In Argentina, the state collects a heft tax on property transfers when the propietor dies. So basically all property is donated from parents to children in-life.
Poorer property owners that cant afford or dont know better, or people stricken with tragedy in an early death are likely the ones that pay the most of that tax.
Conclusion, 'death taxes' are paid by the poorer half and hence worsens inequality.
On results: lets say that I were to tell you that all the money in your bank account is going to be worth 0 tomorrow. Are you going to invest that money in long term capital growth? Are you going to donate it to the government? I'd say the most reasonable reaction is drugs and hookers all the way!
The latter is definitely not great economic policy.
And the real solution isn't a 100% tax but 100% tax over some lower amount, say $50,000 along with lowering the yearly gift tax exemption.
Inherited wealth is anathema to meritocracies.
Well, this is were we clearly disagree. I am very certain that if i knew that i was going to die in 6 months, id be burning all my money into some kickass 6 months with "Burguers" and "Premium Tinder accounts". Consumption vs Investment is a core battle between Keynesian and Chicago School economics, so it depends on which you subscribe.
> meritocracies.
I actually do wonder who argues in favor of meritocracies. Sure as hell not liberal-economics.
"Get what we deserve? I hope to god we don't get what we deserve" - Milton Friedman.
> And the real solution isn't a 100% tax but 100% tax over some lower amount, say $50,000 along with lowering the yearly gift tax exemption.
This just compromises the original concept of equality of opportunity: if you do that, anyone below 50k will be in an unfavourable position relatively. So what you did with that limit is imposing something on a group, intended to be a minority that wouldnt be able to repeal such rule. The fact that these rules end up like this has been extensively exposed by people like MF.
Its like saying that you are going to base justice on "protecting good people and punishing bad people".
I can be swayed otherwise if I was shown what a meritocratic system would look like, but most of the times I heard that word it was as a criticism of laissez-fair capitalism that would rarely claim to be meritocratic.
That's exactly what our justice system is... Sometimes we fail at abstracting our morality to the courts but that's exactly what our goal is.
>I can be swayed otherwise if I was shown what a meritocratic system would look like, but most of the times I heard that word it was as a criticism of laissez-fair capitalism that would rarely claim to be meritocratic.
So your logic is "people usually use meritocracy as a knock against capitalism" and then establish your premise? "meritocracy is bad"? Doesn't make any sense. A perfectly meritocratic system doesn't exist and probably never will but systems which try to promote equality of opportunity are generally good. Our defense of "meritocracy" comes from the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. Behind it, it becomes obvious you would want to live in a society which provides a relatively equal chance for everybody and which, if you seize that chance, will reward you.
Who are you to make that decision for someone?
And, frankly, you're delusional if you think an estate tax is non distortive. The entire meaning of wealth would change for the elderly.
One cannot treat wealth like a zero sum game. More importantly, we need to rid ourselves of this growing crabs in a bucket mentality, because we all suffer when we hold society's best back. Is it "fair" in the sense of absolute wealth? No, but people shouldn't be so focused on their neighbor's plate then theirs is full enough that they can spend hours complaining online about how much more money the 1% have. Perhaps we should redefine fair wealth distribution to rightfully consider merit, which is shockingly absent from the majority view here.
And your definition of "fair playing field" is skewed because, again, you treat economics as a zero sum game. You are making the classic mistake of conflating equality of outcome with equality of opportunity.
In any case, this class warfare inspired policy of exhaustively taxing wealth won't fix a mismanaged budget or a broken scholarly culture. You are simply punishing the people who seem to have benefited most in the context of the system while ignoring merit.
Further, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that modern people in poverty dont live "good" lives. They have refrigeration, air conditioning, entertainment, access to the internet, emergency healthcare, they live like kings once did. Once again this is a problem of looking at other peoples' lives and concluding that only in comparison you deserve more for simply existing.
Taxation will not fix what is fundamentally a cultural problem.
Aside: Look at how absurd the entire argument is! We dont question in absolute terms how our poor are living, we focus entirely on the fact that the wealth is distributed unevenly. Like children complaining that their classmates have extra candy. The whole mindset is petty.
Don't you think that inheritance is a pretty bad way of achieving that? After all, traits like intelligence (which probably dominates the ability to use resources efficiently) are only about 50% heritable.
Why dont we spend more federal funds on gifted children? We watch the trainwreck that is our school system as we fail to match pupils in other countries at senior high school level. The issue is, again, not taxation, on the contrary, we are not spending enough where it counts because of the greed of the entitled.
Outcome and opportunity is a false dichotomy. But if we were to go along with it, isn't a tax on inherited wealth a great way to maintain equality of opportunity?
About merit, I think I know about merit. If you take the public transport at 5:30 in the morning you will see a lot of people that go to work for years for a ridiculous small pay and, that if they stopped doing that, society as we know would stop. That, I think, have a lot of merit.
On the other hand, in any standard corporation, you can find people with huge wages, with company car, that never pay a lunch because they put in the expenses account and that employ its time in political movements to try to go up in the ladder.
Of course, if you think that markets give everyone whatever they deserve, or you have not been in the public transport at 5:30, then, what I'm saying doesn't make any sense.
Leaving the metric to optimize to the optimization process doesn't look a good idea, the same way it's not a good idea to leave the thermostat to choose the temperature.
In my experience, the only people that think that the thermostat it's who should choose the temperature, it's the people that feels very comfortable with the current one and don't care about the comfort of the others in the house. Or, maybe, also the people that grew up in a house without thermostat and thinks, correctly, that anything is better.
First, it's much easier to get a rough idea of how many people states have killed than markets, to be sure. But many wars are fought and nations are conquered (and, for that matter, created) for market-driven reasons: oil, tea, diamonds, slaves, to name a few egregious examples off the top of my head. Millions of people have died throughout history that would not have if states were not acting to protect, expand, or create markets.
Second, while it's probably harder to get a rough idea of how many people states have saved than markets have, the number is not inconsequential. I certainly wouldn't suggest states are forces for unrequited good--there's copious valid criticism of them across the political spectrum--but I would suggest that they're hardly forces for unrequited evil, either.
Care to explain?
[1] ignoring the whole subject about luck and what it means to earn something when two equivalent folks just have different dice rolls go their way, etc. Or especially in the context what it means to earn something when you just inherited it. (I have a bunch of friends who have inheritance coming their way and just totally expect it, they lead very different lives because of that than those I know who don't have that.)
It would have negative consequences besides that. Many, many people do things for "legacy". It's a powerful motivator. Taking away all wealth would eliminate something that encourages good long-term decision making.
It would hurt people who aren't the rich people. What would happen if Sam Walton's net worth was taxed when he died? Massive disruption to Walmart employees at a minimum. How would the net worth be calculated? Well, given his net worth, he'd be irresponsible not to have an army of lawyers and lobbyists making sure the number is as small as possible.
So, given the above, the idea isn't that simple.
Finally, there are ethical implications to that sort of policy. It implies that citizens earn at the pleasure of the government, not that the government rules by the consent of its citizens.