Reparations for American Blacks

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,882
Korea
It may be the common usage, but I find the abuse/misuse of the term and the way people bandy about with the word to be counterproductive to discussion. Wouldn't you agree that using precise language and definitions woud be more helpful if folks are truly trying to understand each other?

When the term is used erroneously, it muddies the water. And I suspect that that is sometimes intentional.
In principle, I'd agree with what you are saying here; a society full of good-faith interlocutors would benefit from striving towards a set of unified definitions to maximize communicative clarity. In practice, we don't live in a society of good-faith interlocutors, and telling people they are wrong about the definitions of words rarely succeeds in changing their ways. It is often going to be the case that the best we can do is to try to understand what others mean while explaining as best we can what we ourselves mean. Conversation would often profit by moving away from broad categorical terms like "socialism" and remaining in narrow, descriptive terms like policy suggestions anyway. Categorical terms make it too easy and convenient to try to argue against others by pushing them into a "label box" and dismissing them. "What you're saying is socialism, and that makes it wrong," or, "I can see now that you're a racist, I've no longer any need to listen to you," or so forth. Which is better: to discuss a particular policy or idea and perhaps convince the other party that it is a good idea (even if they only realize it's a good idea later on, when there's no face to be lost by changing their view in person), or to quarrel with them about the strict definition of a word like socialism and ensure the conversation goes no where?
 
Jan 2010
4,356
Atlanta, Georgia USA
I had an idea: given the fact that it was the Democratic political party and its members who added another hundred years to the oppression of Blacks after the Civil War, let’s repurpose all campaign contributions to Democratic politicians for the next, say, fifty years to create a reparations fund
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,882
Korea
The inheritance tax is the most ridiculous tax there is as the money has already been taxed before.
As someone who stands to inherit a relatively large estate due to family wealth, I'm inclined to disagree with you: there is nothing intrinsically ridiculous about the inheritance tax. Yes, the money was taxed before when earned or received by its original recipient, but just as we tax income again with VAT or sales tax when it is transferred in a purchase, it is coherent to tax it again in the transfer that is inheritance. The important thing is not abstract principles about "double taxation" per se, but rather, the question of why it's being taxed; of what we stand to gain as a society through such policies. In the case of a well-crafted inheritance tax which leaves room for the bequest of reasonably small estates to one's needy family members while limiting the transfers of massive estates, what we hope to prevent is the accretion of massive economic inequality which distorts the culture, politics, and economy of society at large. Note that even the possibility of passing on such estates creates perverse incentives: just as low income taxes incentivize the already wealthy business owners to direct even more wealth to themselves rather than investing it in their workers, weak estate taxes incentivize the hoarding of massive amounts of wealth rather than the utilization of such wealth in a more socially productive fashion.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,947
As someone who stands to inherit a relatively large estate due to family wealth, I'm inclined to disagree with you: there is nothing intrinsically ridiculous about the inheritance tax. Yes, the money was taxed before when earned or received by its original recipient, but just as we tax income again with VAT or sales tax when it is transferred in a purchase, it is coherent to tax it again in the transfer that is inheritance. The important thing is not abstract principles about "double taxation" per se, but rather, the question of why it's being taxed; of what we stand to gain as a society through such policies. In the case of a well-crafted inheritance tax which leaves room for the bequest of reasonably small estates to one's needy family members while limiting the transfers of massive estates, what we hope to prevent is the accretion of massive economic inequality which distorts the culture, politics, and economy of society at large. Note that even the possibility of passing on such estates creates perverse incentives: just as low income taxes incentivize the already wealthy business owners to direct even more wealth to themselves rather than investing it in their workers, weak estate taxes incentivize the hoarding of massive amounts of wealth rather than the utilization of such wealth in a more socially productive fashion.
True but here is the catch... it seems the inheritance tax disproportionately affects "modest" wealth while high wealth gets away (due to all kinds of tax havens and complex tax "optimization" schemes)
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
4,736
Netherlands
As someone who stands to inherit a relatively large estate due to family wealth, I'm inclined to disagree with you: there is nothing intrinsically ridiculous about the inheritance tax. Yes, the money was taxed before when earned or received by its original recipient, but just as we tax income again with VAT or sales tax when it is transferred in a purchase, it is coherent to tax it again in the transfer that is inheritance. The important thing is not abstract principles about "double taxation" per se, but rather, the question of why it's being taxed; of what we stand to gain as a society through such policies. In the case of a well-crafted inheritance tax which leaves room for the bequest of reasonably small estates to one's needy family members while limiting the transfers of massive estates, what we hope to prevent is the accretion of massive economic inequality which distorts the culture, politics, and economy of society at large. Note that even the possibility of passing on such estates creates perverse incentives: just as low income taxes incentivize the already wealthy business owners to direct even more wealth to themselves rather than investing it in their workers, weak estate taxes incentivize the hoarding of massive amounts of wealth rather than the utilization of such wealth in a more socially productive fashion.
Ok I am going to be blunt. No one understands what you are saying.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,882
Korea
Ok I am going to be blunt. No one understands what you are saying.
Tomar seemed to understand?

True but here is the catch... it seems the inheritance tax disproportionately affects "modest" wealth while high wealth gets away (due to all kinds of tax havens and complex tax "optimization" schemes)
This is a legitimate concern, and inheritance tax reform is a valid enough project. The extremely wealthy donating to foundations which they still implicitly control, for example, is something of an issue. Likewise, there are issues in the reverse. For example, farmers in the United States are often land rich but cash poor, and inheritance laws interact somewhat awkwardly with their (not unreasonable) desire to pass along the family farm to their descendants.
 
Mar 2019
53
Victoria, Australia
the problem with anything regarding the wealthy is that by nature they have a lot more capabilities to skirt around taxes or the likes and keep their money. If, however, some new measure input in place that prevents that, they may simply just relocate to a new country. This could be easy for them particularly if they decide to invest money in particular places.

So unless the world would agree to the fix wealth inequality, then I am afraid that there is little any one country can do to effectively change or combat this.
 
Dec 2011
2,071
What a load of cr*p. So if you inherit a fortune and you die the next day, the taxman should come collecting?
The inheritance tax is the most ridiculous tax there is as the money has already been taxed before.

But hey it isn't your money anyway, right? It belongs to the state....
What a load of sh*t.

See? We can all do childish insults, it's easy. You can go on TwitFace if you like, you will find there lots of like-minded individuals who conduct discussions based on childish insults, with little reference to reasoning or logic.

The point is, when you die, you no longer exist (in this world) you can no longer own property. So who gets that property that was once yours but now isn't owned by anybody? Who decides? Well the community gets together and decides , in the form of the government of the country. In most countries, it is decided that the money should be distributed to the people that the deceased named in his will. Even so, I think the great majority of countries do tax inheritances, at least the larger ones, because it is deemed that persons enjoying a windfall of money that they didn't earn, should be taxed on it.
 

Similar History Discussions