Tax the Dead!

[Heyo]

This is, in part, inspired by @Stevicus A challenge for capitalists.

The idea is simple and I want to hear especially what the more right leaning audience thinks about this.

As Stevicus discussed, some people think that the rich earn their riches by being more productive, more inventive, more bold in their business decisions. If that really is so, you should applaud my proposal of a 100% inheritance tax. This way we get a really level playing field. Everybody starts with nothing and the wealth you can accumulate in your lifetime only rests on your merits.

It would also lower the tax burden on the living significantly. The government wouldn't have to raise any taxes for its operation but there would still be taxes as regulatory measures.

The left would also welcome the proposal with open arms. (At least the educated ones.) The accumulation of wealth in dynasties is one of the main problems Marx identified in his Kapital.

There will have to be some measures to prevent people from circumventing the system by gifting their wealth to their children, but we'll leave that as an exercise to the lawmaker who implement this into law. Just concentrate on the principle idea.

Would you like to pay your taxes when you're dead?

 

[Augustus]

There are ethical issues of preventing people from looking after their children's future, and closing down viable businesses when someone dies making this business forfeit (presumably auctioned off, but many small businesses would not find a buyer or be asset stripped)

You would encourage people to spend all of their money when they are alive, not invest money, encourage mass emigration of the elderly, make people homeless when someone dies, etc.

It's a terrible idea.

 

[Heyo]

There are ethical issues of preventing people from looking after their children's future,

You can do that when you are alive. You can teach them to be productive. And what about the children of poor people? Who is looking after them?

and closing down viable businesses when someone dies making this business forfeit (presumably auctioned off, but many small businesses would not find a buyer or be asset stripped)

If that business had any value, someone would pay for it, presumably the hires. If it didn't have value the hires would have scraped it themselves.

You would encourage people to spend all of their money when they are alive,

which would be good for the economy

not invest money, encourage mass emigration of the elderly,

Nope. They don't care what happens to them. Fleeing the country wouldn't help the hires as they would have to pay the inheritance tax even if their parents lived abroad.
Dynasties may desert together - which would greatly improve the wealth equality of the country.

make people homeless when someone dies, etc.

Why? You could rent your home from the government.

It's a terrible idea.

Realize that all your arguments only hold for people with rich parents.
Think of someone whose parents have nothing. Should s/he not have the same chances as everyone else? If you want a society based on equality and merits, inheritance is a bad idea.

 

[Augustus]

You can do that when you are alive. You can teach them to be productive. And what about the children of poor people? Who is looking after them?

And if you die before you expect? What happens to your family? What happens if your children are disabled?

Nope. They don't care what happens to them. Fleeing the country wouldn't help the hires as they would have to pay the inheritance tax even if their parents lived abroad.
Dynasties may desert together - which would greatly improve the wealth equality of the country.

People would move their businesses overseas so they could pass them on, and other countries would start taking advantage of this.

If that business had any value, someone would pay for it, presumably the hires. If it didn't have value the hires would have scraped it themselves.

Many small businesses would not find buyers because the emotional investment is what drives people to continue with marginal businesses. Many other businesses would simply be asset stripped. You have already discouraged risk taking and long term thinking which compounds this.

which would be good for the economy

It would be like Brewster's Millions because you wouldn't want to waste money on buying stuff that would end up with the government.

It would likely distort the economy as wealthy people drive up prices with superfluous spending.

Why? You could rent your home from the government.

Can't say the housing of the Eastern Bloc is something I'd like to see replicated.

Realize that all your arguments only hold for people with rich parents.
Think of someone whose parents have nothing. Should s/he not have the same chances as everyone else? If you want a society based on equality and merits, inheritance is a bad idea.

Many still inherit something. Also, you would have to confiscate all property, family heirlooms etc otherwise people would just buy expensive items to bequeath.

 

[Notanumber]

Maybe we should all live off state welfare and just watch TV all day.

 

[Heyo]

Many still inherit something.

Many would inherit next to nothing and others would inherit billions.
Where is the equality in that?
Where is the merit in inheritance?

You haven't understood the question. It is not about how this would work. It's about merit in owning wealth.
Do you think that people who have money rightfully own it by their own work?
If so, how would you then argue for inheritance?

 

[Heyo]

Maybe we should all live off state welfare and just watch TV all day.

Maybe we should all live off our own work and no-one gets a head start by the money their ancestors have worked for?

 

[Notanumber]

Maybe we should all live off our own work and no-one gets a head start by the money their ancestors have worked for?

Communism only works in dictatorships.

 

[PureX]

Let's stop the piling up of great wealth in the first place. I suggest a 100% tax on all income over a million dollars a year. Instead of buying yachts and mansions to show everyone how important you are, you could brag about how much money the government took from you in taxes. All the more impressive since almost everyone else would be paying no taxes at all.

 

[robocop (actually)]

This is, in part, inspired by @Stevicus A challenge for capitalists.

The idea is simple and I want to hear especially what the more right leaning audience thinks about this.

As Stevicus discussed, some people think that the rich earn their riches by being more productive, more inventive, more bold in their business decisions. If that really is so, you should applaud my proposal of a 100% inheritance tax. This way we get a really level playing field. Everybody starts with nothing and the wealth you can accumulate in your lifetime only rests on your merits.

It would also lower the tax burden on the living significantly. The government wouldn't have to raise any taxes for its operation but there would still be taxes as regulatory measures.

The left would also welcome the proposal with open arms. (At least the educated ones.) The accumulation of wealth in dynasties is one of the main problems Marx identified in his Kapital.

There will have to be some measures to prevent people from circumventing the system by gifting their wealth to their children, but we'll leave that as an exercise to the lawmaker who implement this into law. Just concentrate on the principle idea.

Would you like to pay your taxes when you're dead?

What about those of us who want to be scientifically or divinely resurrected?

 

[Heyo]

What about those of us who want to be scientifically or divinely resurrected?

Divine resurrection can be easily dismissed as you aren't really resurrected but you get a "new life" - and you'd have to start the new life like anybody else with nothing.
Scientific resurrection would be different. You'd be reimbursed with what the government has taken or the equivalent value. But that doesn't mean your offspring would get anything.

 

[Heyo]

Let's stop the piling up of great wealth in the first place. I suggest a 100% tax on all income over a million dollars a year. Instead of buying yachts and mansions to show everyone how important you are, you could brag about how much money the government took from you in taxes. All the more impressive since almost everyone else would be paying no taxes at all.

Off topic. This is about dynastical accumulation. It should be applauded by the right as well as the left as inheritance is wealth not gained by merit. The right often argues that those who have wealth, earned it by work. Those who argue that should be against inheritance. (They often aren't, revealing their hypocrisy.)

 

[danieldemol]

This is, in part, inspired by @Stevicus A challenge for capitalists.

The idea is simple and I want to hear especially what the more right leaning audience thinks about this.

As Stevicus discussed, some people think that the rich earn their riches by being more productive, more inventive, more bold in their business decisions. If that really is so, you should applaud my proposal of a 100% inheritance tax. This way we get a really level playing field. Everybody starts with nothing and the wealth you can accumulate in your lifetime only rests on your merits.

It would also lower the tax burden on the living significantly. The government wouldn't have to raise any taxes for its operation but there would still be taxes as regulatory measures.

The left would also welcome the proposal with open arms. (At least the educated ones.) The accumulation of wealth in dynasties is one of the main problems Marx identified in his Kapital.

There will have to be some measures to prevent people from circumventing the system by gifting their wealth to their children, but we'll leave that as an exercise to the lawmaker who implement this into law. Just concentrate on the principle idea.

Would you like to pay your taxes when you're dead?

I agree with the wealthy paying some tax but 100% seems a bit steep

 

[Heyo]

I agree with the wealthy paying some tax but 100% seems a bit steep

When you see it in relation it is a steal. You pay less during your lifetime and you only pay 100% when you have no use for the wealth any more.

 

[PureX]

Off topic. This is about dynastical accumulation. It should be applauded by the right as well as the left as inheritance is wealth not gained by merit. The right often argues that those who have wealth, earned it by work. Those who argue that should be against inheritance. (They often aren't, revealing their hypocrisy.)

Income beyond a million dollars a year is not gained by merit, nor by working a thousand times harder than those earning a thousand times less. So if we're discussing merit relative taxation, let's just get real about it all and skip the death tax angle. It's a sidetrack issue. Let the millionaires pass on their million. Because that's all their inheritors will be able to keep, anyway.

 

[Notanumber]

I doubt that most would find it funny to live in a communist state.

Quote by George Orwell: “All animals are equal, but some animals are mor...”

 

[Heyo]

I doubt that most would find it funny to live in a communist state.

Quote by George Orwell: “All animals are equal, but some animals are mor...”

What's funny is your futile attempt at trolling by straw manning. Nobody was talking about communism but you.
I guess you don't even recognize how much that Orwell quote is an argument for my proposed 100% inheritance tax. Those animals who have rich parents and can inherit wealth are the ones who are more equal.

 

[Kenny]

This is, in part, inspired by @Stevicus A challenge for capitalists.

The idea is simple and I want to hear especially what the more right leaning audience thinks about this.

As Stevicus discussed, some people think that the rich earn their riches by being more productive, more inventive, more bold in their business decisions. If that really is so, you should applaud my proposal of a 100% inheritance tax. This way we get a really level playing field. Everybody starts with nothing and the wealth you can accumulate in your lifetime only rests on your merits.

It would also lower the tax burden on the living significantly. The government wouldn't have to raise any taxes for its operation but there would still be taxes as regulatory measures.

The left would also welcome the proposal with open arms. (At least the educated ones.) The accumulation of wealth in dynasties is one of the main problems Marx identified in his Kapital.

There will have to be some measures to prevent people from circumventing the system by gifting their wealth to their children, but we'll leave that as an exercise to the lawmaker who implement this into law. Just concentrate on the principle idea.

Would you like to pay your taxes when you're dead?

The problem, that I see, is the following:

1. It isn't an income problem (for the government) - it's a spending problem. If there is a tax burden on the living, it is because they let the government get away with spending.
2. If the government spends more than what they get, and ALWAYS get more, why do you think they won't need to raise taxes any more? they will simply add more programs and then spend more than what they get and then say "Let's double tax while they are living... why wait till they are dead?"
3. Those who are living already have paid taxes on what they earned. Why should there be a double taxation?
4. Why shouldn't my sacrifice bless my children?

 

[Stevicus]

This is, in part, inspired by @Stevicus A challenge for capitalists.

The idea is simple and I want to hear especially what the more right leaning audience thinks about this.

As Stevicus discussed, some people think that the rich earn their riches by being more productive, more inventive, more bold in their business decisions. If that really is so, you should applaud my proposal of a 100% inheritance tax. This way we get a really level playing field. Everybody starts with nothing and the wealth you can accumulate in your lifetime only rests on your merits.

It would also lower the tax burden on the living significantly. The government wouldn't have to raise any taxes for its operation but there would still be taxes as regulatory measures.

The left would also welcome the proposal with open arms. (At least the educated ones.) The accumulation of wealth in dynasties is one of the main problems Marx identified in his Kapital.

There will have to be some measures to prevent people from circumventing the system by gifting their wealth to their children, but we'll leave that as an exercise to the lawmaker who implement this into law. Just concentrate on the principle idea.

Would you like to pay your taxes when you're dead?

This reminds me of a short movie I saw decades ago (and just found it on YouTube:

) called "The Price of Life." It's 40 minutes long, but a rather interesting premise.

Basically, each child born in the society starts off with 1000 years of life, which is also the currency they use, so everybody starts off equally, with the same amount. But they also have to use their time to pay for the necessities of life, so depending on their financial skills and individual savvy, they can either build up their wealth or squander it away. One rule is that they're not allowed to give away their time to any family member, unless they get special permission from one of "the Old Ones." There's apparently no inheritance either.

I saw it as a scathing critique of many of the pro-capitalist ideals which were being floated around back in the 80s (and still continue today). The main character is ambitious, has gumption and good financial skills, and as a result, he builds himself a nice little nest egg, while others are shown as being irresponsible and foolish, leading to an early demise. This fits in to capitalist notions of Darwinian "justice" and the general belief in a just world fallacy which is the foundation of capitalist thought. The central point to capitalism is that those who are wealthy deserve it because they're superior, and those who are poor deserve it because they're inferior. And those who say "it's not fair" are considered whiny crybabies who are unable to accept the laws of nature, and this also feeds into the view that any outside governmental involvement in the economy is artificial and somehow upsets the balance of nature in the eyes of capitalists.

I would also note that there are striking parallels between the Darwinian views of capitalism and the Darwinian views of nationalists or racists who believe that only the strong deserve to survive and that there is a certain "natural order" to things. Inheritance also figures prominently in the nationalist mindset, such as those who say "this land belongs to our people" or "this is our birthright."

 

[Notanumber]

What's funny is your futile attempt at trolling by straw manning. Nobody was talking about communism but you.
I guess you don't even recognize how much that Orwell quote is an argument for my proposed 100% inheritance tax. Those animals who have rich parents and can inherit wealth are the ones who are more equal.

What is the alternative to capitalism if it is not communism?

If you do not want to call the opposite of capitalism, communism, what do you want to call it?

How do you propose to stop the entrepreneurs from leaving your country?

Would you have to turn it into a version of North Korea?

What incentives would there be for risk-taking business people?

Not everyone in communist North Korea or China is equal.