Inheritance Tax and Rights Argument

[Hamstray]

I would say stealing from a dead man is not a crime that does warrant jail time. Death penalty is far out of question. If those punishments (and possible different charges) are not debatable then I'd say go with the first charge only.

[General Zod]

I would say stealing from a dead man is not a crime that does warrant jail time.

It might not fit most people's definitions of unethical, but it generally is criminal even if just a misdemeanor. Especially if the property was stolen from a historic site or the scene of a crime, in which case you'd potentially be disturbing a crime scene and destroying evidence.

[bilateralrope]

I would say stealing from a dead man is not a crime that does warrant jail time.

Then think about it as stealing from the people that would have inherited from the dead man.

[Hamstray]

Then think about it as stealing from the people that would have inherited from the dead man.

Yes, because inheriting money is such back-breaking work. How is a first come, first served based inheritance model any less fair? At least someone is lifting a finger. Since my government killed the inheritance tax I could not care less.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd argue that this guy might be arrested on suspicion of murder, on top of the other crimes, since he's a prime suspect in the murder. But he should not be charged with murder until more evidence is found- check for forensic evidence, check to see if the guy died just before we arrested this guy robbing his house or days earlier, and so on.

If more evidence cannot be found than the brute fact of "he was standing in the same building as the corpse," then it would be a bad idea to charge him with the crime- a waste of judicial resources, and quite possibly a way to let the real killer go free.

I would say stealing from a dead man is not a crime that does warrant jail time.

Nonsense. Haven't you ever heard of wills? Inheritance? Your property doesn't become freebies when you die, not outside of RPGs.

Then think about it as stealing from the people that would have inherited from the dead man.

Yes, because inheriting money is such back-breaking work. How is a first come, first served based inheritance model any less fair? At least someone is lifting a finger. Since my government killed the inheritance tax I could not care less.

Has it occured to you that there are many normal citizens who don't have huge estates or piles of gold or anything, but want to make sure their surviving relatives have a car and a furnished home to live in after they're dead? And that those relatives may well have played a profound role in the dead person's life, one that they legitimately wish to honor?

You do NOT have a right to take that away from them on account of some bullshit about "oh it's too easy to get stuff by inheriting it so we shouldn't let anyone inherit anything if I call dibs on it fast enough."

[Hamstray]

I would say stealing from a dead man is not a crime that does warrant jail time.

Nonsense. Haven't you ever heard of wills? Inheritance? Your property doesn't become freebies when you die, not outside of RPGs.

I'd have thought that argument of mine is explicit enough as not to provoke a strawman, maybe it was due to my followup statement (

Yes, because inheriting money is such back-breaking work. How is a first come, first served based inheritance model any less fair? At least someone is lifting a finger. Since my government killed the inheritance tax I could not care less.

)
in which I miserably failed to get the irony I intended due to my annoyance about someone having brought up inheritance (yeah and that one also looks like a strawman to me).
Just to clear something up: the inheritance model I support is actually the godless commie 100% inheritance tax one.
The gist of my first argument is about imprisonment, not about letting property crimes go unpunished.

[LaCroix]

Just to clear something up: the inheritance model I support is actually the godless commie 100% inheritance tax one.

Which will result in old people gifting their stuff away as soon as they think Joe Black might make an appointment with them.

[Simon_Jester]

in which I miserably failed to get the irony I intended due to my annoyance about someone having brought up inheritance (yeah and that one also looks like a strawman to me).

Just to clear something up: the inheritance model I support is actually the godless commie 100% inheritance tax one.

Which is still fucking stupid, since it will routinely, for virtually every person in the country, take away valuable goods that would be highly useful to the person's heirs, but not very useful to the state. Like, you know, the family home. Or the family automobile. Or the furnishings in the family home. Things that not only did the dead person work hard to obtain for the benefit of other people, but that those other people need for their continued day-to-day living.

This is just ridiculous- your policy only makes sense if we were all isolated sociopathic fuckheads who never interacted with each other and didn't live in social groups like families.

[LaCroix]

Just in case you try to deflect Simon's argument - this isn't only about very old people drop dead, fully grown people who already own their own stuff get richer.

Let's say a Man has a home, wife (raises the children) and two children(still minors in school). The house is on his name. The car as well.
He dies.

What happens to the woman and children? According to your 100% tax statement, they only keep their personal stuff, like clothes.
The family has no income, no place to live, no nothing. Hopefully 'Mom' is very attractive, or they are going to be in big problems...

Do you really want to live in such a society?

Also, whole markets would break down - no one is going to build a house if he can't pass it.
This would only work if you socialize the whole country, as no one is going to build rental flats, no one is going to build a company.
The state would have to chip in and provide housing and work for everyone, and this would result in a RIGHT for work and housing for everyone. No one would have any real incentive to create something new, for innovation is only done by people wanting to earn something - and not being able to pass it over would take much of that incentive away.

Look over the border to eastern countries during the iron curtain. That's the result of a policy LESS strict than your idea.

[Hamstray]

Also, whole markets would break down - no one is going to build a house if he can't pass it. The state would have to chip in and provide housing and work for everyone, and this would result in a RIGHT for work and housing for everyone. No one would have any real incentive to create something new, for innovation is only done by people wanting to earn something - and not being able to pass it over would take much of that incentive away.

The primary motive for people to become creative and make something genuinely new is to overcome idleness. The kind of work you are talking about which people would not do without sufficiently high remuneration is the one no one would want to do in the first place.
The market wouldn't break down simply because of that since there will always be people with different incentives left to take over competition.
Also what's wrong with a RIGHT for housing for everyone?

[Lagmonster]

Split - clumsily - from the discussion on deciding criminal charges. Some of the points in some of the posts here belong to that other topic, which was somewhat about criminal justice.

[Hamstray]

The first post is actually one from before the inheritance tax debate started, it's about whether fines rather than imprisonment are generally a sufficient punishment for property crimes (and also some other things). Opening up this debate with it seems confusing, since no where does it have anything to do with inheritance.

[Simon_Jester]

The primary motive for people to become creative and make something genuinely new is to overcome idleness.

This is not true. Normal people do not work hard doing difficult things purely because otherwise they would be bored.

They work hard doing difficult things because they find the job rewarding, yes, but this alone would not be enough. Mostly, they also work hard because they love people and want those people to be comfortable. Or because they one day hope to start a family- to have people they love and want to make comfortable.

For these people, what you propose boils down to:

"Whatever happens during your life, the moment you die it's as if you never existed. Your loved ones will revert to whatever condition they would be in economically if you had never lived. Indeed, they may be worse off than if you had never lived, because they might have gotten a better life on their own than they did by taking advantage of property you own and which is now taken away from them.

"You know that business you worked decades to create? It will be dismantled and sold off- no chance of passing it on to someone who would be able to keep it running, because you don't get to decide what happens to your property when you die. You know that farm plot in the country? That's going to be run by an agribusiness now, because they can outbid your family since we're taking away all your money and leaving them penniless. You know your children? They will be wards of the state with no place to go, yes even if their other parent is still alive and functional, because the house they used to live in now belongs to whoever the hell wants it."

That is a horrible offer. Any normal person will resist having this imposed on them. Indeed, the reason why estate taxes are often abolished even on large estates is because of antitax fanatics managing to convince the public that this is what people want to do with them.

Congratulations, Hamstray, you are now a living breathing parody strawman of the case for the estate tax. This is not a good thing. The pro-fiscal-sanity side has enough trouble without people like you weighing in with absurd and hateful schemes that spit on the basic human aspirations of the average citizen.

Seriously, what the hell are you thinking?

[Big Phil]

Most people I know who are in favor of inheritance taxes in the 50% and above range are people who have nothing - they are often young, but in other cases older with little or no prospects of a successful career (and no savings to speak of). In other words, it's not so much about a philosophical opposition to passing along an inheritance for the betterment of society as much as it is screwing everyone else because they themselves are worth jack and shit.

[Kanastrous]

Most people I know who are in favor of inheritance taxes in the 50% and above range are people who have nothing - they are often young, but in other cases older with little or no prospects of a successful career (and no savings to speak of). In other words, it's not so much about a philosophical opposition to passing along an inheritance for the betterment of society as much as it is screwing everyone else because they themselves are worth jack and shit.

+1

Yeah, what sanchez said. You can point to people with money as just wanting to protect their money, but it's also true that people wanting to take it away for redistribution may not have much more noble a goal in mind than "fuck them, why should *they* have shit if *I* don't?"

[Akhlut]

I can see taxing monetary savings and investments over a certain limit (usually a fairly high one, just so we don't have to deal with potential loopholes if we wrote it as "if the deceased has an unemployed spouse with children, then blah blah blah" and a hundred other such codes), but the taxation of goods seems both difficult and counterproductive.

[General Zod]

I can see taxing monetary savings and investments over a certain limit (usually a fairly high one, just so we don't have to deal with potential loopholes if we wrote it as "if the deceased has an unemployed spouse with children, then blah blah blah" and a hundred other such codes), but the taxation of goods seems both difficult and counterproductive.

I'm not sure I see the point in taxing savings accounts considering the money people put in them has generally already been taxed once. That seems like a great way of angering voters and making sure they don't keep their money in banks.

[Kanastrous]

The $$$ put into certain IRAs etc has been taxed at the time of earning, then gets taxed again when it's eventually withdrawn. Seems like the voters are sanguine about that.

[General Zod]

The $$$ put into certain IRAs etc has been taxed at the time of earning, then gets taxed again when it's eventually withdrawn. Seems like the voters are sanguine about that.

That doesn't quite sound like what Akhlut's proposing though, which is taxing a savings account once it reaches a certain limit. Essentially taxing someone for having the temerity to set aside too much money.

[Hamstray]

What happens to the woman and children? According to your 100% tax statement, they only keep their personal stuff, like clothes.
The family has no income, no place to live, no nothing. Hopefully 'Mom' is very attractive, or they are going to be in big problems...

80000€ inheritance per capita evenly distributed is sufficient money to get along with and also get you through university.

[Block]

Most people I know who are in favor of inheritance taxes in the 50% and above range are people who have nothing - they are often young, but in other cases older with little or no prospects of a successful career (and no savings to speak of). In other words, it's not so much about a philosophical opposition to passing along an inheritance for the betterment of society as much as it is screwing everyone else because they themselves are worth jack and shit.

I think a lot of it depends on the minimum value of an estate that can be taxed. Fact is, the way the old estate tax was set up, it really only effected the very wealthy, I believe it was somewhere north of $500,000. This is a lot of money to pass on, and I can see why people would think amounts that large should be taxed. Over 50% is a bit much, but at the same time I can't see an argument for no tax either.

[Kanastrous]

The $$$ put into certain IRAs etc has been taxed at the time of earning, then gets taxed again when it's eventually withdrawn. Seems like the voters are sanguine about that.

That doesn't quite sound like what Akhlut's proposing though, which is taxing a savings account once it reaches a certain limit. Essentially taxing someone for having the temerity to set aside too much money.

I was only pointing out that it's also double-taxation, something which you felt would cause discontent but apparently does not.

[Simon_Jester]

Most people I know who are in favor of inheritance taxes in the 50% and above range are people who have nothing - they are often young, but in other cases older with little or no prospects of a successful career (and no savings to speak of). In other words, it's not so much about a philosophical opposition to passing along an inheritance for the betterment of society as much as it is screwing everyone else because they themselves are worth jack and shit.

+1
Yeah, what sanchez said. You can point to people with money as just wanting to protect their money, but it's also true that people wanting to take it away for redistribution may not have much more noble a goal in mind than "fuck them, why should *they* have shit if *I* don't?"

I only favor high, or even significant, estate taxes on large estates. As in... I don't know, I am not qualified to pick a figure. Some sum that is significantly above what is required for any person's family to live comfortably if they are at all capable and motivated- say, a few million dollars.

Taxes on the estates of people in the middle, and even lower upper, class should be low, probably nonexistent for the middle class. Taxes on the estates of the truly rich should be quite significant, but they already have a vastly disproportionate amount of the shit in society without necessarily having done a vastly disproportionate amount of the work required to create society's shit. No one's going to wind up really hurting on account of Bill Gates' estate suddenly shrinking 50% on his death.

What happens to the woman and children? According to your 100% tax statement, they only keep their personal stuff, like clothes.
The family has no income, no place to live, no nothing. Hopefully 'Mom' is very attractive, or they are going to be in big problems...

80000€ inheritance per capita evenly distributed is sufficient money to get along with and also get you through university.

And of course, I have no legitimate reason or right to provide for friends, charitable causes, institutions I support, or anything else...

Put simply, Hamstray, why do you think this is a good idea? I don't see it, myself. Taking away 100% of anything is a great way to alienate and outrage the public, and I don't see the benefit myself. The main social argument for inheritance taxes is preventing all the wealth from getting concentrated in the hands of a multi-generational oligarchy. It simply does not matter if Joe Middle Class has somehow managed to pile up a million dollars in retirement savings and chooses to pass that to his descendants; that doesn't screw up the Gini coefficient.

What matters is when the Rockefellers or the Hiltons do the same thing with their (much larger) shares of the economy.

[General Zod]

The $$$ put into certain IRAs etc has been taxed at the time of earning, then gets taxed again when it's eventually withdrawn. Seems like the voters are sanguine about that.

That doesn't quite sound like what Akhlut's proposing though, which is taxing a savings account once it reaches a certain limit. Essentially taxing someone for having the temerity to set aside too much money.

I was only pointing out that it's also double-taxation, something which you felt would cause discontent but apparently does not.

Aren't IRAs generally pre-tax money?

[Akhlut]

The $$$ put into certain IRAs etc has been taxed at the time of earning, then gets taxed again when it's eventually withdrawn. Seems like the voters are sanguine about that.

That doesn't quite sound like what Akhlut's proposing though, which is taxing a savings account once it reaches a certain limit. Essentially taxing someone for having the temerity to set aside too much money.

The amounts I'm talking about don't affect the average 'Murrican, though. Most taxpayers would be unaffected by the sort of inheritance tax I'm in favor of (someone inheriting over $250,000; so, less an estate tax and more of a new income tax that covers those who get that income through inheritence). However, being the Socialist-Marxist-Leninist that I am, I'd be willing to do away with an inheritence tax for more stringent taxes upon those who still draw breath.