5 ms·

I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largess

I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. Earning money to support oneself and family instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed. Passing the fruits of a lifetime of work to ones heirs so they can continue do productive work instead of relying on public largesse should not be taxed.

lazide 5mo ago
First one makes sense, second one I’m quizzical about. Inheritance taxes tend to only kick in at the 8+ digit range. If anything, taxing that should encourage descendents to do productive work, eh? Since not taxing it, but taxing other things actually discourages it? I can’t imagine how it would result in anyone relying on public largesse either unless they are really terrible with money. In which case a few extra zeros is unlikely to help any?
- SoftTalker 5mo ago
  I suppose like with many things it's a question of scale. A little is good, more is better, but at some point it may start to have negative consequences.
ceejayoz 5mo ago
> Earning… Inheritance is, notably, not earning it. > continue do productive work That's a pretty bald assertion. Useless nepo babies abound. > relying on public largesse Any chance the existence of a stable, well-educated, high-trust society benefits the children of wealthy people at all?
- steveBK123 5mo ago
  Yes.. spend enough time amongst the inheritocracy and you'll see the wealth is as often as not wasted on them. There's just too much fun to be had with 0.1% wealth that you didn't have to sacrifice your 20s, 30s (and maybe 40s) to build. Coast at some job with a top 25-50% income and 0.1% inheritance in NYC and live the life.
  - SoftTalker 5mo ago
    So if you're spending your inheritance living the high life, that economic activity benefits a lot of other people. Still a net positive in my view. I get the political power concern, and money = power at a certain point. But I'd rather work on getting money out of politics than putting limits on what people can decide will happen to their assets after they die.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      Sure, and rape helps the therapy industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
      - kjshsh123 5mo ago
        Bastiat was opposed to inheritance taxes. He wrote about this in Economic Harmonies. I think he'd call the connection you're trying to make a stretch
        selfhoster1312 5mo ago
        Yes, the famous bourgeois economist Bastiat is certainly a reference in how to provide economic justice on this planet. /s To be clear, i'm not exactly defending inheritance tax if resources are shared another way. For instance, it would make sense to let people keep a − modest − home across generations. But i'm tired of rich capitalist tech bros saying income taxes are unfair because they've worked so hard, and inheritance taxes are unfair because they've already been taxed.
        kjshsh123 5mo ago
        The person I replied to was referencing Bastiat's parable of the broken window.
      - themaninthedark 5mo ago
        I think there a a long way to go between inheriting money and rape.
- ycdeebs 5mo ago
  > Useless nepo babies abound. Useless non-nepo babies abound. Useless rich people abound. Useless poor people abound. And?
kelseyfrog 5mo ago
And I think that inheritance, while a natural desire, is morally wrong. It's an example that desires aren't always congruent with morality. People will go to great lengths to justify their conclusion.
- Terr_ 5mo ago
  > while a natural desire Or look at monarchies and titles of nobility. In the past direct inheritance of political assets was common, and acting on that natural desire, the people involve claimed that parents deserved to direct what they (and their ancestors) had accumulated on to the next generation of their own family. Yet nowadays most countries and people have decided it is immoral, and they also took steps to make common forms of it extremely illegal. My point is that economic inheritance today is just as much a social-construct as political inheritance was then. It exists because we permit it to exist, don't be fooled by anyone claiming it's an intrinsic law of the universe or a divine mandate by god that must be obeyed.
- orangecat 5mo ago
  Are gifts morally wrong? If I'm near death is it wrong for to give my assets to my children beforehand, or does it only become immoral if done via a will?
  - kelseyfrog 5mo ago
    Yes. I get the desire, but gifts of wealth when done at scale contribute to the destruction of society. Quantity is a quality all its own.
  - Terr_ 5mo ago
    > Are gifts morally wrong? If we're going to talk about morality, I think we need to talk about the government as one of the moral actors. Imagine this scenario, exaggerated to make a point: 1. Alice receives $X. It's from her boss, for laboring in the mines every day. Government man says: "Give me 20% to pay for the shared roads, or you go to jail." 2. Bob receives $X. It's from his parents, for doing nothing other than being born related to them. Government man says: "Gee, I just can't do anything here, I guess I'll have to shake down Alice even harder next time." Isn't there something off about the morality of Government Man's choices?
gruez 5mo ago
>I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"?
- WalterBright 5mo ago
  > So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"? Taxes on somebody else.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
- SoftTalker 5mo ago
  Property taxes on real property or possibly land value tax (it's a limited resource, at least in places where people want to live, and requires a lot of public infrastructure to support its value there). Tariffs, various usage taxes and fees. Need a mechanism to address the regressiveness of some of this but that's an implementation detail.
  - sporadicism 5mo ago
    How is dynastic wealth not immoral?
- OkayPhysicist 5mo ago
  Their take on inheritance taxes is insane, but I tend to agree that income taxes are immoral. Corporations get taxed on profits: If OkayPhysicist, Inc. spends $200 to make $300, it would be taxed some fraction of $100. Individuals, on the other hand, get taxed on revenue. It doesn't matter if it costs me $4000 in rent, groceries, transportation, etc., to make $6000, I'm getting taxed on that full $6000. Capital gains taxes, on the other hand, are completely moral, and should be much, much higher. Capital investment benefits enormously from the State protecting their property "rights" (you don't need to hire a private army to prevent the workers from just deciding to run your factory for their own benefit, that's what the cops are for), and at a minimum the state would be justified in collecting that dividend for itself. Bootlickers and profession bootlickers (i.e., economists) would complain that a high capital gains tax disincentives investment, but as long as the value of investment is positive, that is, outpacing inflation, it makes zero sense to let your money languish in a Scrooge McDuck pile rather than get some value out of it.
InsideOutSanta 5mo ago
Not taxing inheritance is morally wrong because it supports generational wealth and inequality.
selfhoster1312 5mo ago
I would disagree. How else would you pay for the schools, roads and hospitals so that you and your heirs can "do productive work"? I mean i could imagine alternatives, but none that's compatible with a capitalist system.
arw0n 5mo ago
There's a difference in thought here so fundamental that it is hard to argue about details without addressing it first: You believe the individual comes first, what it produces is taxes hy the external construct of the state, which takes from what the individual truly earns. But the individual would be a subsistence farmer at best without society supporting it, hardly worth taxing. In reality millionaires are only possible with a large state and societal network around them. Wealth is societies gift, and its right to take back.

lazide 5mo ago

First one makes sense, second one I’m quizzical about. Inheritance taxes tend to only kick in at the 8+ digit range. If anything, taxing that should encourage descendents to do productive work, eh? Since not taxing it, but taxing other things actually discourages it? I can’t imagine how it would result in anyone relying on public largesse either unless they are really terrible with money. In which case a few extra zeros is unlikely to help any?

SoftTalker 5mo ago
I suppose like with many things it's a question of scale. A little is good, more is better, but at some point it may start to have negative consequences.

ceejayoz 5mo ago

> Earning… Inheritance is, notably, not earning it. > continue do productive work That's a pretty bald assertion. Useless nepo babies abound. > relying on public largesse Any chance the existence of a stable, well-educated, high-trust society benefits the children of wealthy people at all?

steveBK123 5mo ago
Yes.. spend enough time amongst the inheritocracy and you'll see the wealth is as often as not wasted on them. There's just too much fun to be had with 0.1% wealth that you didn't have to sacrifice your 20s, 30s (and maybe 40s) to build. Coast at some job with a top 25-50% income and 0.1% inheritance in NYC and live the life.
- SoftTalker 5mo ago
  So if you're spending your inheritance living the high life, that economic activity benefits a lot of other people. Still a net positive in my view. I get the political power concern, and money = power at a certain point. But I'd rather work on getting money out of politics than putting limits on what people can decide will happen to their assets after they die.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Sure, and rape helps the therapy industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
    - kjshsh123 5mo ago
      Bastiat was opposed to inheritance taxes. He wrote about this in Economic Harmonies. I think he'd call the connection you're trying to make a stretch
      - selfhoster1312 5mo ago
        Yes, the famous bourgeois economist Bastiat is certainly a reference in how to provide economic justice on this planet. /s To be clear, i'm not exactly defending inheritance tax if resources are shared another way. For instance, it would make sense to let people keep a − modest − home across generations. But i'm tired of rich capitalist tech bros saying income taxes are unfair because they've worked so hard, and inheritance taxes are unfair because they've already been taxed.
        kjshsh123 5mo ago
        The person I replied to was referencing Bastiat's parable of the broken window.
    - themaninthedark 5mo ago
      I think there a a long way to go between inheriting money and rape.
ycdeebs 5mo ago
> Useless nepo babies abound. Useless non-nepo babies abound. Useless rich people abound. Useless poor people abound. And?

kelseyfrog 5mo ago

And I think that inheritance, while a natural desire, is morally wrong. It's an example that desires aren't always congruent with morality. People will go to great lengths to justify their conclusion.

Terr_ 5mo ago
> while a natural desire Or look at monarchies and titles of nobility. In the past direct inheritance of political assets was common, and acting on that natural desire, the people involve claimed that parents deserved to direct what they (and their ancestors) had accumulated on to the next generation of their own family. Yet nowadays most countries and people have decided it is immoral, and they also took steps to make common forms of it extremely illegal. My point is that economic inheritance today is just as much a social-construct as political inheritance was then. It exists because we permit it to exist, don't be fooled by anyone claiming it's an intrinsic law of the universe or a divine mandate by god that must be obeyed.
orangecat 5mo ago
Are gifts morally wrong? If I'm near death is it wrong for to give my assets to my children beforehand, or does it only become immoral if done via a will?
- kelseyfrog 5mo ago
  Yes. I get the desire, but gifts of wealth when done at scale contribute to the destruction of society. Quantity is a quality all its own.
- Terr_ 5mo ago
  > Are gifts morally wrong? If we're going to talk about morality, I think we need to talk about the government as one of the moral actors. Imagine this scenario, exaggerated to make a point: 1. Alice receives $X. It's from her boss, for laboring in the mines every day. Government man says: "Give me 20% to pay for the shared roads, or you go to jail." 2. Bob receives $X. It's from his parents, for doing nothing other than being born related to them. Government man says: "Gee, I just can't do anything here, I guess I'll have to shake down Alice even harder next time." Isn't there something off about the morality of Government Man's choices?

gruez 5mo ago

>I would disagree, I think income taxes and inheritance taxes are morally wrong. So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"?

WalterBright 5mo ago
> So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"? Taxes on somebody else.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
SoftTalker 5mo ago
Property taxes on real property or possibly land value tax (it's a limited resource, at least in places where people want to live, and requires a lot of public infrastructure to support its value there). Tariffs, various usage taxes and fees. Need a mechanism to address the regressiveness of some of this but that's an implementation detail.
- sporadicism 5mo ago
  How is dynastic wealth not immoral?
OkayPhysicist 5mo ago
Their take on inheritance taxes is insane, but I tend to agree that income taxes are immoral. Corporations get taxed on profits: If OkayPhysicist, Inc. spends $200 to make $300, it would be taxed some fraction of $100. Individuals, on the other hand, get taxed on revenue. It doesn't matter if it costs me $4000 in rent, groceries, transportation, etc., to make $6000, I'm getting taxed on that full $6000. Capital gains taxes, on the other hand, are completely moral, and should be much, much higher. Capital investment benefits enormously from the State protecting their property "rights" (you don't need to hire a private army to prevent the workers from just deciding to run your factory for their own benefit, that's what the cops are for), and at a minimum the state would be justified in collecting that dividend for itself. Bootlickers and profession bootlickers (i.e., economists) would complain that a high capital gains tax disincentives investment, but as long as the value of investment is positive, that is, outpacing inflation, it makes zero sense to let your money languish in a Scrooge McDuck pile rather than get some value out of it.

InsideOutSanta 5mo ago

Not taxing inheritance is morally wrong because it supports generational wealth and inequality.

selfhoster1312 5mo ago

I would disagree. How else would you pay for the schools, roads and hospitals so that you and your heirs can "do productive work"? I mean i could imagine alternatives, but none that's compatible with a capitalist system.

arw0n 5mo ago

There's a difference in thought here so fundamental that it is hard to argue about details without addressing it first: You believe the individual comes first, what it produces is taxes hy the external construct of the state, which takes from what the individual truly earns. But the individual would be a subsistence farmer at best without society supporting it, hardly worth taxing. In reality millionaires are only possible with a large state and societal network around them. Wealth is societies gift, and its right to take back.