Earlier quoted context omitted.
A big government with military bases around the world could extend its tax base even to that tiny government.
Bombing people for more tax revenue seems like the wrong thing.
Not bombing, a threat would suffice.
Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
161–170 of 236 posts
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#162What terrifies me most about this is that those in power will keep getting younger, dumber and more complacent. I feel like communism is inevitable at this point. People know communism isn't the solution, but they will still vote for it because at least it pretends to stand for equality. We're going to reach a point of such extreme inequality that even the pretense of equality provided by communism would be welcomed…
> People know communism isn't the solution, but they will still vote for it because at least it pretends to stand for equality. Genuinely curious - why isn't communism the solution? And in your opinion, what are some better solutions? I haven't studied much about political/economic ideologies and at this point don't even know where to start. I do agree with some of what you are saying, but I don't understand why comm…
> I haven't studied much about political/economic ideologies and at this point don't even know where to start.
"The Road to Serfdom" by FA Hayek[0] is a good start. There's also a Wikipedia page outlining the general criticisms of communism[1]. You can also simply look into the recent history of communist countries.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Marxism
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
In every jurisdiction I know of if you inherit and live in it as your main residence you don’t need to pay. If you just inherit to rent it out and make money why shouldn’t you pay something for that like it were cash.
UK. You have to pay your 40% within 6 months of death, even a main residence.
If your house is worth more than 500k and you're inheriting from your parents, otherwise 325k. That's a pretty absurd amount of money to be getting tax free. Like, assuming 50% marginal you'd need to earn 1mn to get that post tax.
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are confusing "if only I get a high inheritance tax" with "if everyone gets a very high inheritance tax". The inheritance tax has to go somewhere. It could go into science and infrastructure and then everyone gets richer. Or it could be paid out as a dividend, then everyone below the average gets richer. There are many options here. Just saying "inheritance tax bad" without talking about the output side of such a…
Boy can i tell you, it does not go to "science". It goes 99% to paying for social security.
Generally about 30% welfare, 30% education and 30% health.
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#1651) set a generous threshold over which your inheritance gets taxed, inflation adjusted (e.g, 2M not including the principal residence) 2) tax 100% above it. (should only concern a fraction of a fraction of cases) 3) put all this tax's proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund 4) at 21, a citizen gets access to her redistributed generational wealth 5) profit
Why make it on inheritance then? Tax wealth 100% above 2M. I do think this would doom progress but would be a fun exercise.
That was a better argument when lives were getting better.
Now that 'progress' is actively optimizing things in a way where large amounts of the public's lives are getting worse, you are going to have to give a better response. Because right now progress is synonymous with improved rent seeking, worse access to food (and food that is now noticeably optimized to be of poorer quality), worse access to housing, worse working conditions, and on, and on.
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldnt it be easier just to tax all income above say $200,000 (minimum wage in SV) at 100%. If a net worth of $2 mil is considered outrageous then surely that kind of salary would be considered equally so.
Most net worths over $2 mil are created by growth in share value, not by income/salary.
If that value is recognized in a beneficial way (such as unlocking loans against it or using it as collateral at a specific recognized amount of value) it should be taxed at the point of value recognition for the amount of benefit recognized.
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. After all that is the point of inflation, to tax people who hoard money.
They aren't hoarding it directly, they have it in stocks or other appreciating assets such as gold.
Stocks is spending money. You are literally giving the money to someone else to help with their business venture.
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The benefits of wealth are exercised long before the inheritance can be applied. Agreed. But isn't that an argument FOR a strong inheritance tax? Because inheritance doesn't actually help your children anyway? That seems like it was your argument. With that argument taking 100% of the inheritance as tax and taking 0% is exactly the same, as the wealth transfer was done before anyway.
The only thing that I personally care about is the ability of ordinary people to build and retain wealth. Wealth disparity doesn't grow because wealthy people are allowed to retain their generational wealth or not, it grows because the rest can't build and retain their wealth. This isn't a zero sum game. PS: I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes. So I…
[deleted]
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have to reframe how taxes are viewed, by the wealthy. There should be no wealth tax, but above a certain threshold - there should be a maintenance fee associated with the wealth. I get charged maintenance fee by my mutual funds, for example. One of the purposes of the government is to protect and secure property... and that is what ultra wealthy are getting for a fraction of what they should be paying.
So the wealthy will do what you and I do: shop for the best rate. That rate will not be where you and I live. It will be some tiny foreign government.
They talk the big talk, but when push comes to shove, most still want to live in places with cachet and culture, not some tax haven in the boonies.
Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists
#170Why would this increase inequality? Inheritence generally goes from rich person to rich person. I would normally assume the rate of equality would stay roughly constant in the face of inheritence.
because r > g (see Piketty[0])
if returns on inherited wealth outperform growth, then the percentage of growth captured by the wealthy grows over time, exacerbating inequality
estate taxes can help mitigate that, but they are "anti-American"
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...