(or you could look at what happens when people are actually presented with realistic options for escaping the cycle of minimum-wage poverty, but that's a few steps of consciousness-raising away from where you currently are)
(or you could look at what happens when people are actually presented with realistic options for escaping the cycle of minimum-wage poverty, but that's a few steps of consciousness-raising away from where you currently are)
The number of children who are able to live off of their parents / grandparents money and don't work at all is so finite that it isn't really worth mentioning. Alongside that, they are a net gain for the economy.
Think about it - you have vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases, and no impact to the labor force by them working. I may not agree with their decision to not work, but I really couldn't care less whether they do what I agree or not.
Also, a 100% estate tax would do one of two things: 1) create a disincentive for wealth accumulation as their is nothing to do with it afterwards thereby reducing their overall output 2) force those people into different investment vehicles where they can pass their wealth to their children as a "gift" prior to their passing.
That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though. For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down, or the funds that could have gone to their grandchildren's college is now funneled into the government, or other similar act of smallish amount of funds being siphoned off by the federal government.
Which feed people in remote countries minimum wage at best and keeps what looks like slavery at worst while it generates handsome profits for others who brought in very little value.
> create a disincentive for wealth accumulation
Which is actually a great thing: all that money will hit the economy much sooner.
> force those people into different investment vehicles
Like giving their offspring an education that'll allow them to pursue well paid positions. Gifts are also taxed and an exponential tax on their market value would be a smart thing. Also, they can be sure their children, no matter how deplorable, won't starve.
> That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though
So these people who make insane amounts of money while pressuring down compensation for the rest of society will bear most of the burden. Seems only fair.
Also, keep in mind these people are far too powerful now to freely give up their advantages. These ideas have the potential of getting very, very ugly.
Regular people won't be affected, only a fraction of the richest 1%:
> a maximum amount, varying year by year, can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes:[2] $5,340,000 for estates of persons dying in 2014[3] and 2015,[4] $5,450,000 (effectively $10.90 million per married couple) for estates of persons dying in 2016.[5] Because of these exemptions, only the largest 0.2% of estates in the U.S. will pay the tax.[6]
You are aware of the historical/empirical problems with it, yes?
If that's perceived as a problem, we already have that happening right now and aren't doing anything about it -- a complete confiscatory estate tax would solve it, though!