Proposition
Modeling:
- Noticeably higher amount than the origianl amount of inheritance, depending on the inheritance of the country
- e.g. if 30 percent originally, raise to 75%
- block loopholes. there are already taxation if presents between people are too big, or other ways to circumvent inheritance tax. if loopholes still exist, diminish it
- allow parents to use money for their children
- e.g. sending kids to hagwons: hard to control anyway, cannot take all rights to raise children
- taxation used for the good of society
- e.g. building infra, giving welfare, giving public servants higher wages
- already exists anyway
Characterization and Framing:
- wealth
- as older the wealth is, higher chance to be earned through illegal or unjust ways
- e.g. colonialism, theft, slavery
- current laws and philosophy
- already aim to provide equal opportunities for people
- e.g. funding more, and improving public education
- inheritance tax
- in SQ, ineffective in actually taking away enough money or solving inequality
- get a huge enough slice for economic class divisions to continue, and for the poor to stay in the lower part of the ladder
Metric:
Which side promotes economic equality?
Which side does the government give better help to everyone?
Argument 1: Higher inheritance is principally justified because people should only earn what they work for
What is the principle being used
- meritocracy
- must only get what have worked for
- should not earn money by brute luck
Why is the principle applied here
- same situation, should not earn what did not work for
- there are some exceptions, but they have a reason
- e.g. people who start businesses become billionaires not bc we allow luck to be the reason ppl get rich, but bc they have taken a great risk. they also help lots of people using their technology.
- e.g.2. people who win lottery. extremely small number anyway. people had the risk of losing 5 bucks but have taken that. was very low chance of getting the reward
- why did not work for parents money
- it were the parents, or the grandparents, or ancestors beyond them who had worked for the wealth
- lot of the times the heir was not even born, and even when they were no noticeable sacrifice for them to earn the money
Intuition pump
- just in every scenario, ppl get paid bc they work
- when people are employed and work in their job
Weighing of principles
opp principle likely to be: right to control own wealth (that is the inheritors wealth in this case)
why we win:
principle itself lacks legitmacy. people only earned wealth bc society existed.
e.g. i can work in a company, bc there is a fair market created by the government’s regulations, and bc i work, i get money
not earned on own, certain responsibilities towards society still exists
importance of principles
if people do not get to use the wealth how they want to, in one specific way, can move on and live on life. I can’t use it for my child? Fine, I’ll just go buy a car for myself. might be discomforted a little, but that’s it.
if people lose competition from the second they were born bc of birth lottery, for the unlucky people, have to live whole life as poor person
have to live life X being able to buy things and experiences
more fundamental rights being damaged here
Argument 2: Better services provided to people when inheritance tax is higher
Why true
tax used for good of the country and people
lots of tax will be collected
we fiated that tax will be used for good of the society, but even without that fiat tax is already used for the good of society
What does this look like
- money used for services such as
healthcare
people are able to get necessary medical treatment and stay healthy
education
people are able to live a successful life with high quality education
education also becomes more equal because public education quality becomes higher
welfare
basic amount of money for people to keep basic human rights
employment opportunities and job education
enable people to live a stable life with more money than just welfare
infrastructure
libraries, playgrounds, and other amenities for people
2. also for positive impacts that companies do not care about
reduce pollution
create policies and fund programs to clean the air, water, plant more trees, clean more sees, etc.
Impact
- aformentioned practical impacts of government using money
- also increases happiness in general
the countries that have a high happiness level(e.g. denmark, finland, norway) all have high taxes
this is because the country feels like one community caring about each other
not just a competitive world where money means everything, but a country where warm emotions exist
Weighing
Same weighing as first argument: tax programs help vulnerable people more, we win on vulnerability of stakeholders and rights being more fundamental
Also because rich people get the 2nd impact as well
3. Promoting economic productivity
Why true
prob of SQ: heirs who plan on inherting huge amounts of wealth have little incentive to learn and work
just need to get the wealth and live off that
how we solve: a lot of that is taken
must work hard in order to earn money
Impact
Economic productivity
more companies created and more people working in companies
better services and products created for people to use
impacts are amplified
the people who otherwise would have not worked would have been raised in a rich family
this means that they can get a lot of help from their parents to learn skills and be productive
Weighing
Inheriting the same company and keeping economic stability like that vs this argument
the company doesnt need to die on your side either, can sell the company to another person or just give it to the government and the government can sell it to a skilled buyer
lack exclusivity in your case
the benefits of the same family carrying the wealth is minimal compared to the benefits we have provided
Preemptions
(S means “they said”, R means “rebuttal”)
S: people will not make that much money because they cannot give it to their children
R:
a. huge mitigation: they can use it for themselves
just buy more luxury goods
people value using money too
the difference between being able to inherit and being unable to is marignal
can also donate it to charity of choice if want to
b. flip: more productivity since people that would have been heirs would work harder
Weighing: Our side has greater incentive
Opp: only people who are old and reaching retirement would not aim to earn as much money, since before that age they would also need the money to sustain themselves
Prop: all the people would have to work hard. Especially productive because children of rich families have high potential for success since they get lots of help from rich parents such as private education.
c. Even if true, more development in number is not always good
there is little point of the country’s welath growing if only selective people take it
we support types of development that allows people in the lower class to also take shares of the money that the country earns
this is bc even for the same amount of money, poor people value it more than rich people, bc for the poor people it is a big difference from their original wealth, but for the rich it is only a small addition.
Right to wealth already rebutted in the arguments
S: high inheritance deters company development
R:
a. no it doesn’t. the wealth of the company is kept. The standard is that the money is not in the bank account of the company owners, in other words they can not use the money freely for themselves. Such action is already illegal. the logical link that people cannot inherit money to companies will fall is too weak
b. flip: company development is not as healthy compared to a well-funded government
1, carries problems such as pollution, child labor, underpaid labor,
propensity: companies’ only incentive is to earn money, nothing else. company workers are good at hiding heinous acts. general public care about selfish wants for than the wants of others, so focus on buying cheaper products for greater quality, not kinder companies
2, threat of government control
companies that are too strong control the actions of governments
they have the power because they can threaten governments to make policies(such as policies that allows development with pollution, paying less tax) because they produce a lot of the money of the country
harm: more reckless development
3, companies can always move to foreign countries
if they think that other countries treat the companies better, for example letting them pay less tax, can easily move to that country because they want to pay less money
c. even if true, (use same analysis for why crazy development is not good)