[JAlexoid]

There's a reason why countries, like Sweden, have scrapped the inheritance tax - it doesn't work like that anymore.

The benefits of wealth are exercised long before the inheritance can be applied.

Your first home down payment, your education, your wealth generation while being on support by your parents, etc. - will push you off the ground faster, than any inheritance in a world where people easily live to 80-90. Most people hit retirement age, by the time their parents pass away.

[boxed]

> The benefits of wealth are exercised long before the inheritance can be applied.

Agreed.

But isn't that an argument FOR a strong inheritance tax? Because inheritance doesn't actually help your children anyway? That seems like it was your argument.

With that argument taking 100% of the inheritance as tax and taking 0% is exactly the same, as the wealth transfer was done before anyway.

[JAlexoid]

The only thing that I personally care about is the ability of ordinary people to build and retain wealth.

Wealth disparity doesn't grow because wealthy people are allowed to retain their generational wealth or not, it grows because the rest can't build and retain their wealth.

This isn't a zero sum game.

PS: I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes. So I would rather the children of wealthy people squander their wealth, than a politician transfer that wealth to their patron.

[boxed]

> The only thing that I personally care about is the ability of ordinary people to build and retain wealth.

Why? Just "having wealth" isn't important in itself, it's just a number in a computer. So there is something else you are trying to get at. What is it?

> Wealth disparity doesn't grow because wealthy people are allowed to retain their generational wealth or not, it grows because the rest can't build and retain their wealth.

Disparity happens when two groups diverge. That's what disparity means. As long as the richest have a higher growth rate, the disparity grows.

> This isn't a zero sum game.

That's a different conversation though. You talked about wealth disparity, not about quality of living or something. THERE it's not a zero sum game. But in wealth disparity it is by definition a zero sum game.

> I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes.

But you would trust the wealthy? Ok.. but...

> So I would rather the children of wealthy people squander their wealth, than a politician transfer that wealth to their patron.

So you don't trust the wealthy either?

I don't understand what you are arguing at this point.

[johnnyanmac]

>Wealth disparity doesn't grow because wealthy people are allowed to retain their generational wealth or not,

Yeah it does. The way compounding interest works means at some point that your passive accumulation of savings will outpace what most workers can earn as a salary. You can't really combat that by throwing more money at workers.

It's just mathematically impossible to let wealth run rampant in an individual like that and expect everyone to keep up with their limited hours of energy.

>This isn't a zero sum game.

It isn't. But with modern labor habits the billionaires want to make it one. That's why there isn't such thing as an 'earned billionaire'. They take from workers, lobby government to pay less, engage on anti-competitive behavior, or outright commit crimes to get to that point. The best case billionaire merely inherits the wealth and lets it accumulate, but I don't see many people like that these days who also don't fall into the other points.

>I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes.

Well someone has to. The us government has most things in record, so they are the easiest to audit.

This is more a sign that we need to pay more attention to politics and trustworthy figures who will self regulate. As in, pass laws that hold them and future policy makers in check.

[shoubidouwah]

> I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes

thus the importance of the sovereign fund.

[analog31]

A straightforward wealth tax would address this.

[sam_lowry_]

Something akin to a Zucman tax, a yearly tax on capital.

EU made this easy with the UBO register, it takes just political will.

[sam_lowry_]

Sweden is on of the most unequal countries in the world )

[rsynnott]

While Sweden does fairly well on income inequality, it has _extremely_ high wealth inequality for a developed country; it's pretty much the worst in Europe and just a little behind the US.

So it's, er, probably not a great model case here.

[johnnyanmac]

I don't see the problem with GP' solution here, though. Unless socialism is to be frowned upon. It won't fix upbringing, but knowing there's some income coming when you cone of age can help shape your post secondary education and housing habits.

You can perform a "child fund to the parents instead if you need earlier impact. And maybe we will need that as an incentive as 1st world populations decline. But it might not make a difference based on the spending habits of the parent.

[boxed]

I'm pretty sure we scrapped it because the conservatives got into power.

[JAlexoid]

Cool.

Inheritance tax doesn't work anymore, in any case.

It's not the 19th century and we shouldn't try fixing 21 century issues with 19th century remedies.

[johnnyanmac]

If you have a better idea then I'm all ears. But dismissing a long established solution without an alternative makes it sound like you prefer the status quo.

[boxed]

"doesn't work" for what purpose? It surely has SOME effect. Otherwise people wouldn't be against it.

[sam_lowry_]

Wealth tax is all the rage, now.

A yearly tax of a few percent on all capital assets.

[SiempreViernes]

> Leif Pagrotsky, som då var näringsminister, har i efterhand avslöjat att avskaffandet av arvsskatten var en eftergift från Regeringen Persson till Svenskt Näringsliv

Well, not quite.

[silexia]

Pointing out here this comment wants to hold the successful back, not advance the poor. It's not a zero sum game.

[johnnyanmac]

Look at the modern labor market and tell me they aren't trying their darndest to make it one.

And yes, we should "hold back the successful". Taking 99% of a billion dollars still lands someone with a career's worth of savings to tap into. That's how utterly ahead they are. And it's clear they used that power to ransack the nation. So be luck "holding them back" is the only stipulation here.

[JAlexoid]

It would be nice if you didn't put words in my mouth, but even HN is the internet

[ryandrake]

By the time the treasure hoard gets passed on to the next generation, the inequality "damage" has already been done. If an inheritance tax has to be applied, this means society has already failed to stop runaway wealth accumulation and inequality.

I'd much rather we have checks in place to stop individuals from accumulating megawealth in the first place (or at least slow it down), rather than relying on an inheritance tax which takes effect long after the accumulation happened.

[johnnyanmac]

>If an inheritance tax has to be applied, this means society has already failed to stop runaway wealth accumulation and inequality.

Yes. And we are already on "too late" mode. So we should go with the 2nd best solution because the best one (actually taxing billionaires) won't work retroactively.

>I'd much rather we have checks in place to stop individuals from accumulating megawealth in the first place (or at least slow it down), rather than relying on an inheritance tax which takes effect long after the accumulation happened.

Both would be nice. I don't see this as mutually exclusive. Though proper wealth taxes will lessen the need for inheritance tax. But not in all cases.