Hacker News Reader

Comment by jokethrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Inheritance is a natural phenomenon.

If all my money were stolen when I die (let's say, 100% inheritance tax), I wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime.

Sure, some people may still do it because they love working or because they love providing for their society.

The main reason I want to accumulate money, is so I can offer them a job instead of them going through the corporate bullcrap I had to do when needing some starting capital.

Bigger businesses are capable of bigger bets (think Elon Musk) which benefit everyone, removing an economic incentive doesn't sound wise for innovation and growth.

View on HN

> Inheritance is a natural phenomenon.

Biological inheritance, property inheritance, however, is not.

> If all my money were stolen when I die (let's say, 100% inheritance tax), I wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime.

Even if one agrees that that is true, that’s not an argument that inheritance is natural, that’s an argument that it is a feature of society chosen to incentivise people to accumulate wealth surplus to their personal needs.

property inheritance seems like it is also a natural phenomenon. For example animals can "inherit" territory.

https://ideas.ted.com/humans-arent-the-only-ones-that-help-o...

>wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime.

>going through the corporate bullcrap I had to do when needing some starting capital.

The corporate bullcrap you had to go through is a direct consequence of someone growing their business beyond what they could spend in a lifetime.

Your business doesn't operate in a vacuum. It is licensed and supported by society. The same society that benefits from inheritance redistribution.

By that logic, why let the business owner make any money at all? It's really society's business after all.

The business owner won't exist if that person doesn't have the potential to make some money. There is a surprisingly large amount of possibilities between 0% and 100% inheritances tax rate.

Correct- it should go to the workers.

No need to make a dichotomy out of a spectrum. Business owners pay some tax and receive some profit - we need only adjust the relative percentages.

It's also an extension of basic property rights. An owner of property may will it to whomever he pleases on the event of his passing. It's no different from simply gifting property while alive.

You imply an interesting question: Do the dead have all the same rights as the living? I'm leaning towards no. So I think it's a little different from gifting something while alive, for starters, a gift while alive is typically at personal cost unless you no longer have any use for the item. Once dead you have no use for any items, as you're definitionally out of the "able to use things" population.

Personally, most gifts I've given or received have been items which I didn't need and not at any great cost. I still gave them to a person of my choosing. So when dead and in need of nothing, one's wishes to give to a particular person, charity, or even hypothetically anyone should be respected.

If John owns an item, he can say what happens it. So if he says to an notarised person 'when I die X becomes property of my son James' then that's simply respecting his wishes over his property.

Is it much different if John choose to give something away moments from death, or if he asks someone else to arrange the giving on his behalf after death?

We respect the wishes of the dead because it's part of the continuance of life and civilisation (which is itself fundamentally the store and passing down of value, I.e. inheritance). The same reason we'd honour someone who died for freedom, or honour the funeral wishes of a family member. Their wishes are worth much to everyone who knew them. The same should apply to personal property.

I think I'm stabbing in the right direction. A better answer might come from a better read or more philosophical mind than mine.

Most discussions of inheritance tax (perhaps particularly discussions where US Americans are involved?) seem to start from this perspective, "the deceased person is being taxed". I find that a little weird. All these weird objections go away like a puff of smoke if you see inheritance tax the other way around: It's a tax on the recipient of the inheritance. Why shouldn't inheritance (or gift!) income be taxed, when any other income can be?

Especially when you consider inheriting money is the ultimate in unearned income.

Also, there are probably numerous ways to avoid inheritance tax, so a 100% inheritance tax wouldn't make much sense anyway (even if I agree ideologically with such a tax).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com