Would a very low income tax and a very high inheritance tax please everybody?

[Baobab]

adjust the world to the job-less future that's right around the corner. It would be paired by hard limits on pork spending and a policy that shared that wealth mostly with everybody who was born here but in part also tried to eliminate poverty and address illness. Also, taxes on polluters would be astronomical.

So, there would be hard and fast limits on how much could be passed on to children, and they would be an effective tax rate of >90% on inheritance over a certain amount.(picking an amount out thin air, maybe $10M. However during life, taxes on the wealthy would be basically fairly low like they are now and people who were not wealthy would pay no taxes, however people would be expected to do volunteer work - for example, teaching other people the skills they have if that is appropriate or in some cases, when it was of historical interest, putting down their life experience in some preservable form so it would not be lost. Also, people who wanted to could continue in education learning and teaching and doing research. A sizable amount of society's resources would be focused on research in academia.

There we would attempt to tackle areas of knowledge which needed more understanding. For example we would continue the attempt to figure out the problems of aging and death and to develop practical means of interplanetary and interstellar space travel. (NASA's budget would finally be increased!)

Necessities of life would be free including education, food and health care. Decent housing would be manufactured, warm, cozy and very affordable. Since nobody would need to work unless they actually wanted to do something interesting and positive with their lives, society would be a lot happier and more invested in things like pure science and learning of all kinds, especially engineering, medicine and the arts. Money would exist but be de-emphasized due to the very high inheritance taxes. Everybody would get the same health care, so there would be no gap between rich and poor in lifespans.

Robots would do most work and get better and better and eventually become intelligent like us and at the same time people would likely be incorporating lots of technology from them into our own bodies so the transition would be more natural. There would be laws against killer robots and drones and also warfare would be viewed as a crime against all humanity. Tolerance for all religions, races and species would be attempted and codified into law. One of our highest priorities would be preventing any more species extinctions both on land and in sea. Contraception would be universally available and because of the rising level of education its expected that people would not increase in population, that instead the population would stay around the same or fall slightly. (That's what is happening in well-educated developed countries if you ignore immigration.) The key feature is the elimination of concentration of wealth across generations.

If we don't do that we will soon have a society where a shrinking number of very wealthy own everything and everybody else owns less and less and finally, nothing.

This is because technology is increasing exponentially, the more we learn, the faster we learn more. So, for example, its totally ridiculous for politicians to pretend that people will be able to continue working much later in their careers as a response to fiscal pressures. With all things continuing as they are today, in 30 years or so most people will be unemployed and facing life without employment. While at the same time the concentration of wealth will make some families extremely wealthy, many more will starve of no fault of their own. Barring a very significant effort to raise the general level of education to far beyond where it is today, very few people will work - unless they excel in their fields, increasingly they simply wont be needed-so the argument that some people deserve more than others will become more and more questionable.

(I think that a push to obfuscate these facts are driving a lot of very bad policy today.)

[meaculpa2011]

1. My wife and I are in the process of transferring...

most of our assets to our children.

Hopefully, we have many more years together, but when the time comes we hope to leave our children nothing.

[Baobab]

2. Because you will already have given them everything before you die?

I think that for the prevention of extreme concentration of wealth that would have to be treated the same as inheritance. Otherwise, you're right, many wealthy people would just figure out myriad ways around taxation and use them.

I suppose what I am promoting is a society where we relied on everybody having a stake in it - as in an ownership stake, and the current way of treating people as if they had no intrinsic 'stake' or equity in society would end.

People seem to think they have an ownership stake in jobs but they clearly don't as shown by back room policy.

More generally, work as we know it today is vanishing, we will not be able to go on the way we are now that far into the future.

The model is already in a state of advanced dysfunction. We need to be discussing the changes that are happening more honestly.

[meaculpa2011]

6. Universal Basic Income for all...

so that those who wish to work can and those who do not wish to work will not need to work.

Once the infrastructure for ALL means-tested income support and subsidies is dismantled (at every government level) there will be plenty of money left over to provide a UBI for every adult American.

I love my work. I could have retired years ago but I choose to continue working.

There are people who hate work. There is no societal benefit that accrues from forcing them to work or shoving them into the means-tested social welfare system.

All of the world's problems could be solved if people would simply do as I advise.

[MillennialDem]

10. I hate work and I'm 35. FML for the next 25-35 years

[IamMab]

3. I read The Culture books too. It's not right around the corner, sorry. nt

[Baobab]

17. Sorry, never heard of said books, its just fairly well known fact in the scientific community

that these changes are happening and there has been a growing call to society to acknowledge and plan for the situation.

[IamMab]

21. I think you mean "science fiction community." nt

[JSup]

4. I don't know...

...it's kind of hard to get a lot of support for a tax that goes against one of the most driving forces of evolution; ensuring the advantage of one's offspring.

I have no offspring, nor any money to leave any imaginary ones, but if I did I imagine I would try to find any way possible to assist my children after my passing.

[Baobab]

5. People could leave their children up to around $10 million in today's money

Remember, there would be very little/no work, also, wages would likely be low, because of globalization, equal pay for equal work, but most "necessities" would be completely free. Without the high tax on inheritance, we will soon have a world where almost everybody is excluded and gradually pushed off the economic map because there wont be income from work. Just inheritance/investments - money which accrues to people who dont work due to things their ancestors did in the distant past, while billions will starve or more likely be killed in endless warfare or even genocide.

What is the purpose of money, anyway, isn't it to reward people for doing work?

[1939]

9. Reward people for economic activity

If I buy from a wholesale outfit and sell to you at retail, I have not done much work, but i have made money. Selling manual labor is only one way to engage in economic activity and be rewarded with money.

[Baobab]

22. People would need a way to bypass that because they will not have practically any income

otherwise, how do you decide who gets what?

Almost nobody in the world will be working. Machines will do 99% of what humans do today.

[Baobab]

23. mental labor will be done by machines too, much better than most people do because AIs

will pay attention to every detail.

People get bored doing most kinds of scriptable jobs.

On the other hand, people do enjoy puzzles, like those in the sciences.

People will get paid once their work is unique.

[JSup]

14. Sometimes I read too fast...

...as I missed the $10 million in your OP. Current inheritance taxes never hurts the people with millions to leave their children; the tax always gets the children of parents that worked their way out of poverty. But then everything in our world seems designed to hurt people that work their way out of poverty like how everything has a monthly fee now and like how (in my example) our gas bill from winter is so high that we spend all Spring and Summer paying it down in 'easy monthly installments' before Winter starts it all over again.

But my example is somewhat derailing the intent of your post and I don't want to do that.

The situation that you propose (and that I also believe will come to pass) is scary but we also don't know what additional awful things they have in plan for us peasants. Dual-income households used to be a way to get ahead but, as with everything, once enough people choose something it ceases to be a choice for others and now dual-income households are necessary to maintain the household. The 'market' will always find a way to hold us down.

[scscholar]

29. It's more xianism than evolution...

that drives that disgusting hoarding.

[1939]

31. So the Sultan of Turkey living large 1500-1900

was a devout Christian and hoarded all that wealth because of his religious teaching.

[JSup]

49. Oh, he meant 'Christian'!

I thought he was spelling 'zionism' wrong.

I saw an unfamiliar word and used the power of phonetics like in kindergarten; zye-un-izm

[1939]

50. Naw

"Xtian" is the way they diminish Christianity.

[JSup]

56. With the 't'...

...I would have known what he meant and would have thought of him as anti-Christian instead of anti-Semitic. Spelling, even of faux words, is our friend!

[hunter]

7. So long as there is poverty, all taxes should be steeply progressive.

We can talk about lowering taxes when everyone has a comfortable home, healthy food, appropriate medical care, a good education, a non-abusive workplace, and paid educational opportunities for those whose work has been outsourced or rendered obsolete by automation.

The wealthy of this country don't reinvest their money in ways that make the world a better place, instead they play elaborate games with money, and have bought the mass media and the political process.

[MillennialDem]

11. UBI fixes most of these things

[1939]

24. Except for the "non-abusive workplace"

that is what you get in the Army.

[Baobab]

41. thats the idea, by doing this, since everybody dies, there would no longer be poverty

the alternative is everybody being in poverty except a very very few who will be so rich that they own more and more of everything, thats the path we're on now.

[trotsky]

8. No. Income taxes have to be progressive.

It's only fair - the more you make, the more you should owe the system that provided the framework for you to be successful, and that will protect your assets from devaluation and theft.

[MillennialDem]

12. I would be ok with a flat tax IF capital gains were treated identically to income and there was

no social security cap.

[trotsky]

13. I guarantee you, the rich would still come out ahead...

and the rest of us behind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/26/the-flat-tax-falls-flat-for-good-reasons/

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/11/Heres-Problem-GOPs-Flat-Tax-Proposals

[MillennialDem]

15. Most flat tax analysis only looks at income (as opposed to capital gains and payroll). Now, I know

if a flat tax was passed, it would be done in such a way that would fuck the poor and middle class. This is more "what I support in theory, but not in practice).

Also in my theoretical example, everyone would get a very large but flat return (ie like $30,000). We would call it UBI :p

[Baobab]

19. There would likely be no middle class because all the middle class type jobs would be automated

or pay "minimum wage" however everybody would be able to afford a middle class lifestyle of today plus top quality health care, because once the ultra rich died their kjds would get more than most people but not so much that wealth would concentrate as it will under the current plan which will result in a tiny number of people, less than 10% controlling everything and everybody else having nothing within 50 years - its accelerating very quickly.

[1939]

28. And if you could ponly pass $10 million down to your kids

how many estates would have more than $10 million in them? Once you get to $10 million, quit striving and live on the dividends. Anything more, the government gets and why exert yourself for them?

[MillennialDem]

36. $10 million is way more than enough to live on the dividends. Even $1 million is close (for

an individual. couple would need more).

[Baobab]

20. $30,000 (yr) isnt enough to live safely in America today, let alone in the future.

that would basically pay for health insurance and food, and a share room somewhere if that. (Not in any major city)

Jobs are going away so we cannot think like we do now. We wont have 10% or 20% unemployment, we will be lucky to have 10% employment.

Wealth will concentrate astronomically.

Would you take your buyout and go live on an island somewhere?

[MillennialDem]

37. $30,000 is def enough to live on, not safely... but it is the median individual income. And you coul

d throw in side work on top of it.

[Baobab]

45. "side work" wont be available in this hypothetical future- also >90% of mainstream jobs will vanish

never to return.

In short its not a 'recession' its a permanent shift to a future where machines do most work, and most people don't work. Fewer and fewer will.

[Baobab]

18. Tax on wealth upon death would be 100% - $10M for each child.

Remember that there would be little work so the effect would be that few people would pay tax. Suppose only one in ten people who gets an advanced degree ever gets good enough to get a job, even then few would ever get good enough to be taxed, because they would just make minimum wage. However some people would accumulate trillions of dollars 9where we're headed now) and when they died all of that would go to support society.

We're assuming lack of work due to automation. Thats pretty much a given. It wont be a matter of getting work if you just accept less, machines wil do all that work. Virtually nobody will work unless they want to. Those people will likely be doing it more for personal satisfaction than for money.

After all, money will not be necessary. Which makes sense because so few people will make much of it.

[Adrahil]

54. Sounds kind of hellish to me. NT

[Baobab]

26. They will be very much so, as the richer people are, the higher percentage of that tax.

For a trillionaire with no children, 100% of that income would be taxed.

[trotsky]

35. Say goodbye to the home mortgage deduction.

And all the other items in the tax laws that help the lower and middle classes. They will get screwed, and the rich will come out ahead. Don't buy into the Koch propaganda.

[Baobab]

38. They would not be taxed at all. Nor would many have jobs.

Not until people died. Nor would most people have much income. Because jobs would no longer be done by people, they would be dne by various machines. Like now but much more so.

keep in mind that I am thinking 20 or 30 years into the future. maybe 2045. thats when i think machines will become self-aware living things like us. We will have created new life.

Long before then humans will no longer have to work. Machines will do all that work.

[meow2u3]

48. That would help fix the debt practially overnight

Problem solved.

[TrappedInUtah]

16. Interesting idea

I don't fully agree, but I see where you're going with this. Basically it would ensure that everybody has a stake in maintaining a society with good jobs and wages. Currently you just get a wealthy class and they don't care because their children will be set for life anyway.

It would be like banning private schools. Suddenly the wealthy would start caring about making the public school system not suck.

[Baobab]

32. We couldnt "maintain a society with good jobs and wages" for everybody because most people will

never have that level of skill, HOWEVER, we would have a equal opportunity, many people would become very good at different things, and some of those things would become businesses and do well, because thats what happens when you let people be creative. i actually think the economy would after a period of time of adjustment, return to a sustaiinable state. the idea is, since so few people will be working we do want people to do constructive things with their time and also we don't want a society of extreme differences in wealth to become so out of control as it will now, basically a genocide is inevitable on the path we are on now- because so few people will have a chance to have a life.

It will be a world of favelas- slums made with radioactive, toxic garbage filled with toxic pollution mutated humans,with walled communities for the very wealthy, where the water is drinkable and air breatheable, but high levels of stress because fewer and fewer people will be making the cut, the stress will be so great that everybody will be afraid of one another.. There will be no trust.

That world is very very expensive. trust saves a lot of money. By throwing it away we are basically throwing away a lot of money.

maybe thats what they want?

[TipTok]

25. Inheritence tax should be minimal or non existent...

I know folks default to the billionaires of the world passing everything on but the reality is that it affects family businesses and farms etc...

[B2G]

27. This.

Not even considering the income has already been taxed initially, when earned.

Double dipping.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

34. No, only the profit is taxed

In figuring profit, you subtract what you paid for the asset from what you sold it for --- and the money you used to make that purchase had been taxed when you earned it. So there are two stages in the taxation, but they affect different parts of the assets worth and the same money is not taxed twice, although Republicans do claim it is.

[1939]

30. As it is now (current law)

the first $5 million or so passes tax free. So husband can pass through $5 mill and the wife can pass through $5 mill. Now you wnt to raise that to $10 mill per child per person. There aren't that many estates any more that pay any inheritance taxes. Even at a 100% per cent tax rate, it won't be raining the kind of bucks to put the rest of the country on easy street for life. At anything over 90% (if I had that kind of dough), I would pass though what was allowed to the kids and blow the rest on whiskey and wild women so there would be nothing left to go to the government. The last years would be one wild party.

[Baobab]

33. You only do that because the government is so corrupt now.

in this hypothetical future world people would be happy that the money they had made was going to make the world prosperous.

[1939]

42. Send me all your money

and make yourself happy, happy, happy.

[REP]

46. $3.7M (just went through probate) not $5M

I was well within the tax-exempt area.

[1939]

47. From the IRS site

"Estate Tax

"The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706 (PDF)). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities, business interests and other assets.

"Once you have accounted for the Gross Estate, certain deductions (and in special circumstances, reductions to value) are allowed in arriving at your "Taxable Estate." These deductions may include mortgages and other debts, estate administration expenses, property that passes to surviving spouses and qualified charities. The value of some operating business interests or farms may be reduced for estates that qualify.

"After the net amount is computed, the value of lifetime taxable gifts (beginning with gifts made in 1977) is added to this number and the tax is computed. The tax is then reduced by the available unified credit.

"Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other easily valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly held property) do not require the filing of an estate tax return. A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013, $5,340,000 in 2014, $5,430,000 in 2015, and $5,450,000 in 2016.

"Beginning January 1, 2011, estates of decedents survived by a spouse may elect to pass any of the decedent’s unused exemption to the surviving spouse. This election is made on a timely filed estate tax return for the decedent with a surviving spouse. Note that simplified valuation provisions apply for those estates without a filing requirement absent the portability election.

"For additional information, refer to Instructions for Form 706."

[REP]

55. Wonder what my lawyer was smoking

All I knew it sure as hell wasn't $3.7M and I didn't file. I'm not a surviving spouse, though; I'm surviving child.

[Baobab]

39. unless those businesses were worh more than the number of children times $10M they would be passed

tax free.

If we stay on the path we're on now, with the changes the FTAs are implementing, we're going to have a hellhole of a world where almost nobody is happy or able to have a decent quality of life.

Not even rich people.

You can see this now in how the health care situation is dragging down the medico-legal standard of care for all Americans, even the wealthy.

Europeans come here and they freak out and go back to Europe.

[tularetom]

40. Too many people? Not enough resources? Not enough jobs?

There really is only one solution. But nobody wants to talk about it. Nobody really wants to think about it.

But it will occur whether we humans initiate it or not.

[Baobab]

43. People arent "born to" spend most of their time making somebody else rich

The era of the job as we grew up with it was basically the 20th century. Previous to then for all of human existence, farming, cottage industry, crafts, were the norm.

[MosheFeingold]

44. No, but it's the right idea

Income taxes are fine, but they actually target the upper-middle-class. People who still work for a living and get "income." And there is a HUGE distinction between wealth and "high income." A really top-flight doctor making high six figures and having low-seven-figure student loan debt is in a world of hurt, for example. And, me, perhaps because I am old, want my doctors to get rich as crap treating me. That encourages them to do a good job.

Sales/VAT tax consumption and target actually rich (as in, disposable income rich) people.

Property taxes target rich in stuff.

Inheritance tax generational wealth, but really don't get the 1% but against screw the upper middle class as written.

A nice, balanced, overall plan is what is needed, using all of these. You could even put in a flat tax to make the Republicans feel good.

I'd wonder what a 10% flat income, 10% sales, 10% property, and 10% inheritance/gift tax would result in.

I have a sneaky feeling it would balance things out and the Uniparty would be toast.

[1939]

51. It wouldn't raise enough money

I think 25% income, 7% sales (15% on luxury items).3.5% property. and 25% estate might raise thw most money.

We could also legalize pot and make it a federal government monopoly. Set the price at what we need to run the government and use the IRS to enforce against illegal sales (guilty unless proven innocent is the way IRS rolls). See how much that would bring in.

[MosheFeingold]

57. Never ran the numbers, so I don't know

It would be an interesting idea though.

One thing I would discourage is "7% sales (15% on luxury items)." If you are going to have a distinction do food -- and make that zero. Perhaps add medicine and clothing to the zero category.

But I would not make a distinction on "luxury items." That's where Congresscritters (and former aides; I should know here) make their bucks because a lot of lobbyist money would pay a lot of money to stay off the "luxury item" list.

It's progressive already simply by being higher as things get more expensive.

[MichMan]

52. Pure Fantasy

Who is going to design, program, build and repair all these wonderful robots?

I think this whole idea that all work will be automated and no one would have to work unless they wanted to is ridiculous. There are a lot of jobs that cannot be automated and many of them are not work that people would do for "fun"

[Baobab]

53. which jobs cannot be automated apart from the obvious ones?

Actually, even motherhood is being contracted out now (gestational surrogacy)

>Who is going to design, <<<Likely these are human jobs- bingo

>program, This will be hybrid, people will design the software that people use to program them at the beginning

>build and repair all these wonderful robots? <<<These are robot jobs