8 ms·

That argument happens to be full of shit. Even if you win $36 million in the lottery (surely the stereotypical "windfall"), the feds won't tax you 55%. The hi

by amh 16y ago

That argument happens to be full of shit. Even if you win $36 million in the lottery (surely the stereotypical "windfall"), the feds won't tax you 55%. The highest marginal tax rate is 35%. Estate taxes are morally repugnant. If the idea of people passing along large fortunes to bratty kids is so bothersome, take comfort in the fact that money tends to "find its level". Spendthrift fools will eventually lose it all to mismanagement anyway. It might take more than one generation, but it'll happen.

yoden 16y ago
Could you provide some research supporting the "find its level" claim? I always believed the opposite -- without an estate tax, it's too easy to end up with an autocratic elite.
jacobolus 16y ago
Estate taxes are only morally repugnant if you believe that the children of the elite have a unique right to the accumulated wealth of the society (which tends to build up in those who own property and capital). Why should all of us whose ancestors for generations actually built this society with their hands end up with nothing while the man whose ancestor was a robber baron, land speculator, or plantation owner receives a handout of a giant pile of cash? Especially when such dramatic wealth inequalities severely distort people’s economic behavior, depressing the overall growth of the whole economy and wealth of the whole society?
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  It's not that the children are entitled to it, but the deceased wanted to give it to them. It's their assets, shouldn't they be allowed to decide what to do with them?
  - pavel_lishin 16y ago
    I believe that you are limited in that, too - you can only give away so much money to relatives before it starts being taxed as well. I can't really cite anything, though, so feel free to disregard this.
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    Why? By common cultural and legal convention (and in my firm opinion), the accumulated wealth of most countries partly belongs to all who are citizens. You’re suggesting that the rest of us cede complete social and economic control to those who own property. Such is the typical libertarian utopian ideal, but in practice the result is a sort of quasi-aristocratic society with sharply limited opportunities for those at the bottom. If you change your perspective, recognize that every fortune depends just as much on the context and the society it was built in as it does on the individual who built it, that our definitions of wealth and property are essentially arbitrary human constructions, defined to be whatever we can mostly agree on (through our institutions of government), and decide that the accumulated wealth created by all our ancestors should "rightfully" (another human construction) belong somewhat to all of us, then suddenly inheritance in general becomes a way for some people (the rich) to take our property (that is, your property and mine and everyone's) and give it to a few people that they personally selected. Now, in practice, there's some kind of balance between these positions (full inheritance or no inheritance), because again, our culture and laws in a republican society are based on what we can agree on. In America, there's more of a cultural and legal emphasis on inheritance and personal wealth than in any of the Scandinavian countries, for example. But for someone to say that the very concept of broader societal input into inheritance is "morally repugnant" is in my opinion a pretty narrow and socially destructive morality, and I’m glad I don’t live in a country where a small elite has enough power and influence to impose such cultural definitions through force.
    - TGJ 16y ago
      As with all these funny little arguments I'd like to ask a simple question. Do you mind sending me some money that you have since it somewhat belongs to all of us? I mean really, like cut me a check and mail it? Or instead are you going to be like every other person sane person out there that says, I earned it, I keep it? Your argument is invalid because during the accumulation of wealth by people, there are taxes at each stage where society claims it's cut. In essence, a death tax is double taxation.
      - jacobolus 16y ago
        I send "you" a check every time I do any work, in the form of an income tax, paid to the government. I can both believe that you have a partial stake in the portion I send to the government, and also not see the social benefit in sending you personally a check. What's your point? > every other person sane person out there that says, I earned it, I keep it? These naive and self-important “sane” people have not thought very hard about the problems of running a society, or at least don’t have much experience with its practical constraints (and I would guess also have little close experience with non-functional governments/societies such as those in most of the developing world). > Your argument is invalid because [inheritance tax] is double taxation. There is no "law of the universe" which prevents our duly elected representative government from deciding to tax both income and inheritance. My "argument" is that we make these essentially arbitrary decisions about how to organize ourselves (our economies, our property systems, our governments) via a process which involves agreement and compromise (and a fair amount of disagreement and controversy too, of course; no one ever said governing ourselves would be easy). Since you haven't addressed "my argument" at all (as far as I can tell from your response you didn’t even read/comprehend it), I do not understand the basis by which you have decided that it is invalid.
- cjy 16y ago
  Because most of the inheritances in the U.S are leftovers from robber barons, land speculators, and plantation owners? Wealth, at least in the U.S. simply doesn’t persist from generation to generation. The wealthiest people today were not the wealthiest people 50 years ago.
pavel_lishin 16y ago
Oh, so it's only a matter of degree?
- amh 16y ago
  I think a 1% estate tax is too much. The point of the comparison is that if we're basing how much someone deserves their windfall by the tax rates, then the message being sent is that eating Fritos and playing the lottery is a more acceptable way to earn a fortune than generations of savings and investment.

by amh 16y ago

yoden 16y ago

Could you provide some research supporting the "find its level" claim? I always believed the opposite -- without an estate tax, it's too easy to end up with an autocratic elite.

jacobolus 16y ago

Estate taxes are only morally repugnant if you believe that the children of the elite have a unique right to the accumulated wealth of the society (which tends to build up in those who own property and capital). Why should all of us whose ancestors for generations actually built this society with their hands end up with nothing while the man whose ancestor was a robber baron, land speculator, or plantation owner receives a handout of a giant pile of cash? Especially when such dramatic wealth inequalities severely distort people’s economic behavior, depressing the overall growth of the whole economy and wealth of the whole society?

sliverstorm 16y ago
It's not that the children are entitled to it, but the deceased wanted to give it to them. It's their assets, shouldn't they be allowed to decide what to do with them?
- pavel_lishin 16y ago
  I believe that you are limited in that, too - you can only give away so much money to relatives before it starts being taxed as well. I can't really cite anything, though, so feel free to disregard this.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  Why? By common cultural and legal convention (and in my firm opinion), the accumulated wealth of most countries partly belongs to all who are citizens. You’re suggesting that the rest of us cede complete social and economic control to those who own property. Such is the typical libertarian utopian ideal, but in practice the result is a sort of quasi-aristocratic society with sharply limited opportunities for those at the bottom. If you change your perspective, recognize that every fortune depends just as much on the context and the society it was built in as it does on the individual who built it, that our definitions of wealth and property are essentially arbitrary human constructions, defined to be whatever we can mostly agree on (through our institutions of government), and decide that the accumulated wealth created by all our ancestors should "rightfully" (another human construction) belong somewhat to all of us, then suddenly inheritance in general becomes a way for some people (the rich) to take our property (that is, your property and mine and everyone's) and give it to a few people that they personally selected. Now, in practice, there's some kind of balance between these positions (full inheritance or no inheritance), because again, our culture and laws in a republican society are based on what we can agree on. In America, there's more of a cultural and legal emphasis on inheritance and personal wealth than in any of the Scandinavian countries, for example. But for someone to say that the very concept of broader societal input into inheritance is "morally repugnant" is in my opinion a pretty narrow and socially destructive morality, and I’m glad I don’t live in a country where a small elite has enough power and influence to impose such cultural definitions through force.
  - TGJ 16y ago
    As with all these funny little arguments I'd like to ask a simple question. Do you mind sending me some money that you have since it somewhat belongs to all of us? I mean really, like cut me a check and mail it? Or instead are you going to be like every other person sane person out there that says, I earned it, I keep it? Your argument is invalid because during the accumulation of wealth by people, there are taxes at each stage where society claims it's cut. In essence, a death tax is double taxation.
    - jacobolus 16y ago
      I send "you" a check every time I do any work, in the form of an income tax, paid to the government. I can both believe that you have a partial stake in the portion I send to the government, and also not see the social benefit in sending you personally a check. What's your point? > every other person sane person out there that says, I earned it, I keep it? These naive and self-important “sane” people have not thought very hard about the problems of running a society, or at least don’t have much experience with its practical constraints (and I would guess also have little close experience with non-functional governments/societies such as those in most of the developing world). > Your argument is invalid because [inheritance tax] is double taxation. There is no "law of the universe" which prevents our duly elected representative government from deciding to tax both income and inheritance. My "argument" is that we make these essentially arbitrary decisions about how to organize ourselves (our economies, our property systems, our governments) via a process which involves agreement and compromise (and a fair amount of disagreement and controversy too, of course; no one ever said governing ourselves would be easy). Since you haven't addressed "my argument" at all (as far as I can tell from your response you didn’t even read/comprehend it), I do not understand the basis by which you have decided that it is invalid.
cjy 16y ago
Because most of the inheritances in the U.S are leftovers from robber barons, land speculators, and plantation owners? Wealth, at least in the U.S. simply doesn’t persist from generation to generation. The wealthiest people today were not the wealthiest people 50 years ago.

pavel_lishin 16y ago

Oh, so it's only a matter of degree?

amh 16y ago
I think a 1% estate tax is too much. The point of the comparison is that if we're basing how much someone deserves their windfall by the tax rates, then the message being sent is that eating Fritos and playing the lottery is a more acceptable way to earn a fortune than generations of savings and investment.