Think about it, what are taxes for? To pay for all the things we share as a people: government, roads, healthcare etc.
If we're getting an equal amount out of the system why is it fair to expect people to pay different amounts into that system. Think about it, If you go out for dinner with friends and all eat the same amount you wouldn't expect to pay the bill based on your incomes.
That's why if you really wanted a "fair" system everyone would pay a flat dollar rate, such as $5000/person. I realize that's not realistic but perhaps we could meet in the middle with a flat tax rate, which would mean rich people would be paying WAY more than poor people. Don't even get me started on tax brackets, you're taxing people for being successful? That's just legalized theft and beyond mental.
Also, why do we never question income tax? That's a relatively new invention, you're telling me I now have to pay money to make money and then ALSO to spend money? That's fucked up, it's double dipping by the government and it's immoral.
It's a form of income redistribution. Power and wealth consolidate under capitalism, tax brackets are an attempt to mitigate this, antitrust laws too. Basically, America is a hybrid of ideas which often seem (and often are) inconsistent with one another.
I'm not convinced wealth should be redistributed to people who don't produce. People who produce the most value should have the most money because they're going to put it into the greatest use.
Power on the other hand, that we can talk about being distributed fairly. Wealth and state should definitely be separated. Public servants should not be getting rich off their positions.
While I don't necessarily support redistribution, certainly not in all forms, I think you make some assumptions when you say
I certainly agree. But are the wealthy in America today inherently the ones producing the most value? And if so, is it for reasons besides that they simply happen to be wealthy?
I think there's a good argument to be made for flat income tax, for all the reasons you state.
On the other hand, I think there's also a good argument to be made for limiting inheritance, as the achievements of one's parents are no reflection on their children. Rich kids using money they didn't earn to make more money off investments doesn't really make them "people who produce the most value", in my opinion. Certainly the royal families of old would be considered "people who produce the most value" in that light.
I agree, inheritance is the least fair way to make money, the recipient did nothing to earn it other than winning the genetic lottery. Also it creates concentrations of unearned wealth over generations. I understand the desire of parents to leave something to their kids and the issue with passing down family-owned businesses that can’t be liquidated or are hard to value, but directionally I would have no problem with a 100% inheritance tax over say $25 million.
I agree flat tax is probably the closest we can hit our lifetime but I don't really agree with inheritance tax. Why is it anyones right to take money from someone just because they were left it by their parents. That was a kind thing their family did for them and broke their backs to do at certain point in the past and now their punished for it?
That doesn't make sense, I think we should just focus on getting rid of taxes, not adding more.
It makes sense because of what you said earlier:
Inheritance completely sidesteps this merit-based distribution that you brought up, which I agree with.
No, they're not punished, they're dead. But in my opinion their children should not be rewarded for the efforts of their parents, or grandparents, or great-grandparents as the case may be.