SancheztheWhaler wrote:I'll offer my opinion on both taxes and inheritance taxes.
Taxation is (in my words), a collectivization of wealth, and a redistribution of that wealth for the common good. Just and proper taxation takes only what is necessary, in the most equitable fashion possible, and distributes that money in a manner that benefits as many people as possible. In modern terms, you take taxes and pay for transportation, infrastructure, defense, education, healthcare, etc., which all provide for the common good of society.
The problem, as we've seen, is that when we struggle to minimize the amount spent on the common good, the nation suffers- particularly the not-rich (not just 'poor,'
not rich) majority.
I don't think it's right to engage in deliberate, punitive taxation of the rich to strip them of assets. But the simple fact is that the revenue to pay for the programs that make modern civilization viable and self-sustaining
has to come from somewhere. Allowing an economic oligarchy to hold the vast majority of the wealth and property in hopes that they'll use their investment capital for the common good simply doesn't work that well. So the argument for high taxes on the richest slice of the population is fairly strong: they're the ones who don't suffer in any concrete sense even if they
do have to pay something like 60% of their income in taxes, because they're the ones who still rake in several million a year even after they pay up.
Trying to take the money from poor people who are living paycheck to paycheck is cruel and ineffective because they don't have enough money to finance the system. Trying to take the money from middle-class people is less cruel, and more effective because they have
some money, but it's very bad for society in the long run because modern civilization depends on the existence of an educated middle class with disposable income to function. If you tax that middle class into poverty, or stand by while laissez-faire forces reduce it to poverty, you're only hurting yourself in the long run.
Taxing billionaires hard enough to make it impractical to become a billionaire simply isn't going to have that effect. We don't
need billionaires the way we need families that can put their children through college.
Now, I understand that my personal stand against inheritance taxes doesn't matter, as it is a revenue generator that very few politicians would discard, and at the current exclusion level is unlikely to "screw over" anyone who can't otherwise afford it, but philosophically I don't like the tax. I am much more comfortable with income, sales, or VATs, tariffs on imported goods, tolls, etc., as they can be applied more equitably, but I digress.
Sales taxes and VATs have the effect of raising the poverty line- you have to pay more dollars to get your basic needs before you have any money left over for disposable income. Tolls likewise. I'd argue that this leaves a lot to be desired, unless you get very detailed about
which types of purchases are taxed most extensively.
At the end of the day, we're still left with the conclusion that the only reason hamstray supports an inheritance tax is because he wants to screw over people with money; that sort of tyranny is not conducive to a healthy society, and that sort of taxation will eventually lead to rebellion.
Experience suggests that it leads to the wealthy buying out the media and government to put an end to what they see as oppressive taxation...
