I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the question honestly. Assuming we're talking about a country where "The Government" is pretty well behaved, said government doesn't put that money in its pockets. It makes it work for the people it represents. Working for your money and becoming filthy rich is fine. But when you die, you die. None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide what we do with what's left of you and your belongings. In an ideal world, we can use that to better the lives of others.
Unless you were a truly stingy person in life, your affluence will have already have had huge positive impacts on those near and dear to you. Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person?
> But when you die, you die. None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide with what's left of you and your belongings.
Most governments enforce a person’s will after they die. People generally elect to distribute their property to particular people, specifically to avoid it ending up in the hands of “we, as a society”.
As a society it's fine to execute a will, as long as it doesn't harm society. Entrenching generational wealth and furthering poverty seems like it's harmful. This is understood, after all that's why there is an inheritance tax in the first place. I'm argueing that it needs to be way higher.
I disagree with your assumption that entrenching generational wealth furthers poverty. When inventors believe that they can build generational wealth, they are motivated to produce better products and services, which they are able to offer at far lower prices than their value to all of us, so we all become richer. For example, I am writing this on a smartphone that cost just a couple hundred dollars. With it, I can access all of the world's knowledge and communicate with anyone instantaneously. For just a couple hundred more dollars, I sit beside an air conditioner that keeps me comfortably cool even though it is boiling outside. The barons of the gilded age could not have purchased such products for any price. So who is richer, me or them? The inventors of these products are rich, but what do I care? I am lucky to have been born into a world where these products are available for such a low price. While it hasn't been proven conclusively, anecdotal evidence suggests that more invention occurs in countries which defend generational wealth, and we all benefit.
>vilifying people for wanting to pass down their hard-earned money
In the context of the comment you're replying to, none of this is reasonable, and some of it isn't even relevant. You should consider that you're forming an emotional, hostile argument.
Perhaps the angry reaction is justified given that the comment implied that “society” should be free to do as it pleases with a person and their property when they die. Most countries today vigorously protect the bodies and property of the dead.
> We, as a society, are free to decide with what's left of you and your belongings
A country can be a society, and if that society decides that its dead bodies and their belonging need protection, then so be it. Doesn't seem like the most beneficial thing to do, but you're free to disagree with me. If a dead person's organs can be used to save the lives of others, vigorously protecting that body seems like a selfish thing to do.
Most western societies have rejected your utilitarian thinking, upholding an individual's choices over any forgone benefit to others. For example, every day people die on organ transplant waiting lists, and every day healthy people die in car accidents, but their organs are discarded because they did not check the "organ donor" box on their driver's license application.
> Your belongings and wealth belong to your estate and as the owner of it you decide how it should be distributed.
Well, that's literally the question at hand. You don't get to just say that it is so. A dead person's wealth belonged to them, but they are dead. They can't vote, they can't apply for loans, and, the parent is arguing, they can't arbitrarily pass their money to whoever they choose. They could have, while alive, but now they are dead.
> Because it's none of your business. Why on earth are you vilifying people for wanting to pass down their hard-earned money to their children?
This is just some weird non-sequitur. No one's doing any vilifying, and Parent is arguing that it is societies business (and incidentally, given that an estate tax exists, society currently agrees with the parent poster)
You're deliberately misrepresenting what's being said. We do understand the legal concept of an estate. But its validity is what's being discussed here.
No, you can't. There are all sorts of restrictions, which you already know. But since you are deliberately missing the point, I won't be responding. Feel free to get in the last word.
> Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person?
Why favor your family, friends, or countrymen over any other person during your lifetime either? Everyone behaves this way. For example, why does government sponsored health care in western countries only cover their own citizens? Do the lives of people in less affluent countries not matter? Do they have less intrinsic value?
This is a poor argument - it contains no distinction from any taxed transaction. All money changing hands has "already been taxed" in the way you are using the phrase. Unless you are saying that all tax is wrong, in which case you should definitely make that argument rather than this much more specific one.
It isn't about "deserving" anything. The societal problems behind inter-generational wealth are wide and deep. This was recognized by the founders of the US, in particular Thomas Jefferson.
Adam Smith: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
This is creating a false narrative that the only way to economic mobility is through theft upon generational transfer. It conveys a message of helplessness rather than rewarding usefulness and it's a vicious cycle.
Economic mobility should be solely predicated on the expression of competence/ability in the pursuit of providing value to others in your society. It's not even that hard[1]. Get an education and a job, avoid the big economic sinks.
> This means that 40 percent of why some Americans are extraordinarily well off has nothing to do with smarts, hard work, frugality, lucky gambles or entrepreneurial ingenuity. It is simply because they were born to rich parents.
We should not fear the money landing in undeserving hands, it will rapidly be drained away if that is the case. Many(most?) very wealthy families employ wealth managers that ensure that money is profitably engaged with the society anyways, so in reality the money is not really in the heir's hands anyways, but is tied up in companies that are serving the country and employing others.
This starts with an excellent point - many bad, emotionally-driven arguments about how society works are predicated on the concept of "deserving". Bad people "deserve" to suffer in prison. Good people "deserve" every penny they make. The arguments rarely bother to go beyond those assumptions. The concept of "deserving" is real and important, but it's also commonly the linch pin of bad-faith arguments.
There are other purposes for taxes, the most famous one being Pigovian taxes, which attempt to price negative externalities into a market: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax.
The inheritance tax is not a Pigovian tax, but its purpose can also be primarily non-budgetary.
They money I used to buy a candy bar is post-tax dollars dollars, but I still pay sales tax on it. They money I use to pay for a taxi ride are post-tax dollars, but the taxi driver still pays income tax on it. When I sell that stock I bought with post-tax dollars, I still pay capital gain taxes on the profits.
Post-tax dollars aren't magical things that mean you never pay taxes again. They're just an accounting tool that makes dealing with some tax-exempt activities easier.
Tax money must come from somewhere. Imagine this as a zero-sum game where you have some fixed total amount of taxation that you're trying to reach and the question is just who pays how much.
Given that, is there anyone who could possibly need their money less than the dead?
"Some will argue that this example ignores any income and payroll tax the wealthy parents paid when they originally earned the $50 million. But if the couple paid their personal chef’s wages out of after-tax income, we wouldn’t think their personal chef should get credit for the taxes they paid. Similarly, we should ignore any income or payroll tax the couple paid when considering how much their son should contribute to the costs of government."
Because dynastic wealth is unearned and aggravates unequal circumstances of birth and accumulates capital in less competitive markets thus delegitimizing the purported meritocracy that is capitalism.
In fact I think the government has all the rights to take all belongings after someone dies. After all the person earned it from society, not its descendants.
It's not just the money. Imagine real estate. Today's value might be completely out of the owners. Say granny wants you to inherit their old penthouse in downtown New York (just an example, I have no idea if it is technically possible to own such a thing) or any other real estate that they used for living and is now worth tens of millions. The government won't let you have it. Or Grandpa's old company. It makes a little profit but was always in the hands of the family and it is now evaluated for tens of millions. Government forces you to sell it.
I could go on. Art collection, old cars, even immaterial rights or stocks that are massively undervalued right now for one reason or another (for instance because the founder just died suddenly).
Inheritance taxation is inherently unjust because it cannot distinguish between goods that are easily traded for and the ones that cannot easily be sold.
