[fighterpilot]

It's quite to me natural to me, and I think Adam Smith is off base here.

If the parents earned that wealth through voluntary exchange, and they didn't do so by exploiting negative externalities, then it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them, start a charity, or give it all to their kids, that's their prerogative.

It follows from the concept of private property. The parents earned that wealth at one point, in that someone voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for subjective utility of equal or greater value.

What right is it of yours to take it away from them just because you don't approve of the way they're spending it? They can buy 500 Ferraris but can't give it to their kids?

In my view it's plain theft dressed up in layers of abstraction and indirection just to hide that fact. (No, not all taxation is theft, as some level is necessary, but swiping half or all of someone's property is).

[LimaBearz]

I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care. I agree ideologically with Adam’s premise though. It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it.

The accumulation of wealth across multiple generations has an extremely long history spanning back centuries of corruption, self dealing, preferentially treatment, and the hoarding of the more desirable assets (land for example) that the heirs did not earn or work for and cannot be enjoyed by a new entrant in the market. Being entitled to something because of your blood is fundamentally unamerican. We fought for our independence from such a system.

This country.. at least as how I was raised was one of grit, hard work, and innovation which determined who you’d be in life. A country where anyone with a novel idea or ruthless cunning can carve out a slice for themselves. The idea of inheritance undermines that, heirs did not earn anything by being born to the right parent, own things they did not work for.

This country is too young to have the problems of some European nations past but I think it’s starting to go that way. I think the founders saw the problems caused by bloodline rule and heirs and didn’t want that here.

There should be no inheritance. The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am. If a parent is wealthy then the kids will enjoy a life of potential high society, connections, and Ivy League educations, but they have to make it for themselves. I stand firmly behind that American ideal

[fighterpilot]

  >  the heirs did not earn or work for.

  >  heirs have an advantage they themselves did not earn, own things they did not work for.

The heirs did earn it, in the same way that anyone earns anything. Agent X voluntarily gave something to agent Y in exchange for something of equal or greater subjective value.

In this case, the parent (X) gave their wealth to their child (Y), and in return they get to satisfy their "empire"- and family- building ambition, which in subjective utility terms to them is superior to alternative uses of that wealth. Perhaps they've been working all their life for this motivation, it drives many people. A perceived level of accomplishment that extends post-death.

That's the nature of a decentralized, high-freedom world. X and Y will often transact and it's not clear what the subjective value exchange is.

As long as that transaction isn't hurting you through negative externalities, it's my opinion that you have no business interfering in that transaction.

  >  I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care.

I believe you do.

If at age 60, they buy 500 Ferraris, that's okay. If at age 60, they instead send that wealth to their kids, that's not okay.

The former transaction (wealth <--> Ferraris) is okay.

The latter transaction (wealth <--> subjective value from family/empire-building) is not okay.

Personally, if I was rich, I would derive much higher subjective value from giving that wealth to my kids than buying 500 Ferraris.

  > The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am.

Charity beneficiaries "don't work" for the money that's given to them. Are they entitled to it more than you?

I would say yes, because it was a voluntary exchange from the charity to that individual. We've no business in interfering in that.

We may think that the purpose of the charity is stupid, but that's the private, decentralized decision that they've come to with their own wealth.

  > It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it.

I don't put too much weight on these broad utilitarian arguments.

In practice, it so often ends with an undesirable outcome. If we did a 100% inheritance tax, do we know the impact on frivolous consumption or people's motivations?

In theory, nobody is really a utilitarian anyway, people's determinations come from biological/a priori frameworks and a subjective sense of fairness and justice with a tinge of impact from jealousy and self-interest (I'm not accusing you of that).

Reasoning from a set of basic axioms which generally, but not always, point in the right direction has a better track record, in my opinion.

  >  (like plots of lands)

A land tax would be great.

[LimaBearz]

It’s hella late so I’ll keep it short. I’ll just say I love the land tax idea. I’ve been toying with that idea in my head. It does seem like it would solve a lot of issues we’ve been facing.

And honestly I’d rather them buy 1000 Ferarris and crash every single one. I don’t even care if it doesn’t go to the government, on a more serious note it could all go to the American Cancer Society or a charity of their choosing, or local municipality…

I’ve personally committed to dying poor. I’ve met trust fund kids (not that I’m anywhere near that level) but money breeds entitlement, especially at a young age where they may not be emotionally ready. That’s not something I want for my kids. We’re all in tech here, we do well enough to corrupt at least a little

And it’s still unamerican.

[thro-a-wei]

I'm conflicted on this one, as I have a non-nuerotypical child who may (or may not) be able to enter the workforce when they grow up. If the US had an acceptable social safety net, I'd be all for 100% inheritance tax. Since the social safety net is threadbare, part of my motivation for gathering wealth is so that my child will have a decent life, even if they may not be able to work a single day of their life.

I guess the impersonal, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps "rugged individualism" aspect of Americanness clashes with family I'll-help-in-every-way-I-can collectivism - how do you square that circle?

[scatters]

> If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them

Then the transaction will be taxed as income for those 1000 people. Gifts to children, particularly adult children, should be similarly taxed as income whether they are passed while the parents are alive or when they die.