Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
You don't think people who don't own any property can be happy and live productive lives? Why should it matter to them who owns the property they rent?
Just curious about this - how would you feel about a society which is completely capitalist, protects private property, etc, is similar to the current US system except in two ways. There are no taxes (on anyone living), and there is no inheritance. The government is funded by proceeds of the estates of people who have died.
I'm going to guess that you think that would be a terrible system, but why wouldn't it be perfectly fair? I would love that system - I would get the good things I like about the government without ever paying taxes! Why should I care what happens to my stuff after I die? I honestly currently have no idea what will happen to my stuff (or my money) after I die, and I couldn't care less about it. I think productive people who run businesses and become rich are great, but I see no reason why anyone should be rich just because their ancestors were good at making money.
No i think the abolition of private property rights in full always automatically leads to the abolition of all other kinds of freedom.
The reason being that you need a truly totalitarian state to enforce the abolition of property rights, and that only happens if many other freedoms don't exist at all.
As for your proposal to move all fiscal revenue to inheritance, it has a lot of huge problems, practical ones before moral.
If you aren't taxed in life but are taxed at death, how do you deal with gifts while alive? Because people will give to their children (or other people they care about) in life if there are no other taxes, dodging a lot of that tax. If instead you can't give to children or people you care about while alive, you are removing one of the most important property rights, which is to be able to benefit whomever you care about with it.
You also need to abolition foundations and everything close to that in order for that tax to work.
Then there is the much more basic and practical series of real life problems like, one spouse only works, he dies, the non working one now co owns his house with the state? How do you deal with that, the state gets rent from the widow?
You are basically going to destroy the possibility of a person to care for his current dependants. Adult children with disability, non working spouses, minor children.
Then there is the issue of non listed companies. You want the state to own them? Or to auction them off even if the timing isn't right and they just lost their key man? A father can't prepare his son to take over in the family business, the state takes it all away? Do you realize how much value would get destroyed that way?
Even small inheritance tax generate vigorous attempts to elude them which change behavior, so you should fully expect a whole industry dedicated uniquely to avoid paying that tax if you implement it. Instead of accountants and the like you get hundreds of thousands of professional spending all their working life to help people plan ahead of inheritance tax. How do you think that's going to work out?
Basically when you think of a new tax (or a very much higher rate on an existing one), always think in terms of people who will dedicate their whole career to make it as hard as possible for that tax to be collected.
Another option, which would require the state to change laws dramatically, would simply be for you to buy insurance with all your savings. An insurance doesn't need to have a high payout, you are 81, you buy a lump sum life insurance with beneficiaries your wife and your children, for the same amount of the lump sum + accrued interest - expenses.
How do you deal with that? Make life insurance illegal? Make life insurance illegal over age of x? Tax it? So we are back at "non only inheritance is taxed".
And this is what I thought about in 5 min brainstorming it, now think 500k people working 2000 hours per year with that as their only career goal
Last edited by Luciom; 03-18-2024 at 08:08 AM.