Inheritance is, notably, not earning it.
> continue do productive work
That's a pretty bald assertion. Useless nepo babies abound.
> relying on public largesse
Any chance the existence of a stable, well-educated, high-trust society benefits the children of wealthy people at all?
There's just too much fun to be had with 0.1% wealth that you didn't have to sacrifice your 20s, 30s (and maybe 40s) to build. Coast at some job with a top 25-50% income and 0.1% inheritance in NYC and live the life.
I get the political power concern, and money = power at a certain point. But I'd rather work on getting money out of politics than putting limits on what people can decide will happen to their assets after they die.
To be clear, i'm not exactly defending inheritance tax if resources are shared another way. For instance, it would make sense to let people keep a − modest − home across generations. But i'm tired of rich capitalist tech bros saying income taxes are unfair because they've worked so hard, and inheritance taxes are unfair because they've already been taxed.
For example, step up basis allows inherited assets to have their cost basis re-struck at the value at time of inheritance. So if there is no inheritance tax, the assets transfer to a new owner and a large chunk of value is forever untaxed, even when/if they eventually sell.
Similarly all sorts of interesting stuff that can be done with trusts. Again stuff that's only accessible / worth the hassle to 1%.
In a world with extreme outcomes due to scaling, we might accidentally be re-inventing the hereditary aristocracy if the assets can accumulate outside the tax system.
There's so many indirect ways of influencing politics given lots of money - alternative media, buying out local news, controlling national news.. making entertainment media of your own ideology. Fund interesting groups around particular topics. Give poor Ivy League grads a job and groom them for higher office.. oh wait.
- Bob Menendez (Senator)
- Randy Cunningham (Congressman)
- William J. Jefferson (Congressman)
- James Traficant (Congressman)
And a bunch more at more "local" level...
Useless non-nepo babies abound. Useless rich people abound. Useless poor people abound. And?
So what taxes aren't "morally wrong"?
Taxes on somebody else.
Tariffs, various usage taxes and fees.
Need a mechanism to address the regressiveness of some of this but that's an implementation detail.
Capital gains taxes, on the other hand, are completely moral, and should be much, much higher. Capital investment benefits enormously from the State protecting their property "rights" (you don't need to hire a private army to prevent the workers from just deciding to run your factory for their own benefit, that's what the cops are for), and at a minimum the state would be justified in collecting that dividend for itself. Bootlickers and profession bootlickers (i.e., economists) would complain that a high capital gains tax disincentives investment, but as long as the value of investment is positive, that is, outpacing inflation, it makes zero sense to let your money languish in a Scrooge McDuck pile rather than get some value out of it.
So if I spend $5000 on groceries because I'm eating wagyu steak and lobster everyday, is that a fair "expense" too? You might retort that's obviously a luxury and there should be some baseline that's tax free, but then you're just describing the standard deduction.
>but as long as the value of investment is positive, that is, outpacing inflation, it makes zero sense to let your money languish in a Scrooge McDuck pile rather than get some value out of it.
...or they take their money elsewhere instead.
If we want to tax "luxury" expenses, we have excise taxes for that.
Right, but consumption for a business is fundamentally different than a person consuming. When you eat lobster (vs eating ground beef), any extra benefit goes down the toilet, so to speak. Whereas for a business, it's presumably to further the enterprise. Maybe getting a purer reagent will make the product better and drive more sales. After all, a business itself can't have any needs or wants. In any case a business can't have wants to get the $300 reagent just because, unlike a person. The employees can get benefits, but there are strict policies set by the IRS on what you can count as a business expense, specifically to prevent you from putting lobsters as a business expense.
Moreover such favorable tax treatment isn't restricted to businesses only. It's available to anyone that conducts business. If you're self employed you can deduct the cost of your F-150 truck, if it's used as part of your job.
Consumption tax is sales/VAT tax excluding some necessities and capital goods. Yes, there are some awkward edge cases: in the UK the exclusions were food and children's clothes, which leads to battles over prepared cold food (e.g. sandwich), takeaway and restaurant dining.
Sin taxes are obviously things society might want to discourage, mainly for health reasons, like alcohol and smoking, but also gambling and externalities, like pollution. Some might stretch that to all carbon emissions to moderate climate change.
Don't tax things you want: working / income and investment / capital gains.
Inheritance tax is doubly wrong because the wealth is already taxed, and death is unavoidable (but emigration is possible, which might help in some countries).
> Don't tax things you want: working / income and investment / capital gains.
What if I don't want hoarding of wealth?
I don't think it's fair that someone who earns $400k and spends $400k is paying roughly the same taxes as someone earning $400k and spending $100k. You should pay more taxes the more luxurious your life is, not the more productive you are.
God, if only!
In the actual world, it's more about what the powerful want.
Why do you think billionaires spent more fighting Mamdani than they stood to lose in new taxes?
Inheritance taxes tend to only kick in at the 8+ digit range.
If anything, taxing that should encourage descendents to do productive work, eh? Since not taxing it, but taxing other things actually discourages it?
I can’t imagine how it would result in anyone relying on public largesse either unless they are really terrible with money. In which case a few extra zeros is unlikely to help any?
Or look at monarchies and titles of nobility. In the past direct inheritance of political assets was common, and acting on that natural desire, the people involve claimed that parents deserved to direct what they (and their ancestors) had accumulated on to the next generation of their own family.
Yet nowadays most countries and people have decided it is immoral, and they also took steps to make common forms of it extremely illegal.
My point is that economic inheritance today is just as much a social-construct as political inheritance was then. It exists because we permit it to exist, don't be fooled by anyone claiming it's an intrinsic law of the universe or a divine mandate by god that must be obeyed.
If we're going to talk about morality, I think we need to talk about the government as one of the moral actors.
Imagine this scenario, exaggerated to make a point:
1. Alice receives $X. It's from her boss, for laboring in the mines every day. Government man says: "Give me 20% to pay for the shared roads, or you go to jail."
2. Bob receives $X. It's from his parents, for doing nothing other than being born related to them. Government man says: "Gee, I just can't do anything here, I guess I'll have to shake down Alice even harder next time."
Isn't there something off about the morality of Government Man's choices?
If I had diabetes, taking insulin is an acceptable remedy even if there is no cure for diabetes.
But the individual would be a subsistence farmer at best without society supporting it, hardly worth taxing. In reality millionaires are only possible with a large state and societal network around them. Wealth is societies gift, and its right to take back.