[jmpman]

The laffer curve was used to justify lower taxes in order to maximize government revenues. When you look at an individual, you can imagine that each individual would have an optimal laffer curve. Too high of a tax rate, and people aren't incentivized to work for one more dollar. However, we never talk about the laffer curve for dead people. I'd say that it could be about as high as you want to make it, and they're not going to work any more or less for an additional dollar. And their children who inherit that wealth, also.. higher laffer curve. Somehow Republicans don't bring that up when they advocate lower taxes on the rich.

[pyrophane]

A handful of super-rich families got together in the 90s, hired some people to put together a campaign to re-label the estate tax as the death tax and convince everyone it was causing families to lose their small farms, and we haven’t talked seriously about it since.

[JCTheDenthog]

Larger scale family farms that would go over the estate tax minimums make up around 4% of all farms in the US, from what I can find. Disrupting about 4% of farms upon the death of the farmer does in fact seem like a bad idea to me. But thst didn't stop Stalin from liquidating the kulaks.

[jmpman]

What if one person owned all the farms. It would be terrible if a larger scale family farm would go over the estate tax minimum, and would make up 100% of all the farms in the US. Disrupting 100% of farms upon the death of the "farmer" does in fact seem like a bad idea to me. Those kulaks must be protected.

[JKCalhoun]

Trivial. Make an exception for farms?

[JCTheDenthog]

>However, we never talk about the laffer curve for dead people. I'd say that it could be about as high as you want to make it, and they're not going to work any more or less for an additional dollar.

Can you really not imagine that what happens to their wealth after they die, wealth they were presumably accumulating at least in part for their children, would have zero effect on how much they work before they die? Honestly, your argument here comes across as utterly unserious.

[jmpman]

It's partially unserious, but I want people to think and not just repeat dogma. So, let's extend it one generation. The children who inherited their parents wealth. Why not tax that 100%? They're not working, so how would a 100% tax impact their output? What's the difference between a welfare deadbeat and a nepo baby? The bank account their money comes from.