ggait wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 6:59 pm
Death taxes are moral abominations. No one let alone an amorphous government has the right to take your property when you die.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a sanctimonious elitist looozah who couldn’t get a girl in a Kansas City whorehouse.
Thx.
The first inheritance tax was installed by the Egyptians.
Greeks and Romans had them too.
So did medieval Europe.
The first federal inheritance tax in the USA was implemented in 1796 to raise funds to fight Napoleon.
OECD countries with an inheritance tax today include Japan, SK, France, UK, USA, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc. etc.
Petey's absolute dumb ass moronic ignorant trollery is an abomination. And downright embarrassing.
El caiman es muy stupido.
Very interesting and informative series of posts, ggait.
Thanks, from those of us actually interested in rationale discourse.
Trolls should be ignored.
I thought it was an interesting question when posed, did not assume it to be taking a position, at least not stridently, in either direction.
The question, as I understood it, was what is the policy perspective, today, that favors an inheritance transfer tax, structured as it is, given that the wealth being transferred had already been taxed, at least to some extent (typically)...the presumption being that there needs to be a policy rationale for a tax beyond simply 'we need more money'. Perhaps I didn't understand that correctly, but that was my take. Indeed, one possible policy perspective was posed as a potential response, the "unjust" transfer of overwhelming advantage between generations. I think that's actually correct, our American 'mythology' of a 'equal opportunity' society is belied by intergenerational transfers of massive wealth with the beneficiaries having done nothing more than be born 'lucky'.
We can go much deeper into that mythology and it's, at least IMO, virtuous benefits to the attraction of being an American citizen and the powering of, at least up until now, the world's leading economy.
But massive inheritance wealth transfer is understandably seen as self-defeating to that aspirational mythology, thus this is the policy justification.
On the other hand, there's little doubt that the person generating the wealth accumulation in the first place often does so in large part to indeed transfer whatever advantages they can to their family or other beneficiaries. So, the counter policy rub is to not discourage the creative, risk taking, hard work in the first place, for most people...which is what the exclusions are intended, and do, accomplish.
Interesting discussion.
That's quite the statement to unpack. 
