My last article on inheritence taxes sure drew some controversy. Surprisingly, much of it from conservatives. Perphaps it's because I'm an only child or perhaps I just don't have the "correct" attitude on families but to me there are two types of income: Earned and unearned. My problem with welfare is that it provides unearned income to people. And so to me, inheritence isn't much better than welfare.
Before you turn your flame throwers on, hear me out. My view is very straight forward -- inherited wealth should be taxed as any other income. If I bust my ass and earn $10 million over my lifetime, it's going to be taxed. So why should some guy earn $10 million while sitting on his rear end without having to pay taxes simply because he shares some genetic material with the provider of that wealth? To me, that's insane.
Realestate was used in my previous article to illustrate how this can really get out of hand. The more you know on how huge tracks of private land in the US was acquired, the more I think people will rail against the idea of a free lunch when it comes to handing down land. So let's use some southern plantation as an example. 200 years go Johnny Reb builds a plantation on 100 acres of land in the deep south. He didn't really "buy" this land but rather squatted on it until it became his by default. Through generations, that same land stays in the family through inheritence.
Fast forward to now. Johnny Reb V passes on leaving the 100 ascres to Johnny Reb VI. It's valued at say $10 million. Should Johnny Reb VI just get that land? That's where the debate is. I say that Johnny Reb VI owes income taxes on it. At $10 million, that would be 35% ($3.5 million). Assuming Johnny Reb VI hasn't been complacent, having grown up with immense wealth around him, he should be able to get together with either other family members or investors and pay that $3.5 million. Then the land is available to be handed over to Johnny Reb VII. If not, the land is sold and Johnny Reb VII pockets $6.5 million of it (not bad for not having had to spend a lifetime earning it through labor). At that point the land is available for Billy Yank I to purchase it and pass on to Billy Yank II if he is able to pass the tax muster.
I do agree that traditional inheritence taxes are too high. Inheritence income should be treated as any other income and not discriminated against. But at the same time, it shouldn't be eliminated entirely either. You earn your money, it's taxed it's yours. But that has nothing to do with your children, let alone your great great great great grandchildren. They did nothing more than be born to "earn" it. The system should be biased in favor of keeping assets within a family, but it shouldn't be a free ride.