Another Honest – but Economically Illiterate – Leftist

Which leftists are worse, the ones who pontificate in favor of higher taxes but aggressively and hypocritically seek to protect their own money?

Or the ones who genuinely worship government and sincerely believe that the government should have first claim to everyone’s money?

In other words, is it worse to be evil and calculating or to be zealous and stupid?

Today’s column will be about the second category.

Let’s look at some excerpts from a column in the U.K.-based Guardian by Abi Wilkinson.

The idea that we should be able to pass on our life’s accumulated wealth to descendants is deeply embedded. …but it’s time this conventional wisdom was held up to proper scrutiny. …Social progress has frequently depended on our ability to transcend individualistic urges and work together for the common good. …Morally speaking, people who stand to inherit large sums haven’t done anything to earn that money. …It’s sometimes claimed that the prospect of leaving an inheritance motivates people to work harder… Honestly, if people did decide to retire earlier and enjoy their later years, instead of slaving away for as long as possible, would that be such a bad thing? …what if the desires of the dead directly damage the wellbeing of the living? …around £77bn is passed on in inheritance each year… That’s money that no living being has a moral claim to, according to standard justifications of wealth inequality… Were that money redistributed by the state…. It could provide the kind of comprehensive welfare state that meant nobody had to worry… There’s some value in respecting the wishes of the dead, yes, but why is that more important than social housing, healthcare or any number of other possible uses for the money? …A 100% estate tax (perhaps with a small allowance for objects of sentimental value) is…well outside the current spectrum of mainstream political opinion. …all kinds of major social changes seemed impossible until suddenly they weren’t.

From an economic perspective, the worst part of her column was the statement that it wouldn’t be “a bad thing” for people to “retire earlier.”

I assume she doesn’t grasp that this means less income for society.

And her column doesn’t even mention anything about saving and investment.

I’m guessing she is totally unaware that every economic theory agrees that capital formation is a key to long-run growth and higher living standards. And there’s no question that a 100 percent death tax would severely undermine incentives to save and invest.

As I wrote 10 years ago, this is akin to chopping down an apple tree to harvest the fruit.

In my opinion, however, her greatest sin isn’t economic ignorance. It’s her immoral view that politicians should be able to steal 100 percent of a family’s assets when someone dies.

Benito and Chris may appreciate her statolatry, but count me out.

P.S. To be fair, Ms. Wilkinson graciously says the kids might be allowed to retain a few “objects of sentimental value,” an act of mercy that surely would impress Francois Hollande.