Well if we want to be morally consistent then there would be no taxes at all.
But my article talks about a practically achievable and better solution compared to what we have now, not an ideal moral one which might never come.
If you haven't read my article, I have said that I would prefer the abolishment the income tax entirely.
I only made a case for a progressive inheritance tax, if some people were concerned that some of these noble families could amass huge fortunes by passing down their wealth over the centuries.
If that is a concern then an inheritance tax is needed, but only for the very rich, not for ordinary people.
Other than that, everything else should be as low as possible.
And if there is no income tax, then nothing is stopping people from achieving huge fortunes. Perhaps with an inheritance tax giving some of it back, since their offsprings might not deserve the huge fortune since they did nothing to achieve it, to sort of restore balance.
To open for scaling taxes of the richest is to some extent saying those that claim the richest has to be taxed more are right. Don't know if it is a term in english, but in Norway we say; equality to the law. This is a very good principle as it is also removing bureaucracy in the tax system.
I did read your article.
When it comes to "rich people death tax" it is in reality not needed. It is acctually pretty rare even in todays society that the kids are able to hold the capital in many generations. There is multiple reasons for this happening. There is obviously some exceptions to this but those that has been able to teach the offspring good culture and economic understanding should be awarded of successfully tranfering good knowledge and learning to their decendants.
I agree with you. That is why I wrote that paragraph in a hypothetical tone.
It is obvious that the spoiled kids of rich parents will waste their money away no time. So the balance can be restored naturally, doesn't have to be taken away forcefully.
The offsprings of a succesful parent will never be as good as he is, even the IQ levels even out over time. So whether through excessive partying, chasing women, or just pure bad investments, he will guarantee to lose most of the fortune of his parents.
If you really think about it, there is actually no reason for taxation at all. If it's not moral then it's most likely not logical either.
The only reason I wrote this post is to just provide an intermediary roadmap, until we really get to a voluntary society.
You can't get from A->B immediately, so some of it can be scaled down in the meantime.
But in the end the free market will be a zillion times more efficient than any centralized monopoly system.
Agreed. Hey, it's not our money anyway unless it was stolen :)