Tax avoidance by the obscenely wealthy

[Valmy]

Also I am not sure it is even something we should strive for. Corporations and other entities can accumulate wealth and assets over decades but people cannot? Seems like such a system is designed to empower institutions and hamstring individuals. Also most estates are not cash but things like a house. So we take some family's home once grandpa dies? Seems pretty draconian.

But I understand the sense of fairness and incentives it wants to create.

[Tonitrus]

It seems a lot of the problems could be avoided without a wealth tax if you have a significant estate tax (which would include the unrealized gains on assets transferred). And also more teeth in anti trust enforcement/possibly strengthening of laws.

An estate tax is just a wealth tax that is levied only occasionally but at a higher rate.

How about a universal 100% estate tax? 

If one adheres to classic liberal ideology, that would actually be ideal.

I've always thought there were good arguments in favour of it. The notion being that wealth 'ought' to be earned by the person earning it, not merely accumulated. Though the children of the wealthy would get a major boost nonetheless, having grown up with the benefits of having wealthy parents ... after all, given average lifespans, they would be teaching retirement age themselves by the time such a tax would affect their parents.

The main strike against it is the difficulty in preventing the wealthy from getting around it in various ways.

Indeed.  If anything, the spike in gift tax claims would be of space elevator proportions.

[grumbler]

WHY DO LEFTISTS LIKE YOU WANT TO CANCEL CAPITALISM??????? DO YOU NOT SEE POOR PEOPLE CAN FEED THEMSELVES NOW!!!!11111!!

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

1/10, You can't crow over someone pointing out how moronic your trolling is! 

[Admiral Yi]

The main strike against it is it interferes with a person's right to dispose of their accumulated wealth as they so please.

[The Brain]

It seems a lot of the problems could be avoided without a wealth tax if you have a significant estate tax (which would include the unrealized gains on assets transferred). And also more teeth in anti trust enforcement/possibly strengthening of laws.

An estate tax is just a wealth tax that is levied only occasionally but at a higher rate.

How about a universal 100% estate tax? 

If one adheres to classic liberal ideology, that would actually be ideal.

I've always thought there were good arguments in favour of it. The notion being that wealth 'ought' to be earned by the person earning it, not merely accumulated. Though the children of the wealthy would get a major boost nonetheless, having grown up with the benefits of having wealthy parents ... after all, given average lifespans, they would be teaching retirement age themselves by the time such a tax would affect their parents.

The main strike against it is the difficulty in preventing the wealthy from getting around it in various ways.

The main strike against it is that it is a horrible, destructive idea.

[Tonitrus]

The main strike against it is it interferes with a person's right to dispose of their accumulated wealth as they so please.

It doesn't dispose of those rights at all...you have them for the rest of your life.

[grumbler]

I've always thought there were good arguments in favour of it. The notion being that wealth 'ought' to be earned by the person earning it, not merely accumulated. Though the children of the wealthy would get a major boost nonetheless, having grown up with the benefits of having wealthy parents ... after all, given average lifespans, they would be teaching retirement age themselves by the time such a tax would affect their parents.

The main strike against it is the difficulty in preventing the wealthy from getting around it in various ways.

The ways of getting around it can be closed.  Tax tangible gifts over some small threshold as income, for instance.  You could buy your child a car, but not a house.

[grumbler]

The main strike against it is it interferes with a person's right to dispose of their accumulated wealth as they so please.

Since that isn't a right, your objection isn't very persuasive.

[Valmy]

What will the government do with all those houses and boats and assets it takes though?

[DGuller]

The main strike against it is that it is a horrible, destructive idea.

There are so many strikes against this idea that the probability of any strike against it being the main one is exceedingly small.

[grumbler]

The main strike against it is that it is a horrible, destructive idea.

That may be so, but every alternative is even more horrible and destructive, so we need to choose the policy that limits the horror and destruction.

[Valmy]

The main strike against it is that it is a horrible, destructive idea.

Yeah. That is the main thing.

I guess if Disney Corporation loses everything to the state everytime the CEO changes it might be fair. Institutions? Keep your shit forever! Families? Give us all your shit peasants.

[Valmy]

The main strike against it is that it is a horrible, destructive idea.

That may be so, but every alternative is even more horrible and destructive, so we need to choose the policy that limits the horror and destruction.

If you say so.

[The Brain]

The main strike against it is that it is a horrible, destructive idea.

That may be so, but every alternative is even more horrible and destructive, so we need to choose the policy that limits the horror and destruction.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[grumbler]

What will the government do with all those houses and boats and assets it takes though?

What it does with assets acquired through an estate tax now.  It isn't like an estate tax is some new concept.