As I understand it, most capitalists would argue that the reason the rich deserve their wealth is that they have worked for it, and the fact that they have managed to gain such wealth shows that they will do good things with it that will benefit everybody else.
This position seems to be incompati...
100% on any amount is problematic because you wouldn't get to keep sentimental stuff. Inheriting a huge portfolio of shares and properties from your parents is one thing; not getting to inherit your childhood home is another.
I think you're confusing it with the American Dream, in particular, this part of that definition: 'an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers'.
@DenisdeBernardy what's wrong with not getting to inherit a childhood home? The overwhelming majority of people already don't, only the very wealthy do.
It is generally accepted there are no pure-capitalist governments active on the planet; all "capitalist" governments are in-fact hybrid government systems.
I think it depends on what type of capitalism you are envisioning- a laissez-faire version of capitalism or Keynesian version of interventionist capitalism. It seems like an extremely broad question with a ton of assumptions on meaning of terminology being employed.
Milton Friedman has good talks on the subject. The simple answer is human motivation. If socialists were not about punitive taxation (as opposed to simple redistributive) we would have been answers to this question. Unfortunately that's not the case.
@DavidRice, Not sure what country you are from, but in the US where I am from, the majority of the people around me (middle class) own their own homes. Thus, would expect to inherit at least some portion of a childhood home - depending on number of siblings. Certainly not only the very wealthy.
Your understanding is incorrect, the rich do not deserve their wealth because they will do good things with it. They deserve their wealth because it is theirs. No one (not even the government) has a right to steal it from them. If people are not free to decide what to do with their wealth upon death, then it is not really their money. This is completely harmonious with opposition to high inheritance taxes, as those are just another form of theft.
@GlenYates Unless you are proposing that corpses are people and can own things, I do not see why losing their money on death would be theft or against capitalism. I realize currently in most western countries ones possessions become part of an estate that does something with them, but I do not see why this is critical, many would not consider taking from a dead person to be stealing at all. It does not seem at all unreasonable to have a legal system where one loses the right to decide what to do with their money when they die.
@Vality - You decide what to do with your money prior to death. Are you proposing a society where legal contracts have no force? Lets say you buy a car from someone and have paid them money but not yet taken possession of it, then the person dies before you do take possession. A third party takes the car because it was currently in the possession of a dead person, and well, dead people cant own property. Are you to hold that the car is not rightfully and lawfully yours? That the contract you made with a living person is not valid? Wills are the same.
The cynical answer might be that people who present that reason for why they deserve their money don't really believe it and are just saying what they believe will be effective rhetorically to support their self interest. Similarly, high estate taxes isn't in their interest (or that of their families at least) so they oppose that. There isn't any inconsistency, because the consistent motivation is self interest, not philosophy.
@alephzero My parents are indeed alive (as far as I know) but live in a different country and continent to myself, are not in normal contact, and I do not expect to inherit anything. Perhaps if things were different I would indeed have more of a personal motive to want their money and would feel differently, who knows. I do not see why my family situation is really relevant to my point?
@GlenYates In many countries legal contracts indeed have no force on the dead, which does not seem entirely unreasonable, which is one of the reasons life insurance is usually a complicated structure involving a trust. Although a court will unwind debts and assets it is not because of contract law but because of specific laws on handling the estates of the dead.
@DavidRice If you're a dependent spouse/child/elderly parent of the deceased and you're still living in that home, then inheriting it is extremely important to you (regardless of whether you're considered "wealthy").
@bta In some places if one is a dependent spouse inheritance laws do not apply at all as the assets also belonged to you all along and merely pass to you directly.
"As I understand it, most capitalists would argue that the reason the rich deserve their wealth is that they have worked for it," -- where did you hear that? My understanding is that many capitalists would argue that, in many cases, the rich deserve their wealth because their ancestors worked hard for it, and were free to do whatever they pleased with the accumulated fortune when they made out their wills -- such as providing for the financial security of their own kids, grandkids, etc., so that the descendants never had to go on welfare.
When I see the title 100% inheritance tax, I assume this is question is intentionally frame for the sake of argument, rather than seeking rational discussion on inheritance tax. Otherwise, OP should have say "What reasons are there for 100% of capitalist to oppose any inheritance tax?"
Discussion on question by CoedRhyfelw…
Discussion on question by CoedRhyfelw…