[IkmoIkmo]

It's funny the people championing 'incentives for work', thereby turning 'redistribution of wealth' into some kind of mortal sin, simultaneously brand inheritance (redistribution of wealth by bloodright/nepotism) as a 'death tax' and act as if it's the worst thing ever.

I'd be a lot more inclined to be a bigger proponent for incentive based economies if we all started on a level playing field with equal opportunity. The reality is far from it, and we get phenomena like the working poor, millions of people with jobs, sometimes multiple, who can barely scrape by, in the same economy where others are born literally a millionaire without any basis in merit.

Obviously there has to be a balance in incentives, but I'm inclined to say the US has lost some sense of that balance.

[floppydisk]

> It's funny the people championing 'incentives for work', thereby turning 'redistribution of wealth' into some kind of mortal sin, simultaneously brand inheritance (redistribution of wealth by bloodright/nepotism) as a 'death tax' and act as if it's the worst thing ever.

I think you're conflating two ideas. Redistribution of wealth, in my understanding, means taking from Peter to pay Paul regardless of what Paul did. Inheritance on the other hand is Peter accumulated value (money) but decided to save it or invest it rather than outright spend it and gifted it forward.

The difference between the two is the level of coercion. In the former, the government is deciding who gets what from whom and how much in a roundabout way. In the latter, the individual who accumulated the value is deciding whom gets what and how much.

> in the same economy where others are born literally a millionaire without any basis in merit.

If the millionaires wish to remain millionaires, the money cannot be idle. It has to be invested in value producing activities that generate a return. If they just spend it, they won't be millionaires for long (see NFL stars going broke right after they get out of the league for an example).

[IkmoIkmo]

> The difference between the two is the level of coercion.

I'm not debating the role of the state here, I'm showing that two people are born, one with $10m and one with $0, and that it's ridiculous to argue from such a state of reality that one ought to have a fully incentive based economy when one never has to work a day in their life (except walk to a bank, say '30% in the S&P 500 please, 30% in gold please, 30% in US treasuries please and 10% in a money market account please', and collect his check for the rest of his life), and the other can work 2 jobs like many millions of Americans do and barely scrape by. You'd agree that this is a flawed system, no?

That's a flawed system, and the solution is simple, the government employs coercion. I can't be against that as long as the coercion is on moral grounds, just like coercion is employed in many other situations (e.g. taxation, or prohibition of buying a slave for 10 years even if that person is willing) You mention coercion as if it's inherently a bad thing. Inheritance tax can level the playing field a little bit, where say instead of one kid, through no merit of his own, inherits $10m by bloodright and the other $0, one can inherit $1m (a gigantic advantage) and 9.000 others inherit $10k (a small advantage). That's redistribution of wealth and it's as much 'coercion' as a regular tax rate.

It's not a perfect solution (without flaws) or a complete solution (one that solves every problem), but inheritance tax makes a lot of sense and I reiterate, it's funny people being so hypocritical about it.

[epsylon]

> If the millionaires wish to remain millionaires, the money cannot be idle. It has to be invested in value producing activities that generate a return.

So what? Investing is not giving. Investing may generate wealth, but if there's no redistribution, the rich will get richer and the poor will stay poor.