The Inheritance Tax Is Far Too Low - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/opinion/inheritance-tax-inequality.html <comment><USER2> It is said that 70% of families lose their wealth by the 2nd generation and 90% by the 3rd[1]

Inequality is not static, it is rather dynamic.

Nassim Taleb makes some good points about that here[2], for instance, ~ 70% of Americans will spend a year in the top 20% and only ten percent of the wealthiest five hundred American people or dynasties were so thirty years ago.

[1] [https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational- wealth%3A-why-d...](https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational- wealth%3A-why-do-70-of-families-lose-their-wealth-in-the-2nd- generation-2018-10)

[2] [https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the- game-d...](https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the- game-d8f00bc0cb46)

<comment><USER3> Seems like we're conflating wealth with income?

<comment><USER4> Wealth is just the generative form of income expenditures.

How do you tax the "wealth" that is being able to get free food from a food bank, or a monthly check from the government?

How do you tax a bunch of experiences and education?

I dont think we should tax "wealth" when it's just a choice of what to do with post tax income. And pre tax investments are taxed on their exit (eg 401k)

<comment><USER5> > Nassim Taleb makes some good points about that here[2], for instance, ~ 70% > of Americans will spend a year in the top 20% and only ten percent of the > wealthiest five hundred American people or dynasties were so thirty years > ago.

In this specific instance wealth vs income matters because the above statement is true of income, but very untrue of wealth.

<comment><USER6> What makes you think it's untrue of wealth? 80th percentile wealth in the US is a net worth of ~$500k. That's where most people are at retirement when your house is basically paid off and there is money in your 401(k).

<comment><USER5> [https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united- states/](https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/)

The median net worth for a 60-64 year old is 225k a far cry from 500k. And 66% of the population have less than 500k at that age.

<comment><USER6> You're assuming "retirement" is still at 65, but increasingly it isn't. The median is actually highest at the oldest age group on that chart.

Everybody also forgets to include the net present value of social security (basically an annuity you were forced to buy), which is a disproportionately large amount of the net worth for lower income people both because they don't have as many other assets and because the income cap limits how much it adds to the net worth of the people at the top. (Though people would generally have a higher net worth without it; it pays back less than you'd have from investing the same money in an index fund.)

<comment><USER5> The numbers don't change much at all for 80+.

Not to mention lots of people won't live until 80 much less 60.

And adding social security would increase the % of people who had 500k but would also increase the net present value of individuals @ the top 20%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Much as I take a more moderate view about taxation (some things that taxes go to fund are in fact ineffective and wasteful), I respect strongly the inheritance tax not just in revenue raising but in behavior influencing. (those who are on the receiving end of the tax, for reasons others have given here)

And I do not for one second buy the ridiculous argument, both on this tax and other taxes, that "money shouldn't be double-taxed".

Money is taxed every time it changes hands! Money doesn't have a "history", except where we create loopholes to allow it to, which disproportionately go to those who have the means to track and create vehicles that have "history". Poor people don't have capital gains.

The inheritance tax, though you may not think it intuitively, is a strong way for our society to renew itself and find new talent. It takes work to fight against those who would silently change the rules to start favoring the old and idle. (who are the ones who most have the ability to change the rules)

<comment><USER8> > but in behavior influencing.

Ah, yes - because of course we want people to spend all their money before they die instead of investing long-term for their children.

<comment><USER9> I can't think of another mechanism from preventing a permanent aristocratic class from passive investment

<comment><USER4> Is there something wrong with someone making a choice that pays off repeatedly (even up to near permanently) instead of only temporarily? Assuming no, then there is nothing wrong with passive investment.

Now power via money in politics is another issue completely, but money isn't the issue, corruption is. I would wholeheartedly agree we need to fix corruption in the government. I just disagree that the fix to corruption is to make everyone marginally poorer via taxation. (at least some margin is lost to bureaucracy)

<comment><USER9> For me it's a tough sell to convince me that any finite action can merit an infinite reward. Maybe you can make the argument but it's a tough sell

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting to me is that not-taxing inheritances is sort of a giant tax break. If your parent dies and they had bought a house for $100,00 and now it is worth $1,100,000. So a capital gain of $1,000,000. If they had sold the house they would have had to pay capital gains on the house, minus an exemption amount ($250,000 for single and $500,000 for married).

But you as the beneficiary get to take that house and immediately sell it and pay $0 in capital gains on it. So that tax is actually forgiven on death. If you held on to the house then you would pay capital gains on any gains from the value of it upon inheritance.

<comment><USER11> IRS FAQ on inherited assets is pretty good here:

[https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types- of-i...](https://www.irs.gov/faqs/interest-dividends-other-types-of- income/gifts-inheritances/gifts-inheritances)

Without any estate planning, you would pay $0 in capital gains because the basis resets to FMV at the time of death and the sale would be taxed as regular income (37% marginal bracket on $1,000,000 sale).

By my reading, this doesn't seem like a giant tax break.

Edit: Totally wrong. $0 taxes owed because basis is stepped up and sale is NOT treated as income.

<comment><USER10> Well I paid $0 in taxes on my parent's death. And when we sold it no income tax was paid. Our accountant checked everything and made sure it was done correctly.

From the page it does say: If you sell the property for more than your basis, you have a taxable gain.

But your basis is set upon the FMV (Fair Market Value) of the property upon death of the decedent.

The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following:

1\. The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death (whether or not the executor of the estate files an estate tax return (Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return)).

Also, selling a house is not typically considered income. It is considered a capital gain. So you don't pay income tax on sale of a house. There might be exceptions if you are a real estate investor, but I don't have any expertise in that area.

<comment><USER12> You paid nothing but presumably your parents' estate paid taxes on the deemed disposition at FMV less its basis.

<comment><USER10> No, it did not.

<comment><USER12> So there was a bump in tax basis to FMV that essentially creates a tax free capital gain for the beneficiary?

<comment><USER13> Yes

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> People who think billionaires are so rich have never seen a federal budget.

You could guillotine a billionaire a day and their money wouldn't pay for nought. (Not even considering that their "networths" are always tied up in stocks.

As for using the term 1%, people rarely stay in the bracket for long, people change and move through different economic brackets all the time through their lives.The biggest indicator of wealth is age.

Others have commented on it, but inter-generational wealth is important for various reasons. Cultures that plan for their children's children make a lot of sense. I'd wager the West has some weird hedonism/individuality and we rarely just stop thinking of ourselves. Adding further estate taxes just removes even more incentive to work towards creating an inter genertional family. Rich families are also just better with money because it's what they know. Redistributing that money to others could just make it end up in coin machines.

<comment><USER15> Clearly you didn't read the article, otherwise you'd know that even slight increases in this tax would fund important public services. You'd also know that the U.S. has among the lowest levels of class mobility among developed nations. People born rich stay rich; people born poor stay poor.

<comment><USER14> This is simply not true, read the other comments on how much wealth is retained per generation.

As for the your last sentiment, I'd also remind people that wealthy inequality is not a very big problem if the standards of living are also improving.

Most "poor" people have plasma televisions, iPhones, fridges, their own living quarters and more choice of food than a king 300 years ago would have.

<comment><USER15> Maybe try looking at objective indicators of wealth distribution instead of peering into people's windows and noting what kind of TVs they own...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have always wondered what would happen if an inheritance tax were pushed to 100% for sums greater than 10 million. At that point the only way to hide the money would be to move it off shore, but then that money would be permanently off shore. The consequence of that is that it is mostly beyond reach of US taxation but in order to access that money people would have to leave the US, so it almost becomes a citizenship tax. I am basing a lot of this reasoning on what happened to the billions in wealth when large tech companies tried to dump it in Ireland to avoid taxes. The money doesn't just disappear unless the companies are willing to never get it back or move to Ireland (corporate offices and primary investors).

There would also be economic consequences for those not wanting to evade tax laws because there is now a compelling reason to perform the impossible: spend all that damn money before the tax man gets it. That is one hell of an economic stimulus, but also means large injections of cash into charities and scientific research, and commercial investment.

To me all these options seem like a net positive.

<comment><USER17> > there is now a compelling reason to perform the impossible: spend all that > damn money before the tax man gets it.

Isn't that a recipe for hyperinflation?

<comment><USER18> _> > there is now a compelling reason to perform the impossible: spend all that damn money before the tax man gets it._

 _> Isn't that a recipe for hyperinflation?_

But of prices on... what? Yaacts? It's not like people are going to start buying 1000x more bread loaves and corollas.

On the contrary, it'd probably deflate prices of housing in major "investment" markets, as families off-load second/third/fourth houses.

And for the luxury goods, it might even drive _down_ prices of certain goods. More demand => economies of scale => more efficient production => lower prices => suddenly affordable to a larger market => more demand => ...

But the original premise is kinda depressing. There is an alternative to blowing all your money on hedonism. You can substantially ramp up your donations, for example. I think you'd see an explosion of small churches/local colleges/community centers/etc. with $100M+ endowments.

<comment><USER17> > But of prices on... what? Yaacts? It's not like people are going to start > buying 1000x more bread loaves and corollas.

And then what will the yacht company do with all of the money?

> it might even drive down prices of certain goods. More demand => economies > of scale => lower prices => more demand => ...

That's not consistent with economic theory. Economies of scale don't work "forever". At some point, the per-unit price will start to rise with quantity again.

<comment><USER18> _> And then what will the yacht company do with all of the money?_

Employ people. Reinvest. Raise wages. Expand to new markets. Throw better Christmas parties. Buy the CEO another yacht. You know, run their business.

 _> That's not consistent with economic theory. Economies of scale don't work "forever". At some point, the per-unit price will start to rise with quantity again._

You mean we won't get $10 yacht?! ;-)

Anyways, that part of my original pose was supposed to be tounge-in-cheek. The point is, I don't think bidding up the prices of real estate in a few super- upper-class retirement snowbird communities is the end of the world. Yes, inflation will happen. But only in certain asset classes that I don't care much about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yes, especially for the top 1% and 0.1%. However, they're the ones who have enough money to pay for ways to hide their wealth from taxation, so an inheritance tax would be a high + low attack on the middle, further cementing the inequality divide.

<comment><USER20> 100% with you on this. I am set to inherit a large sum of money when my grandfather dies (150-200k). And yes, 'large sum' is what I said. I honestly thought about writing 'life-changing' sum, because that will allow me to eliminate all of my debt, and substantially change my lifestyle.

I'm exactly who this would bite in the ass. I have neither the know-how, nor the real money to spend on moving things around to hide it from taxation.

Edit: I know the first million, as illustrated in the scenario this article presents, is exempted. I'm using myself as an example. The point still stands - extreme wealth would be hidden, and the rest of us would have to pay.

<comment><USER21> Are you sure you understand the estate tax?

Even before Bush-era increases to the estate tax exemption, estate taxes only cut in on $1 million and larger estates.

These days, the exemption is $5 million.

Putting the exemption back down to $1 million doesn't sound like it would heavily impact you unless your grandfather had a __lot __of beneficiaries.

<comment><USER22> > Putting the exemption back down to $1 million doesn't sound like it would > heavily impact you unless your grandfather had a lot of beneficiaries.

This is also the difference between an estate and an inheritance tax.

If someone has a $25 million estate and divides it evenly among 25 heirs, under an estate tax with a $23 million exemption and a 40% tax above that, each heir gets $968k. Under an estate tax with a $1 million exemption, each heir gets $616k. Under an inheritance tax with a $1 million exemption, each heir gets $1 million.

<comment><USER23> The main thing is to encourage it to be distributed to a large number of heirs because if 10 people get $1m they will spend far more than 1 person getting $1m and will pay sales tax, property tax and so on with it, also the people they spend it with will do the same and so on. The problem comes when folks pass $10m + pools down through generations.

<comment><USER24> Large accumulators of wealth simply dodge estate taxes all together. They put the money in a foundation and their heirs get a draw on the foundation for the rest of their lives.

Whatever reforms are put in place should focus on minimizing that ability to dodge the taxes.

Estate taxes are strange things in that they don't affect the poor and middle class because few people inherit more than 1 million dollars and we have exemptions for family farms and inherited small businesses.

It also doesn't hurt the ultra-rich, who easily evade inheritance taxes.

It hits a very narrow band of wealthy between the middle class and the ultra- rich.

<comment><USER22> I wonder if some sort of "non-person wealth tax" is mechanically feasible.

The goal is "big piles of money eventually go away"; estate/inheritance taxes stand at the boundary of individual ownership to try to chip away at the big piles of money when it is passed from one generation to the next.

The "loophole" is that non-person entities, in the form of corporations or trusts, do not die. Your family establishes a trust, dumps money into it, and within that trust it can be invested and grow indefinitely, even if money is taxed as it is taken out.

Assuming we don't want to just make non-corporate entities mortal -- require them to "die" and be replaced by a successor organization every 60 or 80 or 100 years -- the problem becomes "how do we keep an immortal entity from just sitting on an ever-growing pile of money, indefinitely".

So what if we just created a wealth tax and applied it to these immortal entities, of, say, 3% per year?

Could you apply it to all non-person entities, family trusts, for-profit corporations, non-profits, universities, etc? (If there is an exempt category, you're obviously going to suddenly have a lot of family chapels with billion dollar endowments.)

What would be the side effects, and which would be positive and which would be negative?

Assuming you taxed for-profit corporations on their wealth, and adjusted corporate income taxes appropriately, which sectors would benefit and which would go away? Would it be a good or bad thing for those sectors to become non-viable?

How hard would it be to reconcile internationally, could you tax entities sanely for the portion of their wealth resident in a jurisdiction, or would it be impossible to do fairly without leaving big tax havens?

<comment><USER23> With corporations and other vehicles there is a mechanism where by the ownership and beneficial rights are passed - shares are exchanged. If shares in family trusts were valued accurately - perhaps by compulsory audit for entities > $nnM then the transfer of ownership could be taxed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Chaps my hide with broke journalist mentality: "This means that 40 percent of why some Americans are extraordinarily well off has nothing to do with smarts, hard work, frugality, lucky gambles or entrepreneurial ingenuity. It is simply because they were born to rich parents."

In the US at least, it isn't hard if in lower middle class or above to invest small sums over long periods to get large amounts. It is simply that they are not doing it, or do not know why one should. To blame that one's own parents or grandparents did not do it, yet anothers did is victim blaming another's actions when they should look at their own descendants action.

<comment><USER25> Furthermore, why is an inheritance tax needed? The income was taxed upon earning, and any growth in that sum was taxed via capital gains. To then take even more via 'inheritance tax' is just government thievery.

<comment><USER26> This "multiple taxation" nonsense is nonsense. _Everything_ is taxed multiple times: I pay income tax on my salary. I spend my salary buying apples, and I pay sales tax on this. From the money I paid for apples, the store pays the cashier's salary, and part of this goes to income tax. The cashier spends their salary on software from my employer, and part of this goes to the state as sales tax. My employer uses the cashier's money to pay my salary, and I pay income tax _again_ to close the circle.

Money flows in circles, and every single transaction in the chain is subject to taxation. Picking out one particular tax on one particular kind of transaction -- surprisingly, one that only affects rich people -- and claiming that it is somehow extraordinary is intellectually dishonest. _Abolishing_ the inheritance tax is what would create an exception from the general rule.

As for:

> why is an inheritance tax needed?

As a method of redistribution from the very rich to the very poor, to create a more level playing field for everyone. (I'm not claiming that there _is_ a particularly level playing field anywhere, especially not in the US. But abolishing inheritance taxes would _certainly_ not make it more level.)

<comment><USER27> >As a method of redistribution from the very rich to the very poor, to create a more level playing field for everyone.

That's a nice theory, but the absolute top don't pay inheritance taxes as their wealth is tied up in huge complex financial instruments that they can transfer avoiding taxation. The goal is to make sure that doctor making $300k/year never breaks out of the middle/upper-middle class cage. The super- wealthy have many schemes to prevent the lowers from ascending to their level, this is just one of them.

<comment><USER26> It will surprise you that I very firmly believe that this kind of loophole should be abolished.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I doubt any sufficiently wealthy family "inherits" anything, the owning is done by a trust or company with obscured cross-border ownership.

Inheritance is for the rest of us.

<comment><USER29> Indeed. This is why I also take issue with the "wealth is lost in three generations" line that's often repeated. When I worked for a Bank & Trust Company we had a lot of clients who were "broke" on paper but had a substantial trust (controlled by the bank) that paid for just about every conceivable expense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> There is a simple fix to this. You have to get rid of the stepped-up basis. Then anything passed down will be taxed at the prevailing tax rates. All these extra rules and tricks wouldn't be needed.

This is extremely unpopular because the upper 20% of society wouldn't be able to pass down their homes and what is left of their retirement accounts tax- free. That is why you have a stepped-up basis with an exclusion limit that has an extremely punitive tax rate that encourages gaming the system.

But you can see the political equilibrium. Regular folk think big inheritances are being taxed while they get to pass on their house tax free and the big inheritances go through all kinds of loopholes to avoid actual taxation. It is very American.

<comment><USER31> The step-up in basis is super useful though, because you can't ask the decedant what their cost basis was, and it's not always easy to find that out (especially if their record keeping was poor).

The current exemption amounts are rediculous though. Something closer to $1M with inflation adjustment and a lein/payment plan option for illiquid assets such as the family business/farm would make a lot more sense.

<comment><USER30> If they can't obtain the cost basis then it should be zero. The vast majority of people have assets like stocks and property where records are maintained by third parties. And if its so old or so disorganized to not know, then a cost basis of zero probably isn't too far off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The notion that there's even significant wealth held by private individuals is total fiction. Compare yearly flows of money to private wealth. The global GDP is estimated at around $150T, and total global private wealth at perhaps $200T.

You could literally confiscate all private wealth in the world and it would run out in a few years.

Most people just don't realize this simple fact. We hear about how just a few people hold most of the world's wealth and it creates this image of enormous control and influence. But when you compare it to flows of money you realize how little of world's economic output these "super rich" people have captured for themselves.

<comment><USER18> _> But when you compare it to flows of money you realize how little of world's economic output these "super rich" people have captured for themselves._

Alternatively: starting with a lot of wealth allows you to allocate your time and resources to the accumulation of power and cultural influence, often without ever experiencing life as an average person. So you end up with super powerful people who never experienced the anxiety of waiting for payday or wondering about job security with a new baby on the way.

The corrupting influence of _that_ \-- even more than the opportunity cost of the wealth -- is a good reason for a wealth tax on the very, very, very wealthy. Would Trump be president if he didn't have a $400MM head start? Would the Koch brothers have been able to exert so much influence over state policy in places like Kansas if they didn't inherit their father's wealth? And, if so, would they have the same policy preferences and demeanors? Nothing is impossible, by I wager the odds are closer to zero than to one on both counts.

<comment><USER32> Bloomberg and Steyer have pretty much disproved the notion that you can easily buy your way into politics.

Most people don't even know who Steyer is. How many Steyers are out there? When a rich person tries to become notable and fails you just don't hear about them. When a rich person does something big you assume it's because of their wealth being their most apparent unique characteristic.

President Trump is one of the few who made it. And he actually didn't spend that much money on the campaign at all. Switched to regular fundraising pretty fast. Sure, there's no question that his wealth is a big part of who he is. If anything he leveraged people's obsession with wealth rather than his wealth itself.

You're still going to deal with nation state and corporate lobbying without private wealth. Successful private lobbying efforts get all attention because of how uncommon it is.

How long have Koch brother[s] been at it? They pretty much were life long political activists. And most of that is out of personal conviction. Doesn't seem to me like they have attained any concerning levels of power at all given their dedication.

<comment><USER18> _> How long have Koch brother[s] been at it? They pretty much were life long political activists._

That's... an understatement. They were life long members of the donor class. It's not like they spent their 20s-40s knocking on doors and then hit it big.

 _> And most of that is out of personal conviction._

Well, yes... that's what I meant by "would they have the same policy preferences and demeanors?" \-- I think there are striking policy differences between Bloomberg and Kochs/Trump that are probably in part explained by the differences in their life experiences.

 _> Doesn't seem to me like they have attained any concerning levels of power at all given their dedication._

I can tell you're not in Kansas anymore ;)

From David Koch's very level-headed obit in the Wichita Eagle: _" David and Charles Koch unmistakably altered the political scene"_ [https://www.kansas.com/news/business/article234301367.html#s...](https://www.kansas.com/news/business/article234301367.html#storylink=cpy)

Democrats in Kansas can get a bit over the top, but pretty much everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agree that the Kochs are synonymous with Kansas politics.

Anyways, yes, rich people both by inheritance and self-made will get involved in politics with varying levels of types of success. But I think it's corrupting for people to spend their entire lives in the donor class. Ascending to that position breeds a different type that inheriting that position. And, to be clear, this isn't even ideological; Trump and the Kochs aren't exactly the best of friends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Imagine how much it would stimulate the economy if we did this! Instead of building up wealth to ensure the success of future generations, old people would be forced to use it or lose it. The Buicks, 0-entry bathtubs and high- end mobility scooters would be flying off the shelves with all this unlocked capital being forced to consume. Think of all the new JOBS!

 _Now that 's what I call progress!™_

<comment><USER34> Milton Friedman makes a good point (he completely disagrees with yours): parents passing on wealth to children is a good thing as it makes them invest. Not in trinkets of frivolous utility, but actual investments that puts money in important thinks like factories etc. If you'd. Prefer people to divert their wealth into pointless waste before the tax man gets it, then heavy inheritance tax is the way to do it.

<comment><USER35> I think the gp was making the same point via sarcasm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A lot of people here are concerned that taxing the rich will just make them hide their money offshore.

It should be noted, then, that it's gotten a lot harder for Americans to go offshore with their money due to two recent things:

1\. Expatriation tax - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_tax)

2\. Foreign tax compliance act - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act)

When taken together, it means that Americans are basically unable to ever leave American taxation. No other nation has the ability to restrict their citizens like Americans do while their citizens are abroad.

This is bad news if you want to own a company while living abroad (you can't unless it's American or you'll be double taxed), live in a lower taxed country, or renounce your citizenship if you make more than something like 139k a year.

Any tax applied to America's rich would not result in money leaving the country - it's no longer really possible.

I wholeheartedly support strong inheritance tax. Dynasties are bad things and create bad systems. The US is uniquely positioned to enforce it even if it means that citizens are basically serfs to their country.

<comment><USER37> This is definitely what America is going for and definitely not the way things are right now. It's very much possible to leave and or or move money legally.

<comment><USER36> Please explain because every bank in the world needs to report to the US about their American account holders.

If you own a holding company in another country, you need to declare that and be taxed on it in addition to that country's tax.

I know this because I own a business and wish to live abroad so I really would like to leave but I can't.

<comment><USER37> You could not make the money in your own name.

I agree once you've built up a bank account as a us citizen it's quite hard to. But if you saw this coming, you could easily have an XYZ USA, an XYZ China, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'd posit that the passing of substantial wealth and capital between generations is one of the chief drivers of social decay. In the long term, it causes an immense amount of power to devolve into the hands of a small group of people who have done nothing to prove that they have the wisdom necessary to wield such power for the benefit of humanity.

<comment><USER5> The vast majority of the super wealthy right now did not inherit the bulk of their wealth.

I don't think this would even rank in my top 5 list of causes of social decay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I've never understood why people think that just because, e.g., their parents created a business worth millions of dollars, they should get that for free.

<comment><USER40> I've never understood why the government thinks that just because someone has died, they deserve 40+% of money that has already been taxed.

<comment><USER41> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the question honestly. Assuming we're talking about a country where "The Government" is pretty well behaved, said government doesn't put that money in its pockets. It makes it work for the people it represents. Working for your money and becoming filthy rich is fine. But when you die, you die. None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide what we do with what's left of you and your belongings. In an ideal world, we can use that to better the lives of others.

Unless you were a truly stingy person in life, your affluence will have already have had huge positive impacts on those near and dear to you. Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person?

<comment><USER42> > But when you die, you die. None of that money is yours anymore, because you > no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide with what's left of > you and your belongings.

Most governments enforce a person's will after they die. People generally elect to distribute their property to particular people, specifically to avoid it ending up in the hands of "we, as a society".

<comment><USER41> As a society it's fine to execute a will, as long as it doesn't harm society. Entrenching generational wealth and furthering poverty seems like it's harmful. This is understood, after all that's why there is an inheritance tax in the first place. I'm argueing that it needs to be _way_ higher.

<comment><USER42> I disagree with your assumption that entrenching generational wealth furthers poverty. When inventors believe that they can build generational wealth, they are motivated to produce better products and services, which they are able to offer at far lower prices than their value to all of us, so we all become richer. For example, I am writing this on a smartphone that cost just a couple hundred dollars. With it, I can access all of the world's knowledge and communicate with anyone instantaneously. For just a couple hundred more dollars, I sit beside an air conditioner that keeps me comfortably cool even though it is boiling outside. The barons of the gilded age could not have purchased such products for any price. So who is richer, me or them? The inventors of these products are rich, but what do I care? I am lucky to have been born into a world where these products are available for such a low price. While it hasn't been proven conclusively, anecdotal evidence suggests that more invention occurs in countries which defend generational wealth, and we all benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Inheritance tax is not a wealth tax (the person who accumulated the wealth has died), it's just another income tax (which NYT wants to raise to an absurdly high rate).

Taxing wealth is far more equitable than taxing income; taxing wealth gives low-medium earners more discretion to spend on needs like housing, clothing, food, child care, education, transportation, etc (needs that differ between families, and which families are better equipped to assess than the government), while taxing income gives the government a share of people's money before they can decide what to do with it. Tax wealth while people are alive (on an annual basis), rather than destroy a company/farm/estate by having the government swoop in and take an enormous share of it (do we really want the government in the business of taking over companies and farms?)

Of course, wealthy people who don't want to pay taxes could buy yachts and fancy cars, but that could be remedied easily by instituting high sales taxes on luxury items.

<comment><USER37> Wealthy people could also leave America

<comment><USER44> This is a big myth. Wealthy people are not going to just get up and leave America. Where do you think they would go?

<comment><USER37> Look at france. It added a wealth tax. A year later, it made international news when a billionaire stayed!

I think they would go quite literally everywhere.

<comment><USER45> Don't lie. They left. Read about Gerard Depardieu and many other rich people who left the country.

<comment><USER37> I think you misunderstood what I meant— almost all of them left except one which was newsworthy

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> High inheritance taxes tend to single out individual proprietorship businesses for punishment. I remember when I was young, watching newly-widowed farm wives lose everything to inheritance taxes. It was heartbreaking. The tax code changed so that stopped happening -- too late for some.

In the end, frequent tweaks to the inheritance tax code is just a full employment act for trust & estate lawyers.

What we need instead of our current convoluted taxation scheme is a progressive consumption tax -- but that is a rant for another day. (No, I don't mean a sales tax or a VAT. The government already gets all the data on your income and your total savings/investments. consumption = income - net_savings. Apply progressive table. Done.)

<comment><USER5> When was this?

I don't remember there ever being an inheritance tax on property left to ones spouse.

<comment><USER46> 1970's. The limit on what you could leave to a spouse was low enough that during a period of rapid inflation it got badly out of whack with farm land values. It caught main-street businesses, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Transferable copyright is way worse imho. I have no idea why we subsidize rent-seeking by the kids of inventors (or sometimes, people who had nothing to do with the original invention).

<comment><USER18> Transferable copyright and transferable real estate are the same thing imo. Not a huge fan of either, but I don't see how being the landlord's kid is any different from being an writers's kid.

 _> kids of inventors_

Inventions are protected by patent or by trade secret, not by copyright. Patents have short shelf lives compared to copyright, mostly because mickey mouse was copyrighted but not patented.

<comment><USER47> The difference I see is that a landlord's kid has to do 100% of the job his parent did or risk losing his landlordship. The writer's kid doesn't have to do anything at all.

Also yes, you're right. I should have said "work of art" rather than "invention" to emphasize that I mean copyright and not patent. Parents have far more reasonable durations.

<comment><USER18> _> The difference I see is that a landlord's kid has to do 100% of the job his parent did or risk losing his landlordship_

Lots of people who own small numbers of properties just hire a broker/property management company to do all the work for them. Also, renting out even a single family home requires damn close to zero labor even without hiring out the work. I rent one out and spend approximately one day a year on managing the property. Property management is a job. Property ownership isn't. The former does not pay nearly as well as the latter, and for most property classes, the former mostly amounts to paying other people to do the actual work once every few years.

TBH I imagine that maintaining a copyright with significant associated royalties also requires as much or more work than managing a property. You'd probably just hire a law firm or publisher to do all the work for you. If you didn't then you'd have to be monitoring for abuse, handling lawsuits, collecting royalties on contracts with publishers/distributors, etc.

I think you probably over-estimate the labor involved in most property management, under-estimate the labor involved in IP management, and under- estimate how divorced management and ownership are in typical cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The first question I have to ask myself about increasing taxes is,

can the government do a better job of distributing these resources than whoever is doing that Job now?

and what does better mean?

Living in the US with the government that is currently in place I feel confident that the government can't do a better job than the current system in place to handle inheritance, no matter what the definition of better is. So giving the government more money via inheritance tax is a bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER37> I think America could start by simplifying the tax code so the richest Americans/American corporations still pay taxes.

Then America could stop spending so much on subsidies and global policing.

Once America has done this (this == approach a budget more similar to the rest of the developed world), if it still needs to, then I think a simple wealth tax makes sense.

I don't see the argument for taxing inheritance which is already fraught with loopholes and complicated edge cases.

</comment><comment><USER49> I am inclined to believe it comes down to a fundamental error in our current way of taxation. Which is that we primarily tax work or the added value. While luck (the lottery, having rich parents) is not taxed at all or at measurable lower rates.

Question is why is that? And wouldn't it be fairer to tax work (effort) less and luck more?

<comment><USER50> > I am inclined to believe it comes down to a fundamental error in our current > way of taxation.

This is exactly it, what almost everyone fails to notice. If you look at other civilizations that do not impose income taxes, yet were successful, they did not have this entire mess that is the US taxation system. Islam dictates a "charity tax" called Zakat, that is calculated based on net worth, or produce (e.g. for farms and cattle). It is much, much easier system to calculate, and is strictly superior to whatever the US has going, as proof by how they have to keep revising the tax code and "closing loopholes", and proposing new taxes every time.

There are several factors at play here. The most important other factor is that the modern economic system is based on parasitic, and morally bankrupt practices, most important of which is interest/usury. Take these out and the wealth inequality gap will fix itself very quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The important inter-generational wealth transfer these days are a) moving to a neighborhood with good schools, and b) paying for college. To intercept this inequality with taxation, you'd need to tax the beneficiaries of these gifts enough to wipe out the lifetime earnings advantages associated with skilled labor.

</comment><comment><USER52> Definitely. People build their wealth, partially, on the achievements of others. They should be taxed on property.

<comment><USER4> If compounding returns are subject to additional taxation then why wouldnt the government be responsible for such a property itself (compounding returns on tax base for investments). For example an investment in irrigation ought to increase the output of agriculture and therefore increase their tax base...

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> But for those who have children, isn't this the whole point? i.e. ensuring your children have a better life than you did yourself.

In that view, surely passing on an inheritance is a good thing.

Obviously, passing on $5bn to your kids is different than leaving them a $800k house mortgage free.

</comment><comment><USER54> I have a hard time figuring what the purpose of taxes is with our huge deficits. It's almost like taxes exist only to redistribute wealth? Recovering even 50% of all inheritances via taxes does not make a dent in the deficit.

</comment><comment><USER45> France and many other countries already increased taxes before with devastating consequences. Don't think you can outsmart rich people and take their property without their permission.

</comment><comment><USER55> i can't believe how many posters here defend this immoral nonsense taxing already taxed legally gained money

if the rich obtain the money legal way and taxed them why they should be punished for being more successful than others and responsibly leaving the money to children? basically what defendants of inheritance tax say you should not try to be successful because you will be punished by losers for it, it's income tax all over again (unless your country has flat rate for everyone)

</comment><comment><USER56> Obligatory reading for believers in inheritance tax:

[https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its- di...](https://iea.org.uk/blog/how-high-tax-sweden-abolished-its-disastrous- inheritance-tax)

<comment><USER57> This post is about sweden. Off the bat, they don't seem especially comparable because they note that spouses needing to pay inheritance tax was one of the primary problems. Spouses don't do that in the United States (for good reason).

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Would be interesting to see what would happen if the tax were increased. Would there be a mass transfer before it went into affect? I wonder how the current age categories of wealth accumulation compare with previous generations.

<comment><USER59> The biggest inidicator of wealth is if your parents were wealthy. At least in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I hope that we could carve out exemptions for first-generation wealth. Reparations may never happen in the US, but if a family went from slavery to wealth in a few generations, perhaps the _least_ we could do is exempt them from the inheritance tax. Maybe this is a controversial take, I don't know, but it seems like it might make a small step towards lessening inequality.

<comment><USER61> So you want to carve out an exemption that will largely benefit non-minorities and increase wealth inequality, in the name of helping minorities and closing the wealth inequality gap? That's quite some spin there.

How about we take in more tax from the wealthy, regardless of their ethnic origins, and use that money to provide better social safety nets for the poorest who are also disproportionately minorities due to system and historical racism? You know, close the wealth gap, instead of further increasing it.

Or heck, if you're really serious about this then tax the wealthy and pay actual reparations.

It doesn't make any rational sense to pass a tax cut for the wealthiest in the name of "some of them could be minorities too!" It makes far more sense to tax all the wealthy, then help minority populations who would benefit more greatly.

The top 1%'s kids will have to survive without that third house or yacht, even if they're minorities.

<comment><USER60> Why such an antagonistic reply? An honest reading of my comment is that I'm speaking primarily of black millionaires — while leaving the door open that there are other groups also deserving of exemptions.

It's fine to disagree — but the tone is rather over-the-top considering. Let's have a conversation. I'm open to hearing why it's a stupid idea. But if we attack each other for posting ideas — then people won't put forward ideas out of fear of being attacked.

<comment><USER14> I like your original post not because I agree with it but I think it outlines an important point. Allowing families to work uninhibited without fear of government coming and taking everything allows these families (cultures) to get ahead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Rich people don't pay inheritance taxes. There are a gazillion ways to pass on money without falling prey to estate taxes. The only people effected are middle-class folks not savvy enough to avoid the tax.

The richest of the rich simply leave everything to a charity or foundation that their children draw salaries from (as well as having the use of the foundations estates, planes, etc.) Case in point... Warren Buffet; he's always going on about he isn't leaving anything to his children, but plans on giving it away to charity. What isn't frequently mentioned is that the kids 'own' the charities.

[https://www.nbcnews.com/businessmain/warren-buffett-his- birt...](https://www.nbcnews.com/businessmain/warren-buffett-his-birthday- gives-kids-600m-972645)

<comment><USER63> Middle-class folks are affected by a tax that starts at $23M of assets? I suspect not.

It's fascinating how much propaganda has shaped this debate. People with a few hundred thousand dollars in their 401(k) somehow got tricked into thinking the "Death Tax" had anything to do with them.

<comment><USER62> The rates vary depending on who is in power. They've been low, they've been high. You have no idea what the rate will be when you die.

The point is, regardless of the rate, the rich -- people with access to good lawyers and accountants -- don't be pay it. It's a political 'soak-the-rich' tactic used by progressive politicians to get votes... it never 'soaks the rich'.

<comment><USER63> That's an argument for fixing the loopholes.

<comment><USER62> It is unfixable. This isn't a political issue. It's just a fact. Absent a complete totalitarian economy where every transaction is acrurinized, it will always be an easy tax to avoid.

Consider income tax... consider the massive involvement of the govt required to enforce this tax. That is, employers are required to deduct the tax from every paycheck, reams if forms, thousands of agents... all that for one simple transaction: namely, paying someone for services.

You can't have the same type of scrutiny for the totality of transactions that can effectuate the tranfer of money from one person to another.

<comment><USER63> > It is unfixable. This isn't a political issue. It's just a fact.

Other countries have functioning inheritance tax systems.

> Consider income tax... consider the massive involvement of the govt required > to enforce this tax.

The IRS makes about $5 for every additional $1 it spends on enforcement. It more than pays for itself.

<comment><USER62> I don't know what you mean by functioning. The US had an estate tax systems. It functions. The issue is whether it serves the purpose for which it was created.

I suspect that European billionaires find it just as trivial to legally avoid estate taxes as they do here.

There seems to be a naive understanding of the manner in which the 'rich' hold their money and wealth. It's not sitting in a nice and tidy 401(k) that is easy to identify and tax. Instead -- if they know what they are doing -- it's a convoluted web of interests in international companies, foundations, and contractual rights. If he wished, for instance, Bill Gates (just to use an example) could easily arrange things so that he 'owned' nothing, yet still lived like a billionaire.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Palantir S1 Analysis – Video - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXLLwzS7b5Q <comment><AUTHOR> Let me know if you have any questions</comment>


U.S. to let airlines limit service animals on planes - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-pets/no-turkeys-no-possums-u-s-to-let-airlines-limit-service-animals-on-planes-to-trained-dogs-idUSKBN1ZL22K <comment><USER2> I remember being in an airport and having a woman I was sitting next to openly admit to me that her dog she was bringing on the plane she had "just went online an registered as an emotional support animal so I can take him with me". Clearly implying she did not, in fact, require an ESA.

I just remember being so blown away that she assumed a stranger would be 100% on board with this tactic as to tell me about it unvarnished that I was stunned into silence.

I love dogs, but you're ruining everything for the people who actually need service animals.

<comment><USER3> Probably being downvoted because it's just anecdote, but I've had at least two friends who shamelessly did the same thing with their dogs. I doubt this is uncommon given how easy the loophole is to exploit.

<comment><USER4> > I doubt this is uncommon

I've never seen _any_ animal in an aircraft cabin, and I fly a fair bit. How does it work even when it is completely legitimate? Do you just ask the animal politely not to go to the toilet for 12 hours or however long? What if they have an accident? How on earth do you clean that up and deal the smell in a cramped space?

<comment><USER5> _How does it work even when it is completely legitimate_

I've done it with cats. They were required by the airline to have a health certificate from a vet stating that they were healthy enough to fly, to be kept in their container at all times, and I had to pay a fee. I think it was $200 last time.

The vet also supplies tranquilizers to give the animal just before the flight. That keeps it calm and helps prevent it from needing to use the litter box.

Coast-to-coast isn't a problem. 12 hours? Animals shouldn't fly intercontinental. There's simply no reason for it.

At one time you could mail a cat. I mailed one from Charleston to New York using Delta's package service. The fee was less because it went into the cargo hold, but it still needed documentation from the vet. I don't know if that's still allowed.

<comment><USER6> > The fee was less because it went into the cargo hold

This kills pets all the time due to low temperature. Source: friend who used to work for the airlines.

<comment><USER7> There was a high-profile incident a few years ago where a contender for "world's largest rabbit" died in the cargo hold. Happens to stowaways too.

As much of an annoyance as animals in the cabin are, the cargo hold is not conducive to supporting mammalian life.

<comment><USER8> Could you put them in a special temperature-regulating box? But that would be bulky and perhaps cruel…

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems that flying with pets in cargo space is not only traumatizing to animals - it can be deadly: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-taking- your-pet-on-...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-taking-your-pet-on- an-airplane-worth-the-risk-6241533/).

For me it is hardly surprising that people who love their dogs or cats (and essentially treat them as family members) would go the extra mile to take them in the cabin, to ensure their physical and emotional safety. The alternative is to treat them as a disposable piece of luggage (which IMHO is inhumane and cruel for a life companion, human or not).

<comment><USER10> The rest of us know this. We rediscovered a long-forgotten technique that keeps the animal safe: we don't take them on a plane at all.

We leave them with friends, in boarding kennels and catteries.

Having your pet with you 24/7 is —for most people— an unnecessary kink, an expression that we've got too used to getting our own way.

It's not healthy. Get a grip.

<comment><USER11> Sometimes you need to travel with your pet. Unavoidably. Maybe you can't afford to kennel. Maybe you are moving. There are a thousand variables in this as to why an animal is brought from one place to another, and the way we do that long distance is through air travel.

Already it's normalized. No one is protesting in the streets about a cat aboard a plane.

Screeching infant, however? I'd vote to kennel.

<comment><USER12> > Screeching infant, however? I'd vote to kennel.

Babies are humans and I think most people would agree they should be given preferential treatment over pets as such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Completely ban them [ESA] with no exceptions. It's ludicrous and very illustrative of a very American mindset. Namely to exploit every possible gap in any process or system despite the clarity that you are operating outside the intended scope of it.

I know a woman who flew with her dog as an emotional support animal to assist with her anxiety. Her day job was as an air stewardess.

The attitude is, if they don't stop you, it's not my fault I can exploit the system. You see it everywhere in America. Less so in Europe.

Some examples of ridiculous behaviour by the owners:

[https://youtu.be/a5AzlCEagFY](https://youtu.be/a5AzlCEagFY)

[https://youtu.be/jCxE8BskmPE](https://youtu.be/jCxE8BskmPE)

[https://youtu.be/WkcxESqKlno](https://youtu.be/WkcxESqKlno)

[https://youtu.be/AO_mAfYM1Vo](https://youtu.be/AO_mAfYM1Vo)

[https://youtu.be/qJpREAfeluo](https://youtu.be/qJpREAfeluo) @17min

[https://youtu.be/-moq55oH5ro](https://youtu.be/-moq55oH5ro)

[https://youtu.be/GtPRrW3strM](https://youtu.be/GtPRrW3strM) \- yes. It's a horse

What you won't see on these videos is when the dog or pig needs to crap and piss. Which it will

<comment><USER8> > Completely ban them [ESA] with no exceptions.

And what of the people who need them?

<comment><USER13> Apparently it's impossible to differentiate between someone who does need them and someone who is exploiting the system.

Id argue they perhaps don't need them and the whole thing is a farce

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've fostered a dog that was fully trained as a service dog, but it was disqualified from being put into service because the vet found a hip dysplasia. The dog never pulled on its leash while I was walking it, and it immediately obeyed a bunch of commands (come, sit, heel, side, quiet, leave it, etc.) without the need for me to repeat. When I eventually got a dog of my own, I worked hard to train it because it was just so awesome to have a dog that was well behaved.

The last time I saw a "service dog" on a plane, it looked like it weighed about as much as its owner. As soon as the plane door opened after landing, the dog lunged toward the door, banging back and forth in the aisle. The owner could barely hold it back, and they weren't giving any commands to the dog. The flight attendant made a snarky comment, "What a wonderfully trained service animal!" I'm sure they know exactly how a genuine service animal behaves, and they are probably completely fed up with the widespread abuse of the service animal exemption.

<comment><USER15> This jumped out at me like an easily solvable problem because of what you describe; we could have dogs complete an obedience test to earn the service dog designation.

I didn't even think pets could be "upgraded" to service dogs, I figured they all came from licensed training camps.

<comment><USER16> Not that I would do this, but, my dog would easily pass any of your service dog tests and he's only one year old.

While there's lots of abuse by people bringing obviously untrained and unqualified animals on a flight, there is just as much abuse by people who take well trained dogs on flights and simply don't want to subject them to cargo transport -- the abuse is just much less noticed for obvious reasons.

Personally, I would prefer to simply adjust the system so that any sufficiently capable dog can travel in the cabin for a fee, which would of course be waived for people with disabilities.

<comment><USER17> I find your solution wonderful, but I'm curious how to detect such trained dogs. Tests? Certifications? Licenses? Who's and where from?

<comment><USER18> There's a "canine good citizen" test:

[https://www.akc.org/products-services/training- programs/cani...](https://www.akc.org/products-services/training- programs/canine-good-citizen/)

It's a pretty low bar for any dog that doesn't have major behavioral issues; I'd expect any dog with a non-dumbass owner and a good home from birth to be able to pass. Even many hard-core rescues could probably pass after a few years in a stable home.

A variant of this test for airline travel would probably not be too hard to design.

One of the problems with making any particular test mandatory is that the test operator can price gouge and then genuine service dogs will become even more expensive. So, such a rule would have to be paired with price controls on the test.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My understanding is that service animals are already limited to just dogs and miniature horses. It sounds like this is just allowing airlines to ignore ESAs as a privileged category.

Edit:

After some digging, apparently the Aviation Carrier Access Act[1] does not use the ADA definition for service animals, but instead uses its own definition, which is more expansive [2].

___

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Carrier_Access_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Carrier_Access_Act)

2\. [https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation- consumer...](https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer- protection/service-animals-including-emotional-support-animals)

<comment><USER20> In case you're like me and didn't believe that "miniature horses" are a real thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_horse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_horse)

Man those things are cute! No idea how you'd travel with one in a cattle class US economy seat though.

<comment> frosted-flakes They sit in the bulkhead row in front of the person.

There's more in this NYT article about miniature horses being used as service animals (including photos): [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/travel/mini- horse-service...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/travel/mini-horse- service-plane.html)

"For some blind people [...] guide horses serve as a compelling alternative to guide dogs. The animals are mild-mannered and fast learners, with nearly 360-degree vision. They may also offer balance support to individuals with physical disabilities."

Also, dogs only live for 8-10 years, while miniature horses live for 35-40 years.

They can easily fit in the back seat of a hatchback.

<comment><USER21> The main downside for the blind guide horse user is having every single person that sees them run up and say some variant of "OMG IS THAT A HORSE!?!?!?!" Even with a dog blind persons just trying to go about their business get a ton of unwanted attention and a horse draws an order of magnitude more.

One also needs to be able to pasture it. It doesn't take a ton of land, but a guide dog can live in an urban apartment and a horse can't, at least not without being miserable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Good. It cheapens those with real service dogs and real needs. Taking advantage of the system with improperly trained "emotional therapy" animals who misbehave makes it harder for legit service dogs to have credibility in the real world. I have a friend with a legit service animal need who always gets crap from the public or employees at restaurants/businesses. My friend reminds employees of businesses about discrimination and then politely lets them know vaguely what the dog is for. But this is all because people are abusing the system with emotional ponies, therapy snakes, etc..

I took an international flight a few months ago and overheard the flight attendant talking to a passenger and mocking how lenient our service dog rules are.

</comment><comment><USER23> How we got from an era of common sense, to an era where everyone can declare all kinds of bizarro pets as a "service animal" is a mystery...

<comment><USER24> Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Everyone is willing to abuse the system to an extent for personal gain (some more than others). Many systems provide special exceptions for emotional needs. It's a social taboo to question someone's assessment of their own emotional needs. Naturally, this means many people fake or exaggerate their emotional needs to get what they want.

This isn't a _new_ phenominon. The increased awareness of emotional health issues just means we keep seeing more systems implementing those exceptions.

Hardening systems against exploitation is difficult and at some point not cost effective.

<comment><USER23> Well, I'm not surprised about the "Everyone is willing to abuse the system to an extent for personal gain" part.

I'm surprised about the above:

> _It 's a social taboo to question someone's assessment of their own > emotional needs._

When common sense gave way to such a taboo about everybody's touchy "feelings", however far-fetched they are?

<comment><USER24> People often confuse skepticism with dismissal.

Regardless, we do not have the means to accurately disagnose someone else's mental health without relying on their own assessment. We know mental health problems are real, but anyone can get themselves diagnosed with almost any mental issue if they're a convincing liar. What can we realistically do about it?

<comment><USER25> With severe enough issues, it's not necessarily a matter of confusing skepticism with dismissal, it's that either one is extremely anxiety inducing on top of the main issue. I've known people with serious anxiety disorders, and for them, one of the worst parts about going out in public was not dealing with their anxiety, but dealing with how others would react to their anxiety. The last thing they wanted or needed at the time when their issues were flaring up was an interrogation from some stranger, especially if that stranger was in a position to deny or delay them access to the help they needed.

ESA abuse definitely makes it harder for people with real issues and real ESAs. And while I understand the issues it causes when people abuse the system, like most "public outcries" over abuses, I worry that we're going to overcorrect on this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The most shocking thing to me as a consumer is just how difficult it really is to fly a pet somewhere. This summer, my wife and I plan to go to Europe for a while, and want to bring our dog, so we don't burden a friend with him for a month.

I have gone on most major airlines websites, blogs, etc. and there is really no good source of information out there! In fact most US -> Europe airlines won't even allow an animal in the cargo hold during summer months due to the heat. Okay, fine.

So let's bring him in the cabin. Is he under 15lbs? Nope, you cannot bring it with you. Instead we are currently exploring this very loophole because there is simply no other alternative. When you cross oceans there is really no way get your animal there without the help of other people. I guess the reason a solution doesn't exist is because it's somewhat a niche problem, and airlines are focused on volume.

Any and all suggestions are welcomed. If you have a large dog that has flown internationally, please email me.

<comment><USER27> Why can't you put him in a doggy hotel.

You would never be allowed to take a non-service dog to New Zealand, any (non- service dog) Animial going to NZ is put in quarantine for 1 month on arrival

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Unfortunately this is a crummy situation for those who really need, say, emotional support animals, but sadly this is a situation where the bad apples ruined it for everyone. Two days ago I watched a "service animal" pee in the corner at Schiphol, and on a Delta flight I once put my bag under the seat in front of me, only to discover that I put it in a puddle of urine from yet another "service animal". At this point it mostly feels out of control.

<comment><USER29> The funny part is nobody "needs" an ESA. Real service animals are put through a grueling multi-year training program, have a high wash-out rate, and cost tens of thousands of dollars. ESAs can be "registered" for free online with absolutely no training or assessment of any kind... because they don't actually perform any kind of "service" like real service animals do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> plenty of fun stories like this: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/28/an- emotiona...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/28/an-emotional- support-pit-bull-mauled-year-old-girl-an-airport-terminal-lawsuit-says/)

<comment><USER31> what that dog actually did: [https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/5163350_030119-gma- emotio...](https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/5163350_030119-gma-emotional- support-pitbull-attack-vid.jpg)

<comment><USER32> that needs a strong warning

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have a take on this that I suspect is going to be unpopular.

I had a close friend who obviously had various mental health problems -- probably PTSD from a brutal childhood, major social anxiety -- but no diagnoses. I mean, I'm not a doctor, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt, but he quite clearly had issues, and limited means to go see one. Anyway, he regularly used cannabis. Although he probably would describe his use of cannabis as recreational, I think for him, and for a lot of people who use it with undiagnosed health problems, cannabis "feels good" because it's actually therapeutic.

I think something similar can be said for pets and animals in general. Some people have disabilities that prevent them from living their lives to the fullest. Some people have pretty severe anxiety around travel. And some people in those categories don't even have diagnoses. All they know is their animals provide comfort.

Sure, if you're someone with autism, bad social anxiety, or PTSD, it's known that there can be a lot of safety inherent to a relationship with a creature who won't judge you cruelly for being who you are. But on the less extreme side, some people are dealing with anxiety or depression driven by grief, shitty jobs, financial insecurity, or other issues, and having a loved pet close to you -- especially when you're traveling, which sucks for a lot of people -- can make an enormous difference.

One thing that I see missing from discussion here is that airlines and businesses in general have a financial stake in limiting what's required of them with regard to accessibility, and historically they've fought and continue to fight tooth and nail to reduce such requirements, and even when they lose, their actual implementation is often minimal and piss-poor. So I don't think their "wins" are to be celebrated

Further, I'd argue that the headline itself is sensationalized: turkeys and possums on planes are red herrings, as are the anecdotes in the comments around "so-and-so said they got their dog registered just so he could fly with her". Why did she want him to fly with her then? Sure, a passenger with a turkey or a possum might cost the airlines more money -- but to what extent is the average consumer even impacted by someone bringing a possum on the plane?

Finally, to the folks who suddenly care about animal welfare when we're talking about folks with mental health related disabilities, you don't _always_ have to fly with animals in cargo. A number of airlines allow animals to fly in the cabin with you, with certain restrictions.

<comment><USER34> I have some combination of OCD and generalized anxiety disorder. In general, pets make me very uncomfortable, so your argument cuts both way too. Others' emotionally support animal is my emotionally distressed animal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Yeah I'm fine with this. People have been abusing ESA and IMO only actual service animals, those trained to perform a specific set of functions, should be allowed in the cabin.

<comment><USER36> Airlines have allowed dogs and cats on planes and in cabins for decades...but they charge for it.

ESA classification is being used by pet owners to _avoid paying_ for transporting their pets.

<comment><USER35> I guess I was mistaken. I thought there was a separate compartment for pets aboard flights. That's what I assumed people were doing when they passed their dog-in-crate to the airline employee

<comment><USER37> Animals that are small enough can travel in-cabin for an extra fee, generally in a crate under the seat, while larger animals fly in hard crates in the cargo area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> "[The U.S. Transportation Department] also wants comment on whether it should allow miniature horses to serve as service animals."

Putting aside my instinct that this proposal is just too ridiculous to contemplate, has anyone considered the safety implications of a 70-180 kg strong-legged hoofed animal flying around the cabin in turbulence? Or running around after a crash?

<comment><USER39> Miniature horses are used as service animals in Muslim countries, as they have religious biases against dogs. [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30155540/ns/health- health_care/t/s...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30155540/ns/health- health_care/t/seeing-eye-horse-guides-blind-muslim-woman/)

<comment><USER38> To be clear, the only thing that strikes me as ridiculous about the proposal is having them in the cabin of airliners.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Good. I can't even believe they would allow a (mini) horse on an airplane... much less back in meat space.

[https://www.thedrive.com/news/29332/us-dept-of- transportatio...](https://www.thedrive.com/news/29332/us-dept-of- transportation-rules-airlines-must-allow-miniature-horses-as-service-animals)

<comment><USER41> I thought this was weird too but my understanding is that miniature horses actually make fantastic service animals. That article touches on some of the reasons, including that they're housebroken, intelligent, capable of leading the blind, can be trained to have a very calm demeanor, are often more patient than dogs, mitigate issues with allergies because they don't shed and they can't get fleas.

Also the big one: miniature horses live significantly longer than dogs, reducing the number of times an owner has to re-pair and form a new relationship with a new service animal.

<comment><USER39> And some people have religious objections to dogs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> If we fly home for a few weeks for the holidays we'll often bring our dog with us. We pay $125 to bring them in the cabin and they must remain in a carrier under a seat for the duration of the flight. Cheaper than paying a kennel/dog sitter and just easier for everyone all together. No problems at all so far after years of doing this.

The last time I was checking in at special services (due to the dog), the employee told me she registered her dog as an emotional support animal to bypass the fee. This was the airline employee giving this advice. At that point it was clear this was just a big joke. From what I understand now you need to have a doctor's note from a mental health professional and a bunch of other paperwork in order to bring your emotional support dog without a fee/carrier. I figured that would stop a lot of tom foolery, I guess not.

</comment><comment><USER43> A member of my family is a medical professional and they told me that they frequently see people who either come in because they want a work excuse (that they don't really need) or want their animal classified as an emotional support animal. I think the most absurd one I heard was they wanted their chicken classified as an emotional support animal. It's definitely time to draw a line.

EDIT: They told me that 99% of the time they say no to the latter request and will only give a work excuse if that person is genuinely sick. They also told me that they work with plenty of providers who just don't care and hand out the work excuses and emotional support certifications upon request.

<comment><USER44> As a side note, and to be fair to chicken, my dad used to have one who was a "real" pet (of course at the time even the idea of "emotional support" by a pet or else was unknown).

This chick used to come when called, jumped on my dad's lap on command, made "special" sounds for my father only and (it lived with the other chickens) for some reasons was always the first one to come out the henhouse in the morning and the last one to get into it in the evening.

So - bar defining it an ESA for not paying something - that particular chicken actually was companion to my dad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> This needs to be more widespread. People really abuse their animals and whole emotional support concept and I remember a few years ago the hundreds of people who thought it was okay to bring their emotional support pet to New York Comic Con.

This shit has to stop.

</comment><comment><USER46> I was on a flight from FTL to NYC and saw some guy bring a duck on the flight. The duck was classified as his emotional support animal.

It was a good idea, but once again people ruin a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's about time! The practice has been abused so much that it has depreciated the publics perception of actual service animals.

</comment><comment><USER48> It's baffling to me that there's no federal or state licensing system for service animals.

</comment><comment><USER49> The best bakery I know of in Washington, DC, is run by a lawyer of considerable experience. He takes a very firm line against emotional support animals. Anyone wishing to argue the case finds out that he knows the law.

</comment><comment><USER50> Legit service animals are very well behaved and never a problem.

There's no question though that this issue of pets masquerading as service animals has become a big problem. Makes sense that places are starting to crack down.

</comment><comment><USER51> The modern definition of service dog is a dog you want to bring into places that restrict dogs. Cheating is rampant.

</comment><comment><USER52> Misleading title. Actual service dogs, like seeing eye dogs for the blind, are still allowed.

Other, self-declared "emotional support animals" are banned.

> "The U.S. Transportation Department on Wednesday proposed giving airlines > the power to bar emotional support animals from cabins and limit the > definition of a service animal to a trained dog."

</comment><comment><USER53> Seems like we just need some small percentage of flights to allow dogs.

</comment><comment><USER54> Yes there is rampant ESA abuse, but note the airlines all charge $175 each way for a pet. Isn't that obvious collusion?

It's $350 to take my small dog to LA for the weekend when the round trip ticket for a human is $100. She is great on planes and has never had even a minor incident.

<comment><USER5> _Isn't that obvious collusion?_

No, because people have been flying with pets for as long as there have been planes. The difference now is people are abusing the system.

<comment><USER54> The problem is they all magically arrived at an exorbitant price that seems to reflect monopoly pricing. Also fees have standardized recently.

<comment><USER55> > The problem is they all magically arrived at an exorbitant price that seems > to reflect monopoly pricing. Also fees have standardized recently.

Playing devil's advocate, if the market determines prices then isn't settling on a price to be expected across practically indistinguishable providers of the same exact service?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This whole song and dance is absurd. People are currently flying with their cat or whatever as a 'service animal'. It's pretty normalized and to be expected to see while traveling anywhere. Why not just let you fly with your pet to begin with?

</comment><comment><USER56> Entitled people who make the lives of actual disabled people harder are the worst kind of selfish. It's also why Social Security hearings take several years to get for some people who aren't visibly disabled. This is because whole extended families apply since they have shady lawyers and doctors to help them invent conditions. It's a game to them, taking help away from people who need it.

<comment><USER57> Which is why, when the goal is to guarantee rights, universal programs are generally better than discretionary / means-tested ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> This culture with dogs and animals have reached nonsense proportions. It has gone to the other extreme, and it needs to be reigned back in.

I was in an elevator, and some guy brought his dog to work, or something. I was surprised that I might have flinched, said WTF, and the dog flinched, and growled. At that moment I thought the dog was going to attack me, or the others in the small elevator cabin. And this was a medium to large sized dog, that was also beyond the owner's ability to easily control.

And I see more often now, people walking their bulldogs, as if they are nice and friendly pets. They are not. They are vicious attack animals.

These dogs are not professionally trained. There is no certification that can guarantee that the dogs are safe to the public. And the owners are typically incompetent and irresponsible morons that shouldn't have a dog to begin with.

And there are those idiots that brings their large dogs into department stores, and walks them around as if it's perfectly ok. It's absolutely abnormal to be shopping at a Target, and to have to avoid some idiot's large dog.

It's also irritating to walk through a store like Nordstrom Rack, where people bring their small dogs into the store, and let them sit inside the cart. There's nothing worse than placing your new clothes into a shopping cart soiled by a dog's urine or poop. But I digress, Nordstrom Rack must have a policy to allow these people that privilege to bring in their small dogs. I try to avoid the place if I can, because of this. I'll vote with my wallet.

I'm all for letting people have service animals, if they are blind, or physically handicapped. At least those service animals are professionally trained (or at least I hope there is a valid certification for that).

But for all others with their supposedly "emotional support animals", then they are just abusing the system, and taking advantage of the good graces of others. It is only a matter of time before one of these dogs violently acts out and attacks someone or a child in public.

What will it take to outlaw this? Do we have to wait until one of these dogs kills a child in order to ban them?

<comment><USER59> >Do we have to wait until one of these dogs kills a child in order to ban them?

I doubt even that will be enough. I share a lot of your fears. It hasn't happened yet, but one day someone is going to lose track/control of their pit bull here in California where even small women can take them on walks and it will attack me while I'm walking/running home. So I have to make sure to walk on busy streets so if I do get attacked, I at least have someone who can help. There was one time I was walking somewhere and two different pet owners crossed paths and their dogs started barking and aggressing each other, one of the owners even fell but on the bright side he didn't lose grasp of the leash and the girl with the big ass dog was able to keep her dog under control. Another time recently, I was going home with my sister and we walked past a house where some dog owners lost control of their dog which started running for us, but luckily it was friendly and wasn't out for blood. Small cute breed. But what about when it isn't? It's fucked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I had an ESA certificate for a while and may get one again soon. I never lied to get one, either. That said, the online certification basically amounts to a long-form version of needing to answer yes to two questions: 1 - does flying stress you out? 2 - does your dog make you feel better?

I never once used it for anything but flying, because things like bringing your dog to the groceries or the movies or a restaurant is just unnecessary. If you find yourself splitting your time between two cities that are >1 day drive apart, you have only a few choices: 1 - Don't have a dog over 18lbs 2 - Leave dog half the time 3 - Risk dog's life and guarantee a Very Bad Time under the plane 4 - Get ESA certificate

I think airlines are leaving money on the table and should just have a relatively expensive travel-certification obedience course and charge a boatload for it. I'd happily pay $500 per year to have my dog authorized to fly in the cabin without an ESA (which incidentally cost less than half that).

To pre-address the typical objections (and to steal from my own HN comment almost 3 years ago):

"People are allergic!" For $100 a tiny shedding dog can ride in a very-not- dander-proof container. My dog is non-shedding.

"They can be noisy!" So can your toddler. So can above tiny dog. Mine isn't.

"It's like parking in a handicap spot!" No silly, my dog takes up my foot space, no one else's

"The airline is losing money!" My dog & I weigh less combined than plenty of people who pay the same fare. I've also offered to buy a seat for my dog and leave her in a large crate on the seat. Not an option.

"The guy next to you doesn't want a dog around!" See answer 1. Also, 90% of people are happy to be distracted from the horror of flying. Anyone who isn't can easily trade seats, since most people are happy to sit by the pup.

<comment><USER61> Imagine being so selfish and incapable of doing normal human things, like sit in a chair for a few hours, that you are willing to put a whole plane full of people through a bunch of nonsense and potential danger.

<comment><USER60> I'm genuinely curious if you read the comment or just 5 or 6 words. What exactly is the potential danger?

The way the system is set up is very stupid. It does in fact allow untrained, large, dangerous, poop-on-the-plane dogs onto planes with an online BS certificate. That doesn't mean that anyone who uses an online cert is putting people at risk on getting eaten by a Rhodesian Ridgeback. It is in fact possible to just train your dog properly...</comment></comment></comment>