Given that 70-80% of people in the US will inherit nothing under the current system, any inheritance tax largely only affects those that have generations wealth to begin with. The exceptions might be things like the family farm as small farmers trends to be rather can poor, but with our current healthcare system, I don't think it is likely they could hold onto the farm until death unless they die by suicide or farming accident.
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
18 points (95.0% liked)
Economics
1736 readers
3 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm pro 100% inheritance tax for any amount over 2 million. 2 million is arbitrary, but the thinking is you could pass on a family farm or modest primary residence. It's enough that your partner/offspring could live comfortably but not extravagantly.
A family farm is usually worth a lot more though. And the same issue pops up with privately owned businesses.
You often need a lot of "wealth" tied into your business assets to even make a modest living off it for you and your family.
Adding a 100% bracket just seems like a more coherent and consistent approach than trying to parse different types of income. In a similar sense, I don't think capital gains should be taxed at a different rate than other income either.
I don't think anyone legitimately calls for a flat 100% inheritance tax across the board. But if that we're the case then it wouldn't be regressive since it's affecting everyone equally regardless of the wealth they stood to inherit. In practice, the wealthy would have a lot of incentive to hide assets through illegitimate means or loopholes which would make it effectively regressive if the less wealthy do not have the means to do the same.
On the other hand, a 100% marginal rate make more sense as an interpretation of what you're saying (I haven't heard it suggested so I'm just guessing). eg. After 20 or 50 million or whatever threshold the rate is 100% to avoid generational "empires" from being passed on. In that case, that's just a very progressive tax.
In both situations, the tax can be used to lessen wealth inequality but the first is a bit more of a social decision instead of just a means of reducing inequality.
I always thought that flat taxes are regressive because they hit poorer people harder even before accounting for the various tax avoidance schemes available to the wealthy. For example, 20% means a lot more to someone who only brings in $50 thousand per year than someone who brings in $50 million.
You're right in thinking that in practice, but to my understanding it's usually in context of "equal pain" so a 20% tax burden on income would be equally "painful" to the poor and wealthy (without accounting for avoidance).
When you're talking about a sales tax on necessities like food and shelter then an equal rate is regressive because it represent a larger share of the poor person's available income.
Okay, I understand now. Yes, compared to a flat sales tax, a flat income tax in not regressive.
You're assuming marginal cash has the same value for everyone. It doesn't. Losing 20% at the top bracket might barely be felt. Maybe can't buy quite as many classic cars for the collection, or can only have eight yahts, instead of nine. But at the bottom, that 20% can mean the difference between being able to make rent and ending up homeless, or between being able to pay the power bill or not. It can be the difference between having to get a payday loan or not (and thus cause a loss of considerably more than 20%).
Look up the term "marginal utility" for an academic treatment of the subject.
I'm not assuming that. I'm just explaining the rationale behind tax progressivity. A 20% flat income tax is not regressive by definition. It sucks but its not regressive because that term refers to something specific.
I'm well aware of what marginal utility is and why it's not really equal pain which is why I used the quotes.