From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 12:03:54 MDT
owner-extropians@extropy.org wrote:
> Rafal writes
>
>>>> ### Massively progressive inheritance tax is collected from dead
>>>> people, and distributed evenly as a dowry at maturity, giving
>>>> everybody a level playing field.
>>>
>>> Rafal, I'm quite surprised by this proposal. It would appear to
>>> require either (a) one "promote" that people should "die"; and/or
>>> (b) some "fixing" of the legal playground such that when you enter
>>> cryonic suspension ones assets are taxed (or worse confiscated) in
>>> some way.
>>
>> ### Well, this is not meant to be the only possible source for
>> capital for the poor, merely a remark that assuming that taxation is
>> indeed necessary (and this is a big if), taxation of the dead (as in
>> really dead, rotten and disintegrated) is less damaging than the
>> taxation of the living. Of course, if nobody dies (or if everybody
>> gets frozen), this expedient would be denied to the would-be poor
>> people's benefactor.
>
> The problem is, as always, one of incentives. Your proposal would
> give rich people less incentive to amass wealth. "Well, you can't
> take it with you", they would very well say.
>
> Things work best when people are free to do what they want with their
> money, even seeing to what happens to it after they are dead.
>
### If you were forced to choose between taxing the living rich (which as we
very well know, tends to lessen their incentives to get richer), and taxing
dead rich people, which would you choose?
By all means, I am willing to agree that taxation for redistributive
purposes (as opposed to possible taxation for anti-monopoly reasons) is bad,
no matter what the vital state of the taxed.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 09:10:37 MDT