Home Community General Discussion Forum Inheritance Tax

Inheritance Tax

This topic contains 2 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Xerographica 6 months, 1 week ago.

  • #10413

    Xerographica
    Participant

    A liberal posted this story on Medium… It’s inheritance that is immoral, not inheritance tax. Here’s my reply

    On the one hand, Jemima and Edward would spend their £1,000,000 inheritance to start a deplorable sweatshop in Mozambique. On the other hand, the government would spend their inheritance on schools, health, social care and any number of other wonderful things.

    Except, at least here in the US, the government doesn’t only spend people’s money on wonderful things. Our government has spent and continues to spend gazillions of dollars on killing people.

    Now, if you could somehow guarantee that the government won’t spend people’s inheritance on war… then you’d be acknowledging that we can’t trust the value judgements of elected representatives. If we can’t trust that they won’t waste people’s money on unnecessary wars… then we can’t trust that they won’t waste people’s money on bridges to nowhere.

    If Jemima and Edward did spend their money to build a sweatshop in Mozambique… then it would be up to each and every consumer to decide for themselves, with their own money, whether or not the sweatshop was deplorable… or wonderful. If you thought it was deplorable… then you’d be free to boycott it. Nobody would force you to spend your money on something that you thought was deplorable.

    Your freedom to exercise your own judgement with your own money is exactly how and why the market works. Unfortunately, this really isn’t how the government works.

    And I doubt that you’re going to believe me, but everything that’s fundamentally wrong with the world is the result of preventing people from deciding for themselves, with their own money, whether something is deplorable or wonderful.

    When you prevent nearly everybody from directly valuating endeavors… the logical and detrimental result is that a massive amount of money will be regularly wasted on deplorable endeavors.

    I just noticed a ladybug larvae randomly crawling on my laptop. Guess it hitched a ride on me when I took out the trash. I took the time to carefully coax it onto a napkin, take it outside, and carefully coax it onto a plant.

    Maybe one day you’ll understand and appreciate the incredible benefit of people having the freedom to spend their own time and money to nurture and support and care for the things that they consider to be wonderful.

  • #10430
    James
    TheCaniac
    Participant

    I see it as a double tax. You’ve already paid taxes your whole life, and then you get taxed for growing an estate and leaving it to your heirs. However, with the limits in place, those who will find themselves subject to an estate tax should have enough means to prepare themselves using insurance to create that liquidity immediately upon death. It’s not right, but it can be mediated.

  • #10474

    Xerographica
    Participant

    TheCaniac, yes, you’re correct. But from the liberal perspective, taxes are good so a double tax is even better! From my perspective, the root of the problem isn’t the taxing… it’s the bundling.

    A liberal replied to my Medium post. Here’s my reply

    Rich people give their money to pro-war think tanks? At least they don’t give my money to pro-war think tanks.

    Imagine if donors to PETA and donors to the NRA pooled their money and elected representatives to decide how to divide the pool of money between the two organizations. Do you think that this would be a good idea? Of course not.

    What if vegetarians and meat-eaters pooled their money and elected representatives to decide how to divide the pool of money between the meat industry and the vegetarian industry? Do you think that this would be a good idea? Of course not.

    What if peace-lovers and war-lovers pooled their money and elected representatives to decide how to divide the pool of money between war and peace? Do you think that this would be a good idea? Of course!

    Personally, I agree with Jeremy Corbyn that taxpayers should be free to boycott war…

    The Italian Parliament has draft legislation before it that would allow Italian taxpayers to divert a proportion of their tax from the armed services to peace building, and there are three relevant petitions before this House. Given the huge rebuilding costs that will fall to this country and others in Kosovo and elsewhere where there has been conflict, perhaps we should have a peace-building fund that could invest in conflict resolution, reconstruction and trying to prevent terrible wars and civilian conflicts.
    British taxpayers have a right of conscience not to participate in the armed forces in time of conscription and should have a similar right in time of peace to ensure that part of their tax goes to peace, not war. — Jeremy Corbyn, Taxpayers (Conscience)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.