4 ms·

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

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.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      The argument is about the exclusion threshold because that determines who it is applied to. People generally support taking from other people but not from themselves. A flat 50% rate still extract much more value from the rich, but apply equally to the poor. My perception is that hereditary wealth transfer is about as universal and it's phenomenon get when it comes to humans. Not 100%, but close to it.
- myrmidon 2y ago
  > Are you seriously suggesting that the threshold is set at this level because of unpopularity rather than the power of the extremely wealthy? I absolutely think that significant estate tax is an unpopular concept-- significantly more so than income taxation. A big factor is perceived "double-dipping"; there is some additional justification though because it seems very unlikely to me that less wealthy people could avoid this tax with the same effectiveness as 1%ers (who in many cases probably avoid paying it completely). I fully agree though that the extremely wealthy leverage their power very effectively to prevent legislation that would affect them negatively-- a very clear example would be basically all of Trumps past and present tax policy, which you could IMO summarize as "tax cuts for the rich" without being too disingenuous, but which is absolutely NOT portrayed like that in mass media (and not perceived accordingly by most of his voters, which get diverted with "no more tax on overtime!" instead).
jorvi 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). What? That is completely wrong. If you gave the populace the option of massively lowering their income tax by slightly upping taxes on anyone with assets exceeding.. say.. $15 million, and massively taxing anyone with assets exceeding $100 million, do you think they'll cheer for the status quo or for lowered income taxes?
- ryandrake 2y ago
  A huge number of people see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and oppose taxes on the ultrawealthy because they think they might one day be ultrawealthy themselves.
  - bhawks 2y ago
    The temporarily embarrassed millionaire meme is a punchline to a joke (look at those stupid greedy people they don't know how stupid they are). Inheritance taxes don't sit well for many reasons that are actually interesting to discuss + People's desire to support friends, families and personal interests is a core reason for an individual to work beyond individual self sufficiency. This makes it very easy to empathize with the millionaire impacted by gift / inheritance taxes that may never be applied to you. + Taxes have already been paid on this money - double dipping is very easy to cast as unfair. + Clumsy implementations of these types of taxes create situations where small family owned farms and businesses need to be liquidated to cover taxes causing more pain and disruption for families. + The constant slippery slope of taxes initially targeted at 'the rich' but over time effecting more and more people due to combinations of inflation and revenue seeking. + The simple fact that if the US just seized all the wealth of 800+ billionaires today - it would only be worth 6.2 trillion dollars [1], which doesn't even cover the 6.8 trillion dollars the government spent in 2024. So what do we do next year? Do we need more revenue? Are we getting the revenue the right way (aka is everyone paying their fair share)? Maybe... But there is certainly a spending problem too. 1: https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-keeps-growing/ https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-keeps-grow...

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.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    The argument is about the exclusion threshold because that determines who it is applied to. People generally support taking from other people but not from themselves. A flat 50% rate still extract much more value from the rich, but apply equally to the poor. My perception is that hereditary wealth transfer is about as universal and it's phenomenon get when it comes to humans. Not 100%, but close to it.
myrmidon 2y ago
> Are you seriously suggesting that the threshold is set at this level because of unpopularity rather than the power of the extremely wealthy? I absolutely think that significant estate tax is an unpopular concept-- significantly more so than income taxation. A big factor is perceived "double-dipping"; there is some additional justification though because it seems very unlikely to me that less wealthy people could avoid this tax with the same effectiveness as 1%ers (who in many cases probably avoid paying it completely). I fully agree though that the extremely wealthy leverage their power very effectively to prevent legislation that would affect them negatively-- a very clear example would be basically all of Trumps past and present tax policy, which you could IMO summarize as "tax cuts for the rich" without being too disingenuous, but which is absolutely NOT portrayed like that in mass media (and not perceived accordingly by most of his voters, which get diverted with "no more tax on overtime!" instead).

jorvi 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). What? That is completely wrong. If you gave the populace the option of massively lowering their income tax by slightly upping taxes on anyone with assets exceeding.. say.. $15 million, and massively taxing anyone with assets exceeding $100 million, do you think they'll cheer for the status quo or for lowered income taxes?

ryandrake 2y ago
A huge number of people see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" and oppose taxes on the ultrawealthy because they think they might one day be ultrawealthy themselves.
- bhawks 2y ago
  The temporarily embarrassed millionaire meme is a punchline to a joke (look at those stupid greedy people they don't know how stupid they are). Inheritance taxes don't sit well for many reasons that are actually interesting to discuss + People's desire to support friends, families and personal interests is a core reason for an individual to work beyond individual self sufficiency. This makes it very easy to empathize with the millionaire impacted by gift / inheritance taxes that may never be applied to you. + Taxes have already been paid on this money - double dipping is very easy to cast as unfair. + Clumsy implementations of these types of taxes create situations where small family owned farms and businesses need to be liquidated to cover taxes causing more pain and disruption for families. + The constant slippery slope of taxes initially targeted at 'the rich' but over time effecting more and more people due to combinations of inflation and revenue seeking. + The simple fact that if the US just seized all the wealth of 800+ billionaires today - it would only be worth 6.2 trillion dollars [1], which doesn't even cover the 6.8 trillion dollars the government spent in 2024. So what do we do next year? Do we need more revenue? Are we getting the revenue the right way (aka is everyone paying their fair share)? Maybe... But there is certainly a spending problem too. 1: https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-keeps-growing/ https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-keeps-grow...