Terra Nova, the "think thank" of the modern left has recently proposed to increase the taxation of inheritance ... proposal of Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party of 1848!
Terra Nova, the think-tank of the modern left, the one that has abandoned the popular classes for the benefit of minorities, has recently proposed to increase the taxation of inheritance, a proposal that was in third position proposed by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party from 1848!
This proposal, which would be innovative despite its 171 years, is just as much an economic ineptitude as a moral fault.
Terra Nova starts from the observation that the aging of the population leads to the emergence of aging heirs, who inherit at an age when they are least inclined to make use of their capital.
If this is correct, the rest of the statement is the opposite of what should be done because the goal is to use the money raised to finance the dependency of the elderly.
Terra Nova's proposal is an economic ineptitude
It is primarily an economic ineptitude. The first consequence of the aging of these heirs is that younger generations can not benefit from a capital contribution when they need it most. Between 1950 and 2000, the average age has increased from 40 to 50 years and continues to increase. Increasing inheritance taxation will only aggravate the problem. With Terra Nova everyone has to be poor.
Then the goal is to finance the addiction. If the goal in itself is commendable, the way to deal with the problem is to make it worse. In the short term the gain will be interesting but the capital capture will induce impoverishment of the following generations and a decrease of tax yield.
The problem with socialism is that it lasts until the other people's money runs out. Declining labor costs and health system reform will be better able to respond to the challenge of dependency by making the related professions more attractive while making health spending more efficient.
Finally, Terra Nova expects the problem to be borne by the state. If he is an economic player who does not care about profit and efficiency it is the French state! This state is financially desperate and the money raised will serve much more to fill the barrel of the Danaides than to finance the dependency.
By applying Terra Nova's solutions, will we go to poorer heirs and elderly people who are euthanized rather than treated?
Terra Nova and his morally perverse proposals
Terra Nova's proposal is deeply rooted in socialist thought, taking over Marx and Engels. In addition to the permanence of Communist ideas within the French intelligentsia, ideas on which a century of implementation has not opened its eyes, it is the immoral character of this ideal that resurfaced in this proposal.
Behind the ideal lie envy, jealousy, concupiscence, inciting anger. These immoralities, hidden under torrents of good feeling, are the foundations of socialism. Terra Nova only hastens once again the hatred of the rich, the envy of the wealthy to whom the anger of the people would be legitimate and the moral spoliation.
This is low-level populism: there is nothing here to differentiate a demagogue as there are so many around the world and Terra Nova.
What to do ?
Like a broken clock that shows just the right time twice a day, Terra Nova has made a pertinent statement. However, there is a simpler and much more relevant solution to this problem: the outright removal of all online donation costs.
Economically this will be extremely beneficial in allowing capital to flow and be transmitted more easily. Children will be able to start inheriting at an earlier age than now and build up capital at a time more relevant to them.
The Capital Building Facility will allow the economy to find a new source of financing and, from there, the improvement of the economic situation will have a positive impact on public finances.
The increase in individual wealth will make it possible to finance the dependence of current generations when the time comes and the progress of medicine has not been sufficient. Everyone will win even the state.
Morally, finally, this solution is the fairest because it will help ease tensions in families. All of us have known or heard testimonies from families who tore up at the time of the succession. Inheritance serves as a detonator to settle old quarrels or wounds. By allowing parents to give in their lifetime, they can organize their inheritance and appease possible existing grudges.
This can only be beneficial for society, especially as strengthening the family is a way to better resist the despotism of the modern state. This is all the more true since the family has always been a target of choice for totalitarian states ...