- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why isn't an extreme wealth/inheritance tax pushed more by progressives?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:18 pm
I meant a 100% wealth/inheritance tax.
Recent Guardian op-ed
the argument makes 100% sense within their world view and policy goals. i may not agree with the policy but i fully admit it is a much better argument related to all sorts of alleged institutional ills than a policy framed around income or consumer behavior.
for example, a major argument behind institutional racism centers around home ownership. whites prevented minorities (primarily black people) from owning homes or, at the last, owning valuable and marketable homes. further institutional racism prevented black people from saving/investing in home ownership. this created a major wealth-transfer gap that created the chasm we see today.
a progressive income tax won't solve this problem but an inheritance tax will. from a purely policy perspective, it just makes all the sense in the world to attack wealth and not income. the wage gap is small potatoes compared to the wealth gap.
i'm assuming the 2 major issues are (1) support and (2) administration. i don't think the public supports this sort of policy today, however as the wealth gap grows and the underclass population grows with it, the political capital will eventually be there to steal accumulated wealth. also the "debt society" we live in is going to mean further people will even care because they simply will not have any property to leave their children. also those with property are having fewer children, further adding to the demographic problem. as wealthier people have fewer children, the wealth transfers are going to become even more consolidated while that population loses democratic share of the government.
administration is probably also a major issue. an income tax is very stable, even more than property or sales taxes. inheritance-based taxes would vary wildly from year to year. also a ton of perverse incentives would be present, especially in light of Medicare. if government is projecting a higher level of spending or lower "natural" returns, it will cut back on care for the elderly rich to ensure their death and more tax revenues for that year. that's very black helicoptery, but we all have to admit that shite would happen in this system.
Recent Guardian op-ed
quote:
The idea that we should be able to pass on our life’s accumulated wealth to descendants is deeply embedded. It appeals to the fundamental biological urge to protect your offspring and propagate your genes. Though only a small minority of estates are subject to inheritance tax in Britain as it currently stands, opinion polls consistently find that the majority of people oppose it. Instinct seems to override common sense. VAT falls disproportionately on people with low incomes, but it’s far less hated.
quote:
In contemporary times, most people agree that tax should facilitate transfer of wealth from those who “have” to those who “need”. Public spending is messy and complicated, but the overall redistributive flow is from the relatively rich to the comparatively poorer. Justifications for not totally eradicating income equality have both moral and practical arguments: it’s argued that people morally deserve to be rewarded for being good at their job, and also that society needs to offer financial rewards to encourage people to work hard and be productive.
Neither of these arguments really apply in the case of inheritance. Morally speaking, people who stand to inherit large sums haven’t done anything to earn that money. An accident of birth placed them in a comparatively wealthy family and they’ve benefited from that their whole life. Some people who stand to inherit have struggled, true, but so have many people who won’t inherit anything at all.
quote:
Cultural norms teach us that the inheritance of private property is the default and any expropriation of this wealth must be justified. It should be the other way round. There’s some value in respecting the wishes of the dead, yes, but why is that more important than social housing, healthcare or any number of other possible uses for the money? It’s natural to want to protect and care for your family, but what about people who don’t stand to inherit a penny? Is there any reason their needs should matter less? We have to fund our state somehow – what makes inheritance tax more objectionable than income tax or VAT charged on essential consumer goods?
A 100% estate tax (perhaps with a small allowance for objects of sentimental value) isn’t a policy we can expect to see in a party manifesto any time soon. It’s well outside the current spectrum of mainstream political opinion. Questioning the status quo is always going to be a somewhat uncomfortable process, though, and all kinds of major social changes seemed impossible until suddenly they weren’t.
the argument makes 100% sense within their world view and policy goals. i may not agree with the policy but i fully admit it is a much better argument related to all sorts of alleged institutional ills than a policy framed around income or consumer behavior.
for example, a major argument behind institutional racism centers around home ownership. whites prevented minorities (primarily black people) from owning homes or, at the last, owning valuable and marketable homes. further institutional racism prevented black people from saving/investing in home ownership. this created a major wealth-transfer gap that created the chasm we see today.
a progressive income tax won't solve this problem but an inheritance tax will. from a purely policy perspective, it just makes all the sense in the world to attack wealth and not income. the wage gap is small potatoes compared to the wealth gap.
i'm assuming the 2 major issues are (1) support and (2) administration. i don't think the public supports this sort of policy today, however as the wealth gap grows and the underclass population grows with it, the political capital will eventually be there to steal accumulated wealth. also the "debt society" we live in is going to mean further people will even care because they simply will not have any property to leave their children. also those with property are having fewer children, further adding to the demographic problem. as wealthier people have fewer children, the wealth transfers are going to become even more consolidated while that population loses democratic share of the government.
administration is probably also a major issue. an income tax is very stable, even more than property or sales taxes. inheritance-based taxes would vary wildly from year to year. also a ton of perverse incentives would be present, especially in light of Medicare. if government is projecting a higher level of spending or lower "natural" returns, it will cut back on care for the elderly rich to ensure their death and more tax revenues for that year. that's very black helicoptery, but we all have to admit that shite would happen in this system.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
They don't do this because people already recognize death taxes as theft. People are fooled into thinking other taxes aren't.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:21 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
too meritocratic
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
They can't turn off their donor class like that. The six figure "rich" are much safer targets.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:23 pm to Iosh
sorry, i don't understand that gesture
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:26 pm to 90proofprofessional
It's right on the nose.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I don't agree with this
In contemporary times, most people agree that tax should facilitate transfer of wealth from those who “have” to those who “need”
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
An old rich guy converts all of his wealth to cash... let's say 10 Million dollars. He invites a few friends over for some final drinks. And he puts the cash in a pile in the yard and burns it.
Are you going to put him in prison for not allowing it to be subject to the inheritance tax?
Are you going to put him in prison for not allowing it to be subject to the inheritance tax?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:29 pm to Zach
that issue falls under "administration"
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
I'm conflicted and biased on this topic.
I don't like the image of the government picking at your estate like a vultures on a carcass after you pass. BUT, I do believe that locking up funds in irrevocable trusts for generations to come doesn't do much in the way of wealth redistribution or for economic growth.
It's definitely a tricky topic. that said, I wouldn't riot if it increased.
I don't like the image of the government picking at your estate like a vultures on a carcass after you pass. BUT, I do believe that locking up funds in irrevocable trusts for generations to come doesn't do much in the way of wealth redistribution or for economic growth.
It's definitely a tricky topic. that said, I wouldn't riot if it increased.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
Are a lot of these college proster dumbasses trust fund babies?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:31 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:This.
oo meritocratic
And it's a tax that would greatly harm many Democrat donors. "The rich" tend to be democrat donors as part of their image rehab and guilt assuagement.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:31 pm to 9th life
quote:
doesn't do much in the way of wealth redistribution
What is the difference between "wealth redistribution" and 'theft.'?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
It would hit mostly progressives
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:36 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
And it's a tax that would greatly harm many Democrat donors. "The rich" tend to be democrat donors as part of their image rehab and guilt assuagement.
quote:
They can't turn off their donor class like that. The six figure "rich" are much safer targets.
quote:
It would hit mostly progressives
i also agree with this. sounds like it's something that should/could be used against them. get a Bernie-like progressive rallying the poor with this idea and put the DEMs at a crossroads between the voter class and donor class
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:36 pm to Zach
One is a euphemism and the other isn't?
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:As it should be.
The idea that we should be able to pass on our life’s accumulated wealth to descendants is deeply embedded.
quote:Yep. This is a good thing.
It appeals to the fundamental biological urge to protect your offspring and propagate your genes.
quote:Sadly, this heinous and immoral view probably is a majority. Well, the majority is scum then.
In contemporary times, most people agree that tax should facilitate transfer of wealth from those who “have” to those who “need”.
quote:Why yes. Yes they do. You see, the whole point of accumulating wealth is to be able to apply that wealth to what you want. frick this POS writer.
Neither of these arguments really apply in the case of inheritance.
quote:Which can be said for literally 100% of the people the writer might choose to give it to. If the writer could point to someone who has done even 1% more to earn that money, then yeah, he should be able to talk about overriding my freedom to decide what to do with my money. Otherwise, he's just an immoral thief masquerading as a leftist.
Morally speaking, people who stand to inherit large sums haven’t done anything to earn that money
Basically, and I know this sounds bad, I wish death on people who think like this writer. Yeah. I said it. He's immoral scum who falls in the same lineage as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc etc. When you are from a murderous lineage, don't expect me to hope you live.
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:40 pm to 9th life
quote:Good. It's not supposed to.
BUT, I do believe that locking up funds in irrevocable trusts for generations to come doesn't do much in the way of wealth redistribution
quote:Are the next generations not spending it? The leftist theory that somehow, if rich keep their money, it's locked away economically is just economic ignorance.
or for economic growth
Posted on 7/25/17 at 2:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Cause the super rich fund progressives I would be for a 50% tax on assets over $100 million just to frick with the super wealthy, no tax below that figure on inheritance
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News