Never before in contemporary history has so much money been concentrated in the hands of the elderly. A thriving post-World War II economy, lowering tax rates on high-income families, and soaring real estate and stock markets boosted the wealth of America’s elder generations (Wall Street Journal). According to Levin, up to $30 trillion in assets will be transferred from the baby boomer generation to their Gen X and Millennial offspring and the baby boomers’ favorite charities over the next few decades (1). The transfer of wealth from baby boomers to their offspring over the next two decades is analogous to climate change for financial advisors: The implications may be severe in the long run, but it is simple to disregard the problem in the near term. “Given the amount of money at risk for many families, it’s no surprise that sticky scenarios involving the opposing objectives of parents, children, grandkids, ex-spouses, and others abound,” writes the Wall Street Journal. Changes in family relationships, family business conflicts, retirement, and re-establishing residence in a new state will all impact wealth transfer planning. The goal of this presentation is to identify appropriate theories on which to base estate litigation for boomers’ wealth transfers and address gaps discovered, intended, and unexpected societal repercussions of financial transactions in the framework of feminist philosophy. The proposal then addresses the roles of communitarianism and socialism in wealth transfers.
Part 1: AGAINST the Feminism Theory
The feminism theory is a presumption of a social movement whose primary objective is gender equality. People have emphasized in the past that women and men have equivalent talents, and they have worked to improve the social standing of all women and the status of disadvantaged males. According to MacKinnon’s feminist theory, gender is more of a power imbalance than an accurate or erroneous distinction (274). This indicates that the issue for women is more minor about whether they are different from or the same as males (274), and sexism works against them (275). However, for various reasons, the feminist theory should not be used to determine the “largest wealth transfer.” First, ideological reliance exists in political disputes that are distinctive of the current historical period (Bartlett, 276). This is because uncontrolled wealth distribution tactics of inheritance help society as a whole since they are the most effective ways of balancing what people and litigants want (Bartlett, 276). Furthermore, there is a dependence on what Fineman refers to as the “assumed family,” which distorts analysis and policy since the ideological construct is of a specific demographic and gendered shape. This construct permits individuals to believe that feminism isn’t a serious social issue that’s leading to an increase in inequitable and uneven allocation of societal resources that’s careless with the wellbeing of men (Fineman, 16).
Second, feminist notions of equality, according to popular belief, do not accept John Rawls’ principle of equal opportunity, which states: “Social and economic disparities are to be linked to offices and positions available to everyone under circumstances of fair equality of opportunity (266).” By highlighting that most mainstream feminist work fails to consider institutions of intimacy, such as the family, Rawls’ argument is crucial to debunking core fallacies of feminism theory. It appears self-evident that the boomers’ inherited riches have the potential to corrupt individual initiatives in the name of feminism, denying women the chance to exhibit their innate value and worth because of their fathers’ wealth (Fineman, 28). Third, it is self-evident that inheritance takes various forms in our society. No matter how different individuals are from one another, transferring anything of worth—wisdom, property, or money—from one generation to the next entails passing something of value from one generation to the next. Nonetheless, feminism-based wealth transfer comes with existing and uneven economic and social benefits, which are unlikely to be eliminated. Thus, visualizing a society from behind a “veil of ignorance,” the feminist theory fails to guarantee a fair chance for income distribution (Fineman, 28).
Furthermore, the feminism theory reveals the significant class split within American feminism (Geier), wherein feminism is diluted down to the right of elite women to enjoy equality with men of their class, which is not feminism and hence not reflective of women’s real voices (Geier). Instead, feminism should put the idea into practice to eradicate gendered social disparities. Using the lottery as an example, it would be impossible (and has been) to eliminate variations in socioeconomic situations; instead, financial advantages and disadvantages should be dispersed by chance (Fineman, 28). Although this may lead to a more level playing field in the long run, income distribution based on gender equality is not feasible. The benefits and privileges and the drawbacks and liabilities imposed by family rank and uneven distribution of social and economic goods, wealth distribution determine who wins and who loses in society. Simple and dishonest prescriptions and ideological placebos of independence, autonomy, and self-sufficiency are not found in the feminist theory approach to resolving this form of inequity. Finally, the “largest wealth transfer in history” should not be based on the feminist idea. Furthermore, the theory is unlikely to comprehend the expressive needs of justice to demonstrate respect for all people (Anderson, 337).
Part 2: FOR Communitarianism and Socialism theories
“Communitarianism is an ideology that emphasizes the individual’s relationship to the community. Communitarianism is the belief that various forms of constitutive communities (or social interactions) create our identities in significant ways. This understanding of human nature should drive our moral and political judgments, policies, and institutions (Bell). In distributive justice, communitarianism contributes to the largest wealth transfer in history by increasing equality via the wealth tax (Maloney, 635). As a result, tax reform is a crucial topic on the political agenda, and wealth taxation is a necessary component of that plan if any of the ideals, notably equality of opportunity, that the people value as a civilized and democratic society are to be realized.”
Furthermore, it is said that, although transfer taxes do not generate significant income, they play an essential role in the progressive development of the tax system as a whole (Duff, 10). According to Graetz, if society wants to justify raising the inheritance tax rather than removing it, we must look for reasons other than income generation. As a result, its position in the tax burden distribution should be its function in providing an essential aspect of progress in the federal tax system, where the element is the ethos of grounding communitarianism in wealth transfers.
“The horizontal equity advocated by communitarianism theory is a different transfer tax that emphasizes the nature of inheritances as windfalls to beneficiaries (Duff, 16). Although some argue that the unearned and fortuitous nature of these payments justifies special tax treatment (Duff, 16), it is argued that beneficiaries have a greater taxpaying capacity than other income recipients because they (the beneficiaries) have no prior expectations to be disappointed and no anticipatory commitments to be disrupted (Duff, 16). It is argued that, to the degree that tax burdens appropriately impose an equivalent sacrifice on all taxpayers, these successors should incur a specific tax duty since the inconvenience they feel is more minor than that caused by an equal amount imposed on taxpayers with regular or recurrent revenues (Sandford et al., 45). Furthermore, since distant and unrelated heirs are less likely to anticipate inheritances than closer relatives, this windfall argument is often used to explain the consanguinity-related rate differentials seen in numerous transfer tax systems (Jantscher, 49-50).”
Socialism, which considers “extreme, plutocratic riches” as both a moral and economic failure, is another philosophy for wealth transfer. As a result, most socialists want to use their inherited wealth to destroy capitalism, using their money to reverse institutions that accrue wealth for the few and have contributed significantly to rising economic and racial inequality (Beery). Indeed, during many people’s adult lives, class and inequality have been part of the political discussion due to capitalism. According to Beery, basing the transfer of inherited riches on socialism is a strategy for combating economic inequality since it separates from the economic legacies of Indigenous genocide and slavery. As a result, this equality of fate among egalitarians is currently one of the most famous theoretical viewpoints (Anderson, 290). Besides, the riches that millennials are receiving, result from a massive shift of wealth away from the working class, resulting in a small super-rich minority at the price of a transitory American ideal that is now out of reach for the vast majority of people (Wolff).
Furthermore, since money is power, effective wealth redistribution entails dispersing authority. Of course, a single act of wealth redistribution does not bring a system to a level playing field (Scheffer). On the other hand, these heirs view themselves as part of a more significant transformation and are committed to keeping the momentum going. As a result, socialism entails utilizing inherited money or riches to create more fair economic infrastructures rather than competing for profits.
Part 3: Rationale and Conclusion
“The self-help book Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg accomplished at least one crucial goal: it revealed the wide socioeconomic rift among American feminism. Sandberg claims that individual empowerment is the way ahead for the feminist cause, sparking a heated dispute among feminists. Many feminists on the left are troubled by Sandberg’s candid admission that her message was aimed at professional elites rather than the general public, her excitement for capitalism, and her endorsement of a depoliticized approach centered on self-improvement rather than collective action. Is feminism, which at least in principle promotes the emancipation of all women, indeed feminism if it is defined as the right of elite women to enjoy equality with males of their class? This idea faults that the advantages are not distributed equally.”
For the following reasons, I support communitarianism and socialist theories. First, communitarianism reflects society’s typical idea of what constitutes a family. Second, socialism entails the redistribution of power, a foundation for a more fair economic architecture. According to the study above, the “largest wealth transfer ever” should be founded on both communitarian and socialist philosophies. Finally, the theories require that we act exclusively on principles that demonstrate respect for everyone, which has the critical result that disparities may be suitable as long as they assist the least well-off.
Works Cited
Anderson, Elizabeth S. “What is the Point of Equality?.” Ethics 109.2 (1999): 287-337.
Bell, Daniel. “Communitarianism.” (2001).
Beery, Zoë. “The Rich Kids Who Want to Tear Down Capitalism.” The New York Times – Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos, 27 Nov. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/style/trust-fund-activism-resource-generation.html.
Eisen, Ben, and Anne Tergesen. “Older Americans Stockpiled a Record $35 Trillion. The Time Has Come to Give It Away.” WSJ, 2 July 2021, www.wsj.com/amp/articles/older-Americans-35-trillion-wealth-giving-away-heirs-philanthropy-11625234216.
Duff, David G. “Taxing inherited wealth: A philosophical argument.” Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 6.1 (1993): 3-62.
Jantscher, Gerald R. The Aims of Death Taxation. No. 333. Brookings Institution, 1978.
Fineman, Martha Albertson. “Cracking the foundational myths: Independence, autonomy, and self-sufficiency.” Am. UJ Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 8 (2000): 13.
Geier, K. “Does Feminism Have a Class Problem?” The Nation, 11 June 2014, www.thenation.com/article/archive/does-feminism-have-class-problem/tnamp/.
Maloney, Maureen A. “Distributive Justice: That Is the Wealth Tax Issue.” Ottawa L. Rev. 20 (1988): 635.
Levine, Mary F. “Litigation and the Baby Boomer Wealth Transfer.” Blalock Walters, P.A, 16 June 2017, blalockwalters.com/litigation-and-the-baby-boomer-wealth-transfer/.
Rawls, John. “A theory of justice.” (1971).
Sandberg, Sheryl, and Nell Scovell. Lean in: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Knopf Publishing Group, 2013.
Sandford, Cedric Thomas, et al. An Accessions Tax: A Study of the Desirability and Feasibility of Replacing the United Kingdom Estate Duty by a Cumulative Tax on Recipients of Gifts and Inheritances. No. 7. Institute for Fiscal Studies;[London][Distributed by Research Publications Services], 1973.
write