8/16 Question for soda liberals regarding taxing inheritance.
The rationale, as I understand it, for taxing inheritance goes as
follows: "it is not fair that some talentless, unlikeable shmuck has it
easy in life because their parents were rich, while others, much
smarter, people have to work hard for everything and still perhaps not
be as wealthy in the end." Assume I agree with this. Let's consider a
related kind of unfairness. Some people are born more talented than
others. For programmers, being gifted can often translate into orders
of magnitude difference in performance. In some sense, this is as
unfair as being born into money -- it's a complete lottery that
occasionally rewards unscrupulous shmucks, etc. Would you support
tax-on-talent? Also, (as a purely theoretical add-on) assuming we had
the technology to do 'talent redistribution', would you support it on
the same grounds of fairness as income redistribution?
-- ilyas
\_ people who make money based on their talent get taxed on it.
what a stupid premise. -tom
\_ Sure but talent brings less tangible benefits -- the respect of
your peers, academic recognition, etc. Same with things like
attractiveness, having perfect pitch, etc. Perhaps same with
things like being a white male in american society.
Does a certain equalization not seem in order, on grounds of
fairness? -- ilyas
\_ look, I'm sorry you got stuck with that brain, but really
there's nothing that can be done about it. -tom
\_w00t! Go tom!
\_ [ ad hominem deleted ]
\_ you mean like all the promotions, respect and recognition
John Nash got? Talent alone desn't get you shit. I've
seen some pretty brilliant people basically waste away
because that's all they had. This is fundamentally different
from simply being born into the right family in that to
get rich from talent always requires some effort.
\_ Nash's was a sad story with a relatively happy ending.
\_ Tom's point is succinct and exact. Everything below it
is blather. Kill this thread now, because you have been
rebutted.
\_ I agree. One thing that can be added to the discussion
is the well-known American notion of the safety net, which
is supposed to provide hard-working individuals in
hard times with something to live by.
\_ fairness is just part of it. resources should be managed by more
capable and hardworking people. you don't want it to be like good
king passing throne to idiot lazy son. why do you keep asking
these very basic questions.
\_ They may be basic to you, but they are not basic to me. I will
ask about reasons other than fairness some other time. I am
interested in fairness today. I did hear fairness given as a
justification for income redistribution in general, and for
\_ wealth redistribution
inheritance tax in particular. Thus, I am curious how far this
commitment to fairness goes. -- ilyas
\_ Simply put, material things, yes. Innate qualities, no.
Also, harm to one person is only done to benefit another.
Making me blind will not help a blind person.
\_ Ok, but assume you were smart and another person was dumb,
and there was a way to 'suck your smart out' and give some
of it to the dumb person, so now both of you are 'average.'
Will you support that? Also you not being as dumb as the
other guy _is_ hurting him, since you can compete more
effectively for things he wants (jobs, mates, etc.) -- ilyas
\_ I *am* my intelligence. I am not my inheritance.
\_ ilyas just wants to lead dumb people into arguing with him by
creating arguments based upon false dichotomies.
\_ Oh boy, here we go again.
\_ IMO, this question should be written with less of a sense that op
is superior to potential responders, e.g.:
"Tax on inheritance (some people inherit money, some don't).
Tax on talent (some people inherit talent, some don't).
How can you support one and not the other?"
\_ Where did you get this from? I don't consider myself superior to
responders, otherwise I wouldn't try to debate. Debate has to be
between equals or it's not a debate but a lecture. -- ilyas
\_ Then why does it sound like a lecture, although it is
intended as debate? (rhetorical question)
\_ I am asking questions, not normally a part of a lecture.
Would you feel more at ease if I used broken english next
time like Chicom troll? -- ilyas
\_ Socratic method. It is a style which sounds like it
is coming out of a classroom, with you as the
instructor, does it not?
\_ You know, your short version is socratic by that
reasoning. Maybe you just don't like to read long
paragraphs. -- ilyas
\_ ilyas, please argue in good faith, that is,
recognize the merits of what other individuals
are pointing out to you. Be humble. Don't
sound like you know it all, especially on
something that's debatable. I know you're
talking to the liberals, but please try.
\_ Like one of tom's clever zingers above? -- ilyas
\_ His first post was fine. The part about the
brain, well, that WAS on a personal level.
\_ Right, so let's compare. What _could_
have been said: 'I believe unfairness
due to talent is remedied appropriately
by taxation, and no other remedy is
needed' and/or 'integrity of the self is
more important than fiscal fairness.'
Instead I get a bunch of personal shit.
Why are you lecturing ME about how _I_
sound. Go lecture tom and the liberal
goonsquad about arguing in good faith.
You can say what you will about how
I argue, but I at least try to stay
civil. -- ilyas
\_ I argue that anyone would get a
virulent response if they posted with
"question for soda liberals" with an
intention to compare inheritance taxes
with a talent tax. It makes us all
sound stupid, like we can't get the
obvious similarity between the two,
when in fact there is a substantive
difference.
\_ Right, why don't you channel your
concern for the quality of motd
posts into where it's needed most.
-- ilyas
hard times with something to live on.
\_ You mistake the argument. It's not that those inheriting are
unworthy, but successive generations can create a concentration of
money which is akin to inheriting political power. This is (or was)
inconsistant with American ideals. Isn't it better that the wealth
of individuals be based on their individual talents, acumen, luck,
and work ethic? Besides even with taxes, families are left far from
destitute. In addition, vast wealth is made on the backs of a stable
government and the goodwill of the public. Redistibuting that wealth
after the death of that recipient of public graciousness will
promote the betterment of Society in general, and, through our
government, offer a chance for other dynamic individuals to succeed
and advance our society as a whole. Talent, unlike income or wealth,
cannot be accurately measured or determined from one point of time
to another leading to a completely subjective scale. As a point of
taxation, it would be impossible to use as a measure, thus unfair.
\- this touches on some deep questions in political philosophy.
you may wish to look up "wilt chamberlain argument" and
read "anarchy state and utopia" and the article "the procedural
republic and the unencumbered self". my short version of the
"problem with inquity" is that people change the rules of the
game and in some cases equality seem more more desireable
than efficientcy ... it's is ok to pay the talented programmer
more, but should he be given a priority in a heart transplant?
--psb
\_ "Only if it's me or someone I know" is the problem answer.
\_ Vast wealth does not require a stable government or the good
will of the public. If it did then only peaceful democracies
would have rich people.
\_ This is a stupid (and fallacious) argument.
\_ That wasn't even a good dodge. Your reply is useless and
makes no counter point at all. If it was really so
stupid and fallacious you should be able to trivially
refute it in the space you used to descend to the personal.
\_ Alright, first thank you for a good reply. Second, let's look at
the situation using your argument. 'Talent' is clearly an
inherited thing, although its inherited through a less
deterministic mechanism than money, etc. Talent can also cause
you to make more money, possibly very quickly. Money can be
used as a way of obtaining political power. Does this not mean
that simple genetic inheritance of traits useful in modern
society is contrary to the American ideal of prohibiting the
inheritance of political power (although admittedly in a less
direct way than inheriting money). -- ilyas
\_ [your wish is my command]
\_ You are selectively taking one part of his argument
and hammering on that, while overlooking the rest.
Is there any precedent for taxing of intangable assets
like knowledge? Do you get taxed if you learn something
from reading a book?
\_ Dude, I am not even disagreeing with him. I just want to
know where he stands. If he thinks talent is against
American ideals, that's interesting. If he thinks
talent is different from money in this respect, that's
also interesting. Why is everything about violence with
you? Relax. We are having a nice chat. -- ilyas
\_ "I'm calmer than you are, Dude." Seriously, what's
your answer to my question, Mr. "I always debate
in good faith?" Taxation of inheritence is an obvious
extension of taxation of other forms of income. What
would be an analog to taxation of talent? What is an
example when some similar intangible asset is taxed?
\_ As stated, talent may or may not be inherited and may or may
be a learned trait. However, the American ideal does not
FORCE inheritants to follow in the steps of their parents.
Not all of the talented have the desire, will, luck, or work
ethic to find monetary or political success using their
talents. This make it a fallacy to tax talent before some form
of success and assumes that even a successful use of talent
automatically leads to monetary success. Taxation of assumed
talent leads to a tyranny of those who "judge" and makes
sons and daughters slaves to their parents' legacy. This
belies the judgement of individuals on their own merits, while
not always socially possible, but held as an American ideal.
\_ it's easy to put a price tag on an inherited house; it's harder
to put a price tag on talent. Sometimes the value of "talent"
is negative -- e.g. if you accept that "talent" is correlated
with a higher risk of suicide. Would Alan Turing owe money
to the government, or does he deserve a refund? -- misha.
\_ I am not sure the value of Turing's talent is negative... and
he surely didn't end up like he did because he was talented, but
because he was gay (and the UK gvt were assmonkeys). It's true
that it's hard to put a value on
talent, but let's say we could, and let's say its usually
positive (both big assumptions). -- ilyas
\_ I do not agree with your assumptions. I do not see how
you can defend any specific tax amount -- e.g. in Turing's
case. -- misha.
\_ You may have noticed that this isn't an entirely practical
question to begin with. I am curious about an underlying
moral commitment, so I am asking about a non-real situation
where we _had_ a way to accurately determine value. If
you don't like that setup, how about sticking a big alarm
in smart people's ear, and weights on graceful people's
legs, like in that Kurt Vonnegut story, so we get a level
playing field? I am curious, ultimately, about where the
quest for a level playing field ends, and boundaries
(be they for property, integrity of the self, etc.) begin.
-- ilyas
\_ I would argue that many in the far left ARE in
favor of an inherited talent tax, although they
wouldn't put it that way. How much education your
parents had is taken into account in Affirmitive
action stuff, since it's true statistically that
people who's parents are educated will tend to be
educated themselves.
\_ That seems grossly unfair. My family makes sure
to send all their kids to the best schools they
can no matter how much it hurts the rest of the
family so it seems only right to take race into
account when deciding things like FA.
\_ Assuming a perfect method of measuring talent, there
should be no way of forcing individuals to exploit that
talent against their will. Comparing money to talent as
a concept is flawed. It's force vs. potential energy.
The waste of talent, while tragic, is not enough to
destroy an individual's rights. Vonnegut takes the
wrong extreme POV. Instead of disadvantaging the
talented, society should aid the disadvantaged.
\_ Liberals are in favor of inheritance tax as long as they don't
have to pay it. For example: Ted Kennedy. |
http://csua.com/feed/