The inheritance tax

[ocean515]

Why not?

The wealth was the result of all of humanity for all of time. Why shouldn't it be shared by all of humanity again?

The wealth was the result of the effort of a member of humanity. Humanity did not give it to them.

 

[Unrepresented]

There are no doubt other ways of dealing with that concern that don't require the taking of someone's property. .

It's not taking someone's property. They're dead. They don't have property.

Since we're speculating on the why of estate taxes I'll speculate that it has more to do with revenue than an anti dynastic bit of social engineering.

It likely has a variety of reasons. Having a well funded government isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering all the threads complaining about debt and deficit we see here...

 

[blaxshep]

The wealth was the result of the effort of a member of humanity. Humanity did not give it to them.

Actually it did, wealth comes from customers not business owners.

 

[ocean515]

Actually it did, wealth comes from customers not business owners.

Wealth comes from business owners smart enough to have something people want, and willing enough to part with it.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Wealth comes from business owners smart enough to have something people want, and willing enough to part with it.

When I was 13 I discovered that you could grow worms, in three months you can have a million from ten.

So I did.

In the mid 60's I made about $400 a year selling bait.

and all the kids who never tried resented me when I bought my first motor cycle with worm money, they all figured daddy should buy them one. And by the time he did, I had a Triumph Bonnaville.

 

[Gaius46]

It's not taking someone's property. They're dead. They don't have property.

It likely has a variety of reasons. Having a well funded government isn't necessarily a bad thing, considering all the threads complaining about debt and deficit we see here...

So under what theory does the government become first in line to collect the dead guys former property. Under what theory does the government get a place in line at all?

Passing property to spouses and heirs is not only a well established custom, it's also well established in common law and it simply makes sense. Why does the government deserve a seat at the table?

 

[ocean515]

When I was 13 I discovered that you could grow worms, in three months you can have a million from ten.

So I did.

In the mid 60's I made about $400 a year selling bait.

and all the kids who never tried resented me when I bought my first motor cycle with worm money, they all figured daddy should buy them one. And by the time he did, I had a Triumph Bonnaville.

Great story! My first motorcycle came from a paper route and a used lawnmower I got for free and made work. I went door to door, pulling my lawn mower. Probably have to have 5 permits and meet a host of other regulations today. Never thought of worms.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Great story! My first motorcycle came from a paper route and a used lawnmower I got for free and made work. I went door to door, pulling my lawn mower. Probably have to have 5 permits and meet a host of other regulations today. Never thought of worms.

I started with lemonade at the bus stop, a rural bus stop.

I found my paper route to be too time consuming, I figured I was making about 3 cents an hour and sold it.

Paper boys are gone, and kids under 16 cannot operate a lawn mower without supervision, and kids have organized and supervised "play dates", making money is discourage, a local school just suspended a kid for distributing his price list for his art.

Way to go, socialists, tell an artist its wrong to make money off what he does.

BUT, as with all socialist ideas, it backfired. The kid is good and the publicity has given him commissions. That's how their ideas always turn out, unintended consequences usually counter to what you intended.

 

[Mithrae]

That's if you stuck to your current lifestyle. Most people who suddenly come into a lot of money make little lifestyle changes...like trying to keep up with a new "friend" who has a ton of money but also has the income to support that lifestyle.

That's hardly the same thing as "Most people have no idea how much work is involved in preserving wealth that one has already accumulated." I think you'd find that in fact most people would put not squandering it all right at the top of their list :lol: And we weren't talking about suddenly coming into a lot of wealth, we're talking about inheritance - a situation where heirs have presumably enjoyed at least some of the benefits in preceding years.

Wouldn't you agree that somewhere in the order of 500-1000 million dollars' total wealth is more than enough for anyone to provide for their heirs, if there were no inheritance tax?

In either case - inheritance tax or simply a cap on total wealth - the concern is the same, and well-justified: Concentration of wealth can lead to concentration of power, and even if it is supposed that this isn't an issue currently, it'd be sheer idiocy to wait until it IS and issue and then hope that the rich and powerful will let the situation change!

So which is the best approach to preventing such an eventuality? Inheritance tax, or a wealth cap? Like I say, I previously thought an inheritance tax was a good idea, but the comments in this thread have changed my mind.

 

[blaxshep]

Paper boys are gone, and kids under 16 cannot operate a lawn mower without supervision, and kids have organized and supervised "play dates", making money is discourage, a local school just suspended a kid for distributing his price list for his art.

Way to go, socialists, tell an artist its wrong to make money off what he does.

You can't open a lemonade stand without permits either. $150 for the permits to sell 50 cent glasses of lemonade.

 

[poweRob]

Bernie Sanders Calls For 65% Top Estate Tax Rate - Forbes

U.S. Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called today for lowering the amount individuals can shield from the federal estate tax, and hiking estate tax rates across the board, as he introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act. “This is a piece of legislation that addresses what I consider to be the most significant moral issue of our time,” he said at a press conference in Washington, D.C., citing growing economic inequality.

 

[Unrepresented]

So under what theory does the government become first in line to collect the dead guys former property. Under what theory does the government get a place in line at all?

Passing property to spouses and heirs is not only a well established custom, it's also well established in common law and it simply makes sense. Why does the government deserve a seat at the table?

My position isn't currently supported by common law.

 

[Unrepresented]

Bernie Sanders Calls For 65% Top Estate Tax Rate - Forbes

U.S. Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called today for lowering the amount individuals can shield from the federal estate tax, and hiking estate tax rates across the board, as he introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act. “This is a piece of legislation that addresses what I consider to be the most significant moral issue of our time,” he said at a press conference in Washington, D.C., citing growing economic inequality.

I'm still waiting for Sanders to say something I don't agree with.

 

[Lutherf]

That's hardly the same thing as "Most people have no idea how much work is involved in preserving wealth that one has already accumulated." I think you'd find that in fact most people would put not squandering it all right at the top of their list :lol:

You'd think, but my experience is that isn't the case by a long shot.

 

[poweRob]

I'm still waiting for Sanders to say something I don't agree with.

Feel the Bern!

 

[Fearandloathing]

So under what theory does the government become first in line to collect the dead guys former property. Under what theory does the government get a place in line at all?

Passing property to spouses and heirs is not only a well established custom, it's also well established in common law and it simply makes sense. Why does the government deserve a seat at the table?

Quantum government theorum, if money moves, tax it.

 

[imagep]

The wealth was the result of the effort of a member of humanity. Humanity did not give it to them.

Humanity has wealth because each generation has stood on the prior generations shoulders.

 

[imagep]

Wealth comes from business owners smart enough to have something people want, and willing enough to part with it.

Tell that to Bernie Madeoff.

And to you REALLY believe that Paris Hilton is that smart?

 

[imagep]

So under what theory does the government become first in line to collect the dead guys former property. Under what theory does the government get a place in line at all?

Passing property to spouses and heirs is not only a well established custom, it's also well established in common law and it simply makes sense. Why does the government deserve a seat at the table?

Our government represents "we the people", so if the government is first in line, then we the people are first in line in aggregate, rather than as an individual expecting everything.

Expecting to individually acquire wealth that one didn't earn is little different than the entitlement mentality that the welfare lot has.

 

[countryboy]

I've answered twice now. The government should replace our current inheritance system which favors dynasties and nepotism rather than maintaining competition and opportunity.

No, you haven't. That's not what I asked, and no amount of silly obfuscation on your part will make it so. I asked, what gives the government the right to confiscate private estates? I don't blame you for not wanting to answer the question, since it only makes your idiotic idea look even worse. Your idea to "replace our current inheritance system" amounts to nothing more than theft. As much as you hate it, in this country we have at least a semblance of private property rights, and the government has no right to confiscate private estates. I suggest you move to a dictatorship.

 

[Unrepresented]

No, you haven't. That's not what I asked, and no amount of silly obfuscation on your part will make it so. I asked, what gives the government the right to confiscate private estates? I don't blame you for not wanting to answer the question, since it only makes your idiotic idea look even worse. Your idea to "replace our current inheritance system" amounts to nothing more than theft. As much as you hate it, in this country we have at least a semblance of private property rights, and the government has no right to confiscate private estates. I suggest you move to a dictatorship.

It's unowned. The individual who owned it died. We're arguing over who is entitled to take ownership next.

 

[Gaius46]

Our government represents "we the people", so if the government is first in line, then we the people are first in line in aggregate, rather than as an individual expecting everything.

Expecting to individually acquire wealth that one didn't earn is little different than the entitlement mentality that the welfare lot has.

We the people don't deserve a seat at the table. We the people are doing little more than thievery by taking assets that have already been taxed.

The issue here isn't the expectations of potential heirs. The issue is the right of a property to do with his property as he sees fit. And that includes deciding what happens to it after he's died.

 

[countryboy]

It's unowned. The individual who owned it died. We're arguing over who is entitled to take ownership next.

That's bull****, and you know it. That aside, why would the government be entitled to "take ownership"?

 

[Winchester]

It's unowned. The individual who owned it died. We're arguing over who is entitled to take ownership next.

What's to stop people from making a death bed transference?

 

[imagep]

We the people don't deserve a seat at the table. We the people are doing little more than thievery by taking assets that have already been taxed.

The issue here isn't the expectations of potential heirs. The issue is the right of a property to do with his property as he sees fit. And that includes deciding what happens to it after he's died.

I don't see the difference between an inheritance tax and a gift tax. We have both.