Apology accepted. Partly also my fault to wade in on an issue that everyone else is discussing grounded in the US situation It appears to me that the US has become so ideologically divided that everyone seems to argue points on the understanding that other people are necessarily coming in with pre-formed opinions that they will not change no matter what.
As for the issue of legal obligation to record prices - yea I thought about this. For one thing, it doesn’t seem like a very onerous requirement, particularly for rich households who probably manage and record their financial transactions anyway. For another, most purchases of assets like stocks, land etc. these days are recorded in computerised databases(at least in my country, which is borderline third world, so I assume this is the case in the US as well), so the record will likely not have to be maintained separately going forward. For yet another, even if the record isn’t there, it shouldn’t be difficult to reconstruct from dates of acquisition and prevailing market prices, but I’m not sure of this, and in those situations where it is impossible to ascertain original acquisition prices, maybe a flat inheritance tax would make sense.
But as septimus pointed out, we’re talking about an entirely different scale here. This isn’t Dad giving his son ten bucks to go see a movie. This is a five million dollar corporation changing ownership.
It is a five million dollar accumulation of wealth, not necessarily a corporation. It is the amount of money that his property and and acquisitions are worth at market value.
The top 400 percent are billionaires. That is enormous wealth.
My point is that when we’re talking seven figure amounts, we can no longer pretend this isn’t a transaction on a commercial level. If you can legitimately charge somebody a tax on the sale of a fifty cent pack of gum, you can legitimately charge them a tax on a property transfer of that size, even if it is between family members.
And it’s not really a matter of incentive. The government isn’t a pirate ship going around plundering people just because they have money that can be taken. All of us, including libertarians, agree that some amount of government is necessary. And the necessity of government means the necessity of taxes. So we all agree (even if we haven’t thought it through) that taxation is legitimate. The issue therefore is over who pays the taxes and how much.
I think the principle should be taxes should levied where they will do the least harm. At to me, estate taxes meet that guideline. They cause less harm than income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, or most other common taxes.
It’s a meaningless argument to say “I’d rather not have a tax than have an estate tax.” Because you’ve avoided the central issue. The argument has to be “I’d rather have a higher income tax than an estate tax” or “I’d rather have a higher property tax than an estate tax” or “I’d rather have a higher sales tax than an estate tax”. If somebody wants to make those arguments, I’d be happy to debate the issue. But if somebody is unwilling to make a serious argument, there’s no point in pretending to debate the issue.
Should the government seek equal prosperity? No. But they should not permit an overbalanced economy that favors the rich ,creating enormous fortunes with depression era poor people growing and growing.
There should be some balance. There is not. It has to be restored so the masses have an opportunity to succeed. The American citizens are not merely prey for the rich to exploit.
Well, from your post it seems that the central issue actually is “What is the amount of government that is necessary and appropriate”, and only then do we get to the question of how to pay for it. Because while everyone agrees some government is necessary, the divide seems to be on how much. I say this because if you bring size of government into it, it is no longer meaningless to say I’d much rather not have an estate tax at all.
A hypothetical way your discussion could be approached is - How would you approach taxation given no baggage - i.e assume a fresh start, and a government that has to be paid for. Lets assume also that taxation is the only way to do it. What would be the best way of going about it? Which tax(es) would you introduce first? I would actually not think an estate tax is the best first tax to introduce because IMO it would reduce monitoring on government.
ETA: It just occurred to me that this can probably become a thread of its own, but I don’t want to start it because I have a busy couple of days coming up and won’t be able to participate much. If anyone feels that a separate thread can/should be started on this, please do.
I disagree. I see this as two distinct issues - how much government is needed and how should government be paid for. Both issues worth discussing but neither discussion requires the other subject to be brought up.
As should be obvious from what I’ve written, I disagree here also. I think estate taxes are a good place to start in creating a taxation policy. But I’m certainly willing to hear rational reasons that argue otherwise. I’ll admit I’m not seeing what you mean about reduced monitoring.
Being extremely wealthy is not a virtue. But it does confer power to the one who possesses it. The power has been used to get government and regulatory breaks that will enrich them and their class even more. Money=power. That is the danger. When a few are rich enough, America is changed. that is what has happened and is getting worse. Allowing the rich to pass their wealth and power along through generations will build an aristocracy of special people. The rich have special access to the governors, congressmen and senators.
The argument is not that we are trying to take money from the incredibly wealthy, but that we are trying to take the power back and give it to the people.
It depends on how you define wealth but the majority of people on the Forbes list inherited their wealth.
That capital doesn’t disappear and frankly after the creation of corporations we no longer need ultra wealthy people to accumulate the concentrations of capital necessary for large commercial enterprises.
Tell that to the civil rights movement, fairness is something we should in fact strive for. Government is the keeper of the social contract.
If incomes are also lowered then it doesn’t hold true but sure, generally speaking, higher productivity is better for folks on the whole.
You mean the taxes that pay to educate the workforce or build the roads and bridges over which commerce travels or the police that enforce property rights or the military that protect our borders? WTF does your definition of the free market entail because EVERY SINGLE FREE MARKET ADVOCATE I have ever heard understand the need for taxes.
The change is largely the result of a shift in the balance of negotiating power between capital and labor. We can expect more and more of the fruits of our economy fall into the hands of those with capital and those who work for those with capital.
It appears to me that the US has become so ideologically divided that everyone seems to argue points on the understanding that other people are necessarily coming in with pre-formed opinions that they will not change no matter what.