# What if, instead of trying to remove the estate tax, it were increased **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 28, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117 "2005-11-28T22:04:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/81 "2005-11-29T19:51:30Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Ok. Let them keep the family farm. But if and when they choose to _sell_ it, the estate tax kicks in. But this gives people a strong incentive never to sell their property: even when it would otherwise net a social economic benefit and they would rather sell it. It’s always important to remember that taxes do not increase or decrease anything worthwhile to society: they just transfer money, not increase it. But the activity people take to avoid paying taxes DOES hurt society by giving people a perverse incentive to avoid doing things that would otherwise be to society’s mutual benefit. There’s generally no way to get around this by making creative exemptions or rules. The only efficient tax is a tax that affects all people equally and unavoidably (say, everyone gets taxed 2$), and even that is probably just too idealistic: people still find all sorts of ways no matter what you try. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/82 "2005-11-29T20:16:56Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > What I’m objecting to is a worst-case scenario where two or more generations of a family rapidly die of following some epidemic illness, setting off a chain of inheritances with the government grabbing a big cut at each step. A surviving grandchild could very rapidly be left with nothing, or an estate that is so burdened with tax claims that it may as well be nothing. No. There are very large exclusions. Personal residence (to a certain amount) Family business/farms (again to a certain amount) and anything under (I think the last figure was) 1 million . Not to mention all Life Insurance. So the surviving grandkid “only” has a nice big free paid for house and a million bucks- all tax free. I’ll live on that, thankyouverymuch. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/83 "2005-11-29T20:28:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Inheritance is, IMO, a socially inequitable mechanism of acquiring great wealth. It is truly an _accident of birth_ that you happen to be occupy such an upper percentile. Indeed, it is arguably a factor in [social immobility](http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560), which should surely _not_ characterise a land of genuinely equal opportunity. Is it _understandable_ that one might wish to make one’s progeny underservedly rich at a stroke? Of course. But governments are invested to view such evolutionary urges dispassionately, for the good of _all_. > > I consider that the UK’s 40% tax is a fair balance: one _can_ still make one’s children enormously wealthy, but _they_ can’t do the same to _theirs_ without some of the hard work that the ability to amass such fortunes is meant to reward in the first place: no unmeritocratic (and undemocratic IMO) _dynasties_ are allowed to form. For example, your kids might control a 60% stake in your mansion, but your _grandkids_ will be left with only 20% of it unless your kids worked to buy back the other 40% off the state (_ie._ everyone else). > > As for the loopholes, well, I’m all for a honey-trap approach. What is left of the British aristocracy plays a good trick of leaving their estate to the heirs at least 7 years before they expect to die, since if they _do_ die within those 7 years, it is taxed at full whack retrospectively. Increasing that time to 15 or 20 years, out of the blue, puts the giver in a position of grave risk, with everyone else reaping the winnings from those lost bets. For sheltered assets, I’m all for a similar tactics: “you have two weeks to declare such and such assets before they are returned to what will then be their rightful owners (_ie._ everyone else)”. I think this violates a fundamental human right. The right to property. And it also violates the fundamental nature of the family. Successful families should be able to build wealthy dynasties. Social engineering is only the goal of oppressive governments, it is a tool of tyrants used to control the people like sheep. From time immemorial families have worked by sticking together. By helping one another. The estate tax hits directly at that, it’s just as perverse as government coming in to my home and telling me what I can teach my son, what he’s allowed to watch on our TV. Or coming in to my bedroom and telling me in what manner me and my wife (or my boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever) can express our love. Anytime government involves itself in these fundamental aspects of human life, it is destroying some of what it is to be a human, to be an individual, and to be the member of a family. This takes us step-by-step closer to a hive-like society where there are no individuals. When achieving great things brings you no form of gain, as it would in a truly “egalitarian” society, then great things stop being achieved. We become little more than a colony of ants. And personally I’d rather see the human race wiped off the face of the earth than see our societies go down that road. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/84 "2005-11-29T21:21:21Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I think this violates a fundamental human right. The right to property. And it also violates the fundamental nature of the family. Successful families should be able to build wealthy dynasties. Social engineering is only the goal of oppressive governments, it is a tool of tyrants used to control the people like sheep. God DAMN that Magna Carta! How dare those peasants seek to overturn the natural order of things! ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/85 "2005-11-29T21:22:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Successful families should be able to build wealthy dynasties. Social engineering is only the goal of oppressive governments, it is a tool of tyrants used to control the people like sheep. Well, that, or the building of wealthy dynasties. They both work! > [@](#): > > From time immemorial families have worked by sticking together. By helping one another. The estate tax hits directly at that, it’s just as perverse as government coming in to my home and telling me what I can teach my son, what he’s allowed to watch on our TV. Or coming in to my bedroom and telling me in what manner me and my wife (or my boyfriend or girlfriend or whatever) can express our love. Anytime government involves itself in these fundamental aspects of human life, it is destroying some of what it is to be a human, to be an individual, and to be the member of a family. Damn government, telling us that we can’t express our love through a trust fund and a Rolls Royce! Please, spare me. While I’m symapthetic to the idea that government taking your money is a violation of some idea of liberty, the pathos of that being akin to it violating far more personal liberties is just too over the top. Governments require money to run. The people that earn most of the income and have most of the wealth are, unavoidably, going not only to pay a bigger share of these costs (arguably while reaping more of the benefits too) but be harmed by it less on an absolute scale. That doesn’t mean that taxes are good or that a system can’t be too progressive, but if we are going to have a government then its going to be part of the economy and its going to affect what you can earn and save and so on. And sorry, the absurd wailing about a hive mind ain’t going to cut it as an objection. > [@](#): > > This takes us step-by-step closer to a hive-like society where there are no individuals. Right: because the only thing that defines us as being individuals are differences in our net worth. > [@](#): > > When achieving great things brings you no form of gain, as it would in a truly “egalitarian” society, then great things stop being achieved. Again, this is slippery slope taken to such an absurd degree that it’s almost comical. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/86 "2005-11-29T21:30:49Z")
> [@MH](#): > > I think this violates a fundamental human right. The right to property. But you still _have_ property: the tax isn’t **100%**. You pay a _portion_ to everyone else for the privilege of being able to call the remainder “yours”, and the enforcement infrastructure which goes with it. > [@](#): > > And it also violates the fundamental nature of the family. Successful families should be able to build wealthy dynasties. Pardon me, but fuck 'em. > [@](#): > > From time immemorial families have worked by sticking together. By helping one another. And you _can_: the tax isn’t **100%**. > [@](#): > > And personally I’d rather see the human race wiped off the face of the earth than see our societies go down that road. Honestly? You _honestly_ set forth such absurd hyperbole? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/87 "2005-11-29T21:38:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t understand this “equal opportunity” argument. If it’s valid, then we should limit the ability of parents to help their children while the parents are still alive. Well, I agree. That is why the debate is between those who don’t really want to implement equality of opportunity to the letter but want to preserve some of it in spirit and those who simply want to completely throw it out the window. The fact is that there is nothing even close to equality of opportunity in our country…and conservatives generally seem to want to take us ever further away from it. (I use “want” here in the sense of supporting policies that do this. One could argue that they don’t want this but that they don’t care enough about this relative to other principles to push us ever further away from equality of opportunity.) > [@](#): > > I short, I have no problem trying to raise people up, but I do have a problem with trying to cut people down. We can do the former w/o doing the latter. Well, this might be true if our current society had less extreme income inequality. However, as I noted in a previous post, income inequality in our society is so extreme that we are in the situation where the analogy to “robbing banks because that is where the money is” applies to raising revenues for taxation. I.e., the only realistic way to raise revenues with minimal pain in a society where the top 1% pull down roughly 20% of the income and have roughly 40% of the wealth is to increase taxes on this segment of the population. (And, as noted by another poster, this is also the segment of the population who have seen the lion’s share of the gains in real income from our society’s growing wealth over the last 25 years…while everyone else has been pretty much treading water.) I hardly think that is “trying to cut people down” particularly when you are talking about a tax that is imposed not on the person who earned the money but really on the people who are going to obtain the money through no virtue or hard work of their own. If you don’t support taxes on this sort of unearned income, what sort of taxes will you support? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/88 "2005-11-29T21:44:01Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, this might be true if our current society had less extreme income inequality. However, as I noted in a previous post, income inequality in our society is so extreme that we are in the situation where the analogy to “robbing banks because that is where the money is” applies to raising revenues for taxation. I.e., the only realistic way to raise revenues with minimal pain in a society where the top 1% pull down roughly 20% of the income and have roughly 40% of the wealth is to increase taxes on this segment of the population. (And, as noted by another poster, this is also the segment of the population who have seen the lion’s share of the gains in real income from our society’s growing wealth over the last 25 years…while everyone else has been pretty much treading water.) > > I hardly think that is “trying to cut people down” particularly when you are talking about a tax that is imposed not on the person who earned the money but really on the people who are going to obtain the money through no virtue or hard work of their own. If you don’t support taxes on this sort of unearned income, what sort of taxes will you support? I don’t understand. If the tax rate stays the same and someone makes twice this year what they made last year, you get twice the tax on their income. Why do you need to raise the rate to get more tax revenue? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/89 "2005-11-29T21:54:26Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Please, spare me. While I’m symapthetic to the idea that government taking your money is a violation of some idea of liberty, the pathos of that being akin to it violating far more personal liberties is just too over the top. I disagree - property rights are human rights. And questions about inheritance strike very close to ideas on how families relate to each other, and who bears primary responsibility. > [@](#): > > Governments require money to run. The people that earn most of the income and have most of the wealth are, unavoidably, going not only to pay a bigger share of these costs (arguably while reaping more of the benefits too) but be harmed by it less on an absolute scale. That doesn’t mean that taxes are good or that a system can’t be too progressive, but if we are going to have a government then its going to be part of the economy and its going to affect what you can earn and save and so on. I think you are mistaking taxation-so-that-the-government-can-fufill-its-necessary-functions with taxation-because-that-rich-bastard-has-more-than-me-no-fair. As long as we are merely discussing taxes as a method of raising revenue for the government, and that government’s role is limited in scope, we can probably find common ground in agreeing on how to raise the money with minimum impact. Once you venture into questions of social engineering, you have trespassed (in my opinion) into places the feds ought not to go. Because you often wind up punishing success in order to subsidize failure. Otherwise known as “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/90 "2005-11-29T22:05:34Z")
> [@](#): > > I disagree - property rights are human rights. And questions about inheritance strike very close to ideas on how families relate to each other, and who bears primary responsibility. You shouldn’t put “I disagree” before a sentance that fails to take issue with what I said. I don’t disagree that property rights are real human rights. I just think when we’re talking about only a portion of total property, we’re really not talking about anything even close to telling people what they can do in their bedrooms, what they can say and think, and their individuality. That’s just patently absurd hyperbole that demeans the debate. > [@](#): > > As long as we are merely discussing taxes as a method of raising revenue for the government, and that government’s role is limited in scope, we can probably find common ground in agreeing on how to raise the money with minimum impact. Once you venture into questions of social engineering, you have trespassed (in my opinion) into places the feds ought not to go. But I didn’t venture there. It isn’t social engineering to point out that rich people have more of the wealth in society (a LOT more of it) and so that taxing total income is going to take more from them… as well as not hurting their basic functioning anywhere as much as those living much closer to the edge of functioning. > [@](#): > > Because you often wind up punishing success in order to subsidize failure. Otherwise known as “killing the goose that lays the golden eggs”. Given that marginal and overall tax rates on the rich are way way way lower than they used to be, back when America was growing at a much greater rate than it is today, I just don’t see us plausibly being anywhere near that level. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/91 "2005-11-29T22:46:45Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > No, it’s class warfare, and the middle class is fighting back after the upper class ripped them off, and continues to attempt to rip them off. Frex, the Republicans in Congress backed off from their budget cuts to Medicare and school lunches because they’d just voted to extend the tax hiatus on the estate tax, and they didn’t want Dems to be beating them about the head and shoulders for giving to the rich and taking from the poor so blatantly. But rest assured, the Repubs will be going after those programs full throttle in 2007. > > Just as a thought experiment, is there any reason you would ever find valid for increasing estate taxes? > > Perhaps because … they’re sticking it to the man? I would prefer a simpler and more equitable tax structure. I’m not sure there is much point in furthur debate because I think we just fundamentally see the world differently. You believe in a Robin Hood take from the rich to give to the poor mentality while I basically see the government stealing what someone built a lifetime creating to pass along to their offspring. I would like to see evidence that the world is a worse place for inherreted wealth. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/92 "2005-11-30T00:23:44Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I think this violates a fundamental human right. The right to property. And it also violates the fundamental nature of the family. Successful families should be able to build wealthy dynasties. Life, liberty and the pursuit of wealthy dynasties? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/93 "2005-11-30T00:42:49Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Life, liberty and the pursuit of wealthy dynasties? :dubious: I think that it falls into the liberty and pursuit of happiness clauses. Those mean that our government shouldn’t just decide to screw with people because it can. Property falls into that category. I’m sure I could make up all kinds of crazy tax scenarios that would piss you off. They do affect real peopel and those aren’t always the super-rich. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/94 "2005-11-30T03:01:22Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t understand. If the tax rate stays the same and someone makes twice this year what they made last year, you get twice the tax on their income. Why do you need to raise the rate to get more tax revenue? Right…and then the Wall Street Journal editorial page complains that the percentage of tax paid by the top 1% is skyrocketting (without noting that the reason is that there income is skyrocketting) and their friends in Congress and the White House lower the tax rate on these poor oppressed rich folks. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/95 "2005-11-30T07:47:11Z")
Starting to sounds like two different debates, to me: [ul][li]Should inheritence taxes be jacked dramatically? (no)[/li]Should recent upper-class tax cuts be repealed? (yes)[/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/96 "2005-11-30T08:02:39Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > It’s certainly a reasonnable point of view for a parent, but this doesn’t mean it’s a good idea from a societal point of view. For instance, if I’m the duke of Z, with associated priviledges and rights that other people don’t have, it certainly makes sense that I’ll want my chidren to inherit the priviledges of nobility. It also makes sense for parents to hide their criminal child from the police. It doesn’t mean these will be accepted by society, or should be. It’s my money and I should be the one who decides who gets it after my death, whether its my children, the local library, Society to Help Indebted Tapirs, etc. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/97 "2005-11-30T15:49:11Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Starting to sounds like two different debates, to me: [ul][li]Should inheritence taxes be jacked dramatically? (no)[/li][li]Should recent upper-class tax cuts be repealed? (yes)[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] Yeah…I think the debate is more about inheritance taxes in general. While the OP started things off by asking whether they should be jacked up, I think that is really a moot point. It ain’t going to happen even if it should. Realistically, the debate of any political relevance is whether they should be retained or whether their impending (temporary) expiration should be permanent. I prefer to discuss things that are within the realm of political possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117/98 "2005-11-30T16:09:22Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Right…and then the Wall Street Journal editorial page complains that the percentage of tax paid by the top 1% is skyrocketting (without noting that the reason is that there income is skyrocketting) and their friends in Congress and the White House lower the tax rate on these poor oppressed rich folks. But that’s an entirely different argument, and a strawman at that since I’m not calling for a lowering of the income tax on the rich-- in fact this thread isn’t even about the income tax. Anyway, I’m not arguing against an estate tax, I’m just saying: make it the same as other taxes on similar income. I want the tax code to be as economically neutral as possible. I want people to make business decisions based on what is best for their business, not on what is best for reducing their overall tax burden. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-instead-of-trying-to-remove-the-estate-tax-it-were-increased/333117.md?page=4)