“ Funny thing about the estate tax — — it’s even unpopular among poor people. It simply doesn’t sound FAIR to tax that dollar twice, or to penalize somebody who is inheriting money.”
Adam Grant in Originals cites a study in which poor people are more ready to accept the status quo.
Part of the status quo is a notion that the fabulously rich people got that way fairly, and that it would be unfair to tax some kid’s inheritance just because the kid didn’t earn it — because it would tax those earnings [of the deceased person] twice.
- 1%ers earned their money in a fair system
we should be fair to rich people who earned money in an unfair system
2. Earnings are not new earnings if a new person, the heir, earns them. That is: once one person in a family earns a dollar, when that person bequeaths that dollar to someone who did no work for the dollar, the dollar is not earned again.
3. It is okay for one person to own x% of the money, which represents a portion of finite earthly resources and human labor.
4. Poor people are a good judge of wealth distribution. You cite them as being authorities on the subject when a line of thinking [not mine] says rich people deserve their wealth because they are smarter or more talented or more clever about wealth distribution and complicated systems than poor people. Nevertheless, you seem to think I should agree with no estate tax because some people [even poor people] think it is okay. What kind of of reasoning is that? To accept an idea just because other people accept it?
5. That it is penalizing someone who is inheriting money they didn’t earn to tax them. But it is not penalizing the people around that person to pay for the heir’s schools, the heir’s police, the heir’s military, and the heir’s roads by taxing actual labor.
In just one string of two sentences, you make claims with so many very interesting assumptions.
Studying data is only good if you know what to do with it.