst framing?
- myrmidon 2y ago
  No, I'm not purposefully giving this the worst framing. My main point is that setting it higher than gift tax rates is effectively pointless, and basically just punishes people for dying unexpectedly (and/or not planning ahead for their own death), and neither is desirable.
  - barry-cotter 2y ago
    It’s not pointless. It may be counterproductive but kicking rich people when they’re down is popular among certain sections of society since it’s a subset of kicking rich people, which they like generally.
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    A purpose of death taxes is to even out the effect of not being born into wealth. I'd rather make it easier for living people by 'punishing' dead people than make it harder for living people by punishing them for not being born into the right family.
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      I absolutely see your point, but if you set inheritance tax higher than gift tax rate, then that rate difference does nothing for wealth inequality (because people are just gonna gift things in their 80's at the latest, or set things up legally to avoid the tax), while the inheritance tax is highly punishing for families of the unepxectedly deceased.
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> Could be workable with large allowances though, Like US$13M ? That is the current situation in the United States.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  Absolutely-- but if you have to exempt like 99% of your population from a law then its probably not too popular a concept (compare income tax, which a lot more people are actually fine with paying). I still think this would have mainly negative effects if the gift tax rate is lower than inheritance tax anyway.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    > but if you have to exempt like 99% of your population from a law then its probably not too popular a concept It is hard to take this seriously. Are you seriously suggesting that the threshold is set at this level because of unpopularity rather than the power of the extremely wealthy? Have you looked at how the threshold has changed over time, and why?
    - pqtyw 2y ago
      > than the power of the extremely wealthy? How does that make sense? In theory only the extremely wealthy have to pay the tax (not that they necessarily do that). In what way would it being so high benefit them?
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      absolutely. If you removed the limit and applied to the 99%, it would be the most unpopular tax in the country.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        I don't believe there's ever been a situation (at least in the USA) where there was no threshold at all. So the argument is over its value, not its existence. That said, sure, you're right. But why are you right? I would suggest it is because we live (in the USA, among other places) in a culture that strongly emphasizes the right to pass along generational wealth. But this is not universally true across time and space, and our culture took a different tack (say, by quoting august Republican figures from the late 19th and early 20th centuries), the popularity or otherwise would likely be entirely different.
DiscourseFan 2y ago
A 100% inheritance tax would encourage entrepreneurial behavior and force young people to take risks that they wouldn't otherwise. Capital would operate more efficiently if everyone was on the market in that way. In fact, the inheritance tax would be the only tax if it was total; there would be no other tax burden in one's entire life.
- pqtyw 2y ago
  > entrepreneurial behaviour and force young people to take risks that they wouldn't otherwise Or get them stuck in a permanent debt cycle. > the inheritance tax would be the only tax if it was total; there would be no other tax burden in one's entire life. Wouldn't everyone be incentivized to spend as much as they feasibly can before they die and not accumulate too much wealth? I guess it depends on the specific implementation but the optimal approach would be to take on as much debt as you can to keep your effective net worth close to 0. So even a 100% tax on that might not result in a lot of revenue...
ForHackernews 2y ago
I'd advocate for that. The dead have no property rights. Survivors have no automatic right to get rich when uncle pennybags kicks the bucket. All the rest is quibbling about logistics. Yes, we know rich people are very good at hiding their money.

pbhjpbhj 2y ago

You don't normally pay inheritance taxes for spousally shared assets. Is that not the case where you are, or did you purposefully give this the worst framing?

myrmidon 2y ago
No, I'm not purposefully giving this the worst framing. My main point is that setting it higher than gift tax rates is effectively pointless, and basically just punishes people for dying unexpectedly (and/or not planning ahead for their own death), and neither is desirable.
- barry-cotter 2y ago
  It’s not pointless. It may be counterproductive but kicking rich people when they’re down is popular among certain sections of society since it’s a subset of kicking rich people, which they like generally.
- pbhjpbhj 2y ago
  A purpose of death taxes is to even out the effect of not being born into wealth. I'd rather make it easier for living people by 'punishing' dead people than make it harder for living people by punishing them for not being born into the right family.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    I absolutely see your point, but if you set inheritance tax higher than gift tax rate, then that rate difference does nothing for wealth inequality (because people are just gonna gift things in their 80's at the latest, or set things up legally to avoid the tax), while the inheritance tax is highly punishing for families of the unepxectedly deceased.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

> Could be workable with large allowances though, Like US$13M ? That is the current situation in the United States.

myrmidon 2y ago
Absolutely-- but if you have to exempt like 99% of your population from a law then its probably not too popular a concept (compare income tax, which a lot more people are actually fine with paying). I still think this would have mainly negative effects if the gift tax rate is lower than inheritance tax anyway.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > but if you have to exempt like 99% of your population from a law then its probably not too popular a concept It is hard to take this seriously. Are you seriously suggesting that the threshold is set at this level because of unpopularity rather than the power of the extremely wealthy? Have you looked at how the threshold has changed over time, and why?
  - pqtyw 2y ago
    > than the power of the extremely wealthy? How does that make sense? In theory only the extremely wealthy have to pay the tax (not that they necessarily do that). In what way would it being so high benefit them?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    absolutely. If you removed the limit and applied to the 99%, it would be the most unpopular tax in the country.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      I don't believe there's ever been a situation (at least in the USA) where there was no threshold at all. So the argument is over its value, not its existence. That said, sure, you're right. But why are you right? I would suggest it is because we live (in the USA, among other places) in a culture that strongly emphasizes the right to pass along generational wealth. But this is not universally true across time and space, and our culture took a different tack (say, by quoting august Republican figures from the late 19th and early 20th centuries), the popularity or otherwise would likely be entirely different.

DiscourseFan 2y ago

A 100% inheritance tax would encourage entrepreneurial behavior and force young people to take risks that they wouldn't otherwise. Capital would operate more efficiently if everyone was on the market in that way. In fact, the inheritance tax would be the only tax if it was total; there would be no other tax burden in one's entire life.

pqtyw 2y ago
> entrepreneurial behaviour and force young people to take risks that they wouldn't otherwise Or get them stuck in a permanent debt cycle. > the inheritance tax would be the only tax if it was total; there would be no other tax burden in one's entire life. Wouldn't everyone be incentivized to spend as much as they feasibly can before they die and not accumulate too much wealth? I guess it depends on the specific implementation but the optimal approach would be to take on as much debt as you can to keep your effective net worth close to 0. So even a 100% tax on that might not result in a lot of revenue...

ForHackernews 2y ago

I'd advocate for that. The dead have no property rights. Survivors have no automatic right to get rich when uncle pennybags kicks the bucket. All the rest is quibbling about logistics. Yes, we know rich people are very good at hiding their money.