How about the self-sustaining farmer who doesn't need to work in society? Completely capable individual, has a certain way of life, and suddenly they don't need to contribute?
How about the person who has so much wealth that they will never need to work in their life?
Government is labor that benefits the people. The only way an individual can escape the duty is if they are incapable or if society deems that they deserve a break.
Indeed. Which is the reason why my conclusion was opposite to the opinion. The real world gets in the way of it being practical.
But in my ideal world inheritance is considered income and is taxed as such. And on a logistical curve a billionaire inheritance is taxed really close to 100%. Anybody that has earned so much money they no longer need to work has paid as much in taxes (and continue to do so as interest is taxed as income). Additionally on a logistical curve it is almost impossible anyway to earn this much since a huge earning is taxed close to 100%. For example, someone making 5 standard deviations above the mean pays 99.33% tax on it, so they will probably end up with less after taxes then someone earning 2 standard deviations below the mean (11.92% tax).
As for the farmer who is self sustaining. I guess they are not using up much of the shared infrastructure anyway, I see no need for them to be paying taxes.
How about the person who has so much wealth that they will never need to work in their life?
Government is labor that benefits the people. The only way an individual can escape the duty is if they are incapable or if society deems that they deserve a break.
Taxing only income misses the mark by a bunch.