Tax the Dead!

[Heyo]

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?"

A.) You seem to be an anarchist like me - at least from the above, not from what I remember. But I'm an evolutionist, not a revolutionist. Think of taxing the dead as an intermediary step to less and less government. Changing the tax code is much easier than changing the system of government but still a step into the right direction.
B.) There is no sign that the government (at least your government) is going to raise more taxes. In fact, there have been tax breaks by every republican government for the last 50 years. (If you didn't get one you did something wrong, i.e. haven't been rich.)

1. Those who are living already have paid taxes on what they earned. Why should there be a double taxation?

That problem can be easily solved by applying the tax code retroactively. You get all your taxes back (except regulatory taxes) and you have to pay 100% on what you inherited immediately.

1. Why shouldn't my sacrifice bless my children?

A.) Are you planning to commit suicide?
B.) Because it would make them moochers. Inheritance is money they haven't worked for. And it wouldn't even go to someone in need but it would be a handout to the lucky.

 

[Heyo]

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

How is changing the tax code changing the economic system? You'd still have the same system of government and mostly the same system of economy. The only thing that changes is the moment you pay your taxes. And I pretty much prefer to pay them later than sooner.

 

[Heyo]

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.
[...]
Inheritance also figures prominently in the nationalist mindset, such as those who say "this land belongs to our people" or "this is our birthright."

Interesting. That Darwinian view fits pretty much with the data. "We deserve it" doesn't rest on merit, it rests on an illusion of grandeur like that of royalty (inherited power) or the religious (inherited "chosen ones"). Of cause it makes sense as their entitlement then rests on inheritance (inherited wealth).
Only that is not what they say. Or is it? I'll have to ask those who come here in defence of inheritance.

 

[Notanumber]

How is changing the tax code changing the economic system? You'd still have the same system of government and mostly the same system of economy. The only thing that changes is the moment you pay your taxes. And I pretty much prefer to pay them later than sooner.

The only way your system would stand a chance would be if the new world order ever takes place.

Would the UK’s Royal Family be exempted?

If they would, where would you draw the line?

 

[Heyo]

The only way your system would stand a chance would be if the new world order ever takes place.

Would the UK’s Royal Family be exempted?

If they would, where would you draw the line?

Good that you bring up royalty. @Stevicus just led me to thinking that people who say that the rich deserve their wealth don't really think that they deserve it by merit. They think they deserve it by entitlement (but aren't able to communicate it that way).

Do you think royalty deserves to rule? Are they entitled just by birth?
Do you think money royalty deserves to be rich? Are they entitled just by birth?
Do you think of power and wealth as an inherited trait like eye colour?

If you answered "yes", I understand why you are against my proposition. My question is only to those who answer "no".

 

[Notanumber]

Good that you bring up royalty. @Stevicus just led me to thinking that people who say that the rich deserve their wealth don't really think that they deserve it by merit. They think they deserve it by entitlement (but aren't able to communicate it that way).

Do you think royalty deserves to rule? Are they entitled just by birth?
Do you think money royalty deserves to be rich? Are they entitled just by birth?
Do you think of power and wealth as an inherited trait like eye colour?

If you answered "yes", I understand why you are against my proposition. My question is only to those who answer "no".

I see that you failed to answer those two questions that I posed.

I am not the not one promoting your idea.

It would seem that you only want a discussion with those that agree with you.

 

[Heyo]

I see that you failed to answer those two questions that I posed.

I am not the not one promoting your idea.

It would seem that you only want a discussion with those that agree with you.

I see that you failed to understand and subsequently answer my initial question. I'd like to debate with someone who has an opposite position to mine - not to a straw man.

 

[Notanumber]

I see that you failed to understand and subsequently answer my initial question. I'd like to debate with someone who has an opposite position to mine - not to a straw man.

Good luck with your colander of a proposition.

 

[Kenny]

A.) You seem to be an anarchist like me - at least from the above, not from what I remember. But I'm an evolutionist, not a revolutionist. Think of taxing the dead as an intermediary step to less and less government. Changing the tax code is much easier than changing the system of government but still a step into the right direction.
B.) There is no sign that the government (at least your government) is going to raise more taxes. In fact, there have been tax breaks by every republican government for the last 50 years. (If you didn't get one you did something wrong, i.e. haven't been rich.)

No.. definitely not an anarchist... a Constitutionalist.

I don't think the balance is correct. It isn't so much "Republicans give tax breaks" but rather people try to give tax breaks to previous tax increases with a net result of more taxes.

A.) Are you planning to commit suicide?
B.) Because it would make them moochers. Inheritance is money they haven't worked for. And it wouldn't even go to someone in need but it would be a handout to the lucky.

LOL Nope--too much to live for.

But, no, it doesn't make the children moochers. It makes the government moochers and the people (not family) who want what I worked for moochers. Do you want the money that other people worked for?

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Personally I'm not a fan of taxes. There's no guarantee the government is going to put that money to any better use than you kids would. With your own kids, at least there is some vested interest. Taxes are often used to make someone else rich. If the government could be trusted to use that money for the benefit of all, maybe, but I don't think it can.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

Where's the merit in giving the money to the government? Mostly that only serves in getting other people rich. Not in the sense that this money is somehow fairly distributed, it's not.

Folks like my brother-in-law and Ross Perot make millions by subcontracting to the US government. Tax money goes to enriching them and their family. Sure, I want to die, leave my own family to fend on their own and make sure the government has plenty of money to increase the wealth of my brother in law and the likes of Perot.

Inheritance allows you some control over what happens with your wealth. Taxes takes away any control you have. Puts it in the hands of people with their own agenda.

 

[Heyo]

No.. definitely not an anarchist... a Constitutionalist.

I don't think the balance is correct. It isn't so much "Republicans give tax breaks" but rather people try to give tax breaks to previous tax increases with a net result of more taxes.

I think, at least in a functioning democracy, the taxes reflect roughly the demands and trust people have of their government. People in Scandinavia are happy to pay high taxes because they demand a lot of their government and trust that the government will meet the demands.
It's a contract between the people and the government as a service provider.

LOL Nope--too much to live for.

Didn't really understand what you meant by "sacrifice".

But, no, it doesn't make the children moochers. It makes the government moochers and the people (not family) who want what I worked for moochers. Do you want the money that other people worked for?

No, I don't want the money my ancestors worked for and I don't think other people should want the money their ancestors worked for. I'm pretty far left but I value some things the right proclaims to value. Responsibility is very high up on that list. Some people can't work and those should be subsidized by the government. Everybody else should get paid for their work and live from their payment. Inheritance is not payment for work.

 

[Heyo]

Personally I'm not a fan of taxes. There's no guarantee the government is going to put that money to any better use than you kids would. With your own kids, at least there is some vested interest. Taxes are often used to make someone else rich. If the government could be trusted to use that money for the benefit of all, maybe, but I don't think it can.

A good argument, at least when you aren't living in a democracy where you can choose your government.
But the question isn't if there should be taxes but if there have to be taxes, would you rather pay them when you live or after your death?
Assuming the budget would stay the same and the taxes get misused as before, is it better to pay every year or only once?

 

[oldbadger]

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

I don't mind if you can arrange a super free salary for aged Badgers, but please don't make me watch telly all day!

And since there is already inheritance tax and gift tax I think we already have a moderate level of this on the UK.

 

[Nakosis]

A good argument, at least when you aren't living in a democracy where you can choose your government.
But the question isn't if there should be taxes but if there have to be taxes, would you rather pay them when you live or after your death?
Assuming the budget would stay the same and the taxes get misused as before, is it better to pay every year or only once?

Better IMO to pay as you go so you don't end up with an astronomical figure.
Wouldn't it be my kids paying the taxes after I die anyway?

My kids can do two things, horde the wealth or use it and support the economy.

If the horde it, it neither helps nor harms the economy IMO. It doesn't really benefit them either. Having all that money they don't spend, might as well stuff their mattress with it.

If they use it, spend it, then it goes the support the economy just as it would if it were the government spending the money.

Really, IMO no difference except the amount of personal control you'd have over it. If a person happened to like the current government, they could even give it to the government. If you like a politician, you could give it to that politician. You don't have to give it to your kids. You could give it to a charity.

What if the opposing party gets control of Congress, you want to give them more money to start wars? Exploit the environment? Whatever agenda that party has?

Being Libertarian, it's going to be a while before the government supports my values.

 

[Terry Sampson]

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

Yes; and with a check.

 

[Kenny]

I think, at least in a functioning democracy, the taxes reflect roughly the demands and trust people have of their government. People in Scandinavia are happy to pay high taxes because they demand a lot of their government and trust that the government will meet the demands.
It's a contract between the people and the government as a service provider.

I think that is GREAT!

BUT

When the contract is "create a balanced budget" and the government says "we don't care about our part of the bargain" - then the good faith contract is null and void.

No, I don't want the money my ancestors worked for and I don't think other people should want the money their ancestors worked for. I'm pretty far left but I value some things the right proclaims to value. Responsibility is very high up on that list. Some people can't work and those should be subsidized by the government. Everybody else should get paid for their work and live from their payment. Inheritance is not payment for work.

I never said that we, individually, should "want the money my ancestors worked for". I didn't want my mother's money.

However, it isn't my children that "want my money". It is I who want to GIVE them my money. Like one would do during a birthday, Christmas, Anniversary or any just because I love someone.

The issue here was that the suggestion was "The government should TAKE my money when I go to Heaven" - which I didn't agree with.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Oh joy. The politicians can all vote themselves endless raises.

 

[PureX]

Oh joy. The politicians can all vote themselves endless raises.

Not if we vote them out of office every time they do that.

 

[Notanumber]

Not if we vote them out of office every time they do that.

The problem with that is that they all p*** in the same pot.