6 ms·

Personally, I don't have a problem with income inequality. If you work harder and are smarter than others, it seems reasonable for you to enjoy the spoils of th

Personally, I don't have a problem with income inequality. If you work harder and are smarter than others, it seems reasonable for you to enjoy the spoils of that work. I do, however, have a huge problem with wealth inequality. For the most part, it's attributable to inherited wealth and dynastic fortunes. Even after decades of hard work (and a salary well into the 1%), your net worth will still be a pittance to the size of people's inherited fortunes. I have not once heard a compelling argument for why inheritance is a good thing for society. It's the opposite of social mobility and equal opportunity (supposedly American ideals) and only serves to concentrate capital in the hands of those with zero demonstrable ability to manage it effectively. It might be politically untenable, but I'd support a 100% estate tax.

pvnick 13y ago
>I have not once heard a compelling argument for why inheritance is a good thing for society. You must not have kids, do you? It may not be good for society, but do you seriously want to prohibit parents from being able to pass things down to their children? That's a bit of a monstrous proposition, don't you think? Many families attach emotional significance to tangible property (land, a house, furniture, life insurance, etc), and stealing that from them because "you didn't earn that" is morally reprehensible.
- morgante 13y ago
  > You must not have kids, do you? It may not be good for society, but do you seriously want to prohibit parents from being able to pass things down to their children? I don't have kids yet, but I do not intend to leave anything to them once I do. I'll make sure they get a good education, but will be donating my estate to charity. > Many families attach emotional significance to tangible property (land, a house, furniture, life insurance, etc), and stealing that from them because "you didn't earn that" is morally reprehensible. It's no more "morally reprehensible" than any other taxation. In fact, compared to "stealing" my personal wages (ie. income taxes), it's significantly more moral—it was never there's in the first place.
  - thatswrong0 13y ago
    The estate tax does sometimes force people to liquidate their assets in order to pay it. I'd say that's pretty morally reprehensible and a violation of property rights.
  - crusso 13y ago
    but will be donating my estate to charity I find that people throw out that line and keep to it about as well as people keep to their diets. They make proclamations, but when it comes time to actually NOT put their kids in their Will, they balk. Once you have kids, they become a part of you. And jeez, wait until you have grandkids. That completely upends what you think of as "important".
refurb 13y ago
I guess the question is, when is your money your money? I like to think once I've paid my income taxes and all the other taxes levied on my income, that the rest is mine. I own it and I'm free to do with as I like. What estate taxes say is "none of it is your money. once you've paid your income taxes, we'll let you keep some of it, but if you die, we're taking the rest of it". So individuals who want to pass down their family business to their child? Tough, the gov't gets it all. Want to make sure your surviving spouse and kids will be taken care of? Well that wouldn't be fair. The gov't takes it all. I take the opposite stance, inheritance taxes make no sense at all.
- morgante 13y ago
  > I guess the question is, when is your money your money? It is indeed your money once you've paid taxes on it. But leaving it to your children is a transfer, just as your employer paying you was also a transfer. As far as I'm concerned, payments to individuals based on zero productive activity should be taxed at 100%. EDIT: clarity
  - refurb 13y ago
    So I take it you'd like to see people pay 100% taxes on charitable donations?
e40 13y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but I think a 100% estate tax is never going to fly. I'm definitely for steeply increasing it as wealth goes up, however. Maybe it goes to 100% at some level (a billion?).
tcgv 13y ago
From my point of view inheritance is a good thing because it ensures your family and loved ones will have a comfortable life once you pass away (kind of a life insurance). Nevertheless it also bothers that people who inherit large fortunes can live a luxurious life without having to do real work a single day in their lifetimes. Maybe putting a limit on how much wealth can be inherited by a single person would work better than a 100% estate tax. But this also raises another question, would you trust the government to manage your life's wealth after you die? I sure wouldn't!

pvnick 13y ago

>I have not once heard a compelling argument for why inheritance is a good thing for society. You must not have kids, do you? It may not be good for society, but do you seriously want to prohibit parents from being able to pass things down to their children? That's a bit of a monstrous proposition, don't you think? Many families attach emotional significance to tangible property (land, a house, furniture, life insurance, etc), and stealing that from them because "you didn't earn that" is morally reprehensible.

morgante 13y ago
> You must not have kids, do you? It may not be good for society, but do you seriously want to prohibit parents from being able to pass things down to their children? I don't have kids yet, but I do not intend to leave anything to them once I do. I'll make sure they get a good education, but will be donating my estate to charity. > Many families attach emotional significance to tangible property (land, a house, furniture, life insurance, etc), and stealing that from them because "you didn't earn that" is morally reprehensible. It's no more "morally reprehensible" than any other taxation. In fact, compared to "stealing" my personal wages (ie. income taxes), it's significantly more moral—it was never there's in the first place.
- thatswrong0 13y ago
  The estate tax does sometimes force people to liquidate their assets in order to pay it. I'd say that's pretty morally reprehensible and a violation of property rights.
- crusso 13y ago
  but will be donating my estate to charity I find that people throw out that line and keep to it about as well as people keep to their diets. They make proclamations, but when it comes time to actually NOT put their kids in their Will, they balk. Once you have kids, they become a part of you. And jeez, wait until you have grandkids. That completely upends what you think of as "important".

refurb 13y ago

I guess the question is, when is your money your money? I like to think once I've paid my income taxes and all the other taxes levied on my income, that the rest is mine. I own it and I'm free to do with as I like. What estate taxes say is "none of it is your money. once you've paid your income taxes, we'll let you keep some of it, but if you die, we're taking the rest of it". So individuals who want to pass down their family business to their child? Tough, the gov't gets it all. Want to make sure your surviving spouse and kids will be taken care of? Well that wouldn't be fair. The gov't takes it all. I take the opposite stance, inheritance taxes make no sense at all.

morgante 13y ago
> I guess the question is, when is your money your money? It is indeed your money once you've paid taxes on it. But leaving it to your children is a transfer, just as your employer paying you was also a transfer. As far as I'm concerned, payments to individuals based on zero productive activity should be taxed at 100%. EDIT: clarity
- refurb 13y ago
  So I take it you'd like to see people pay 100% taxes on charitable donations?

e40 13y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but I think a 100% estate tax is never going to fly. I'm definitely for steeply increasing it as wealth goes up, however. Maybe it goes to 100% at some level (a billion?).

tcgv 13y ago

From my point of view inheritance is a good thing because it ensures your family and loved ones will have a comfortable life once you pass away (kind of a life insurance). Nevertheless it also bothers that people who inherit large fortunes can live a luxurious life without having to do real work a single day in their lifetimes. Maybe putting a limit on how much wealth can be inherited by a single person would work better than a 100% estate tax. But this also raises another question, would you trust the government to manage your life's wealth after you die? I sure wouldn't!