I asked the question on Twitter, but I don’t know if I’m going to get any real answers or any answers at all over there. Here it is:

What’s the appeal to taxing inheritance differently than other types of income? Aren’t flat taxes bad and regressive?

I’ve occasionally encountered emphatic support for a 100% inheritance tax, but I’m never sure if that’s not really a joke coming out of people’s frustrations with nepotism and generational wealth accumulation. It seems like there are better ways to address those things than making exceptions to the progressive income tax.

  • StructuredPair@lemmy.world
    161·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • clover@slrpnk.net
      91·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • superkret@feddit.de
        4·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      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.