• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

My plan for the estate tax and wealth redistribution.

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Let me first off say that I am 100% capitalist and free trade.

I however do think that each man as born of the Earth (which is owned by all occupants of the world) and each person a sovereign individual (not inheriting the accomplishments of their ancestors) should not entitled to any significant amount of wealth that they did not help create.

I think you should be allowed to inherit no more than $5 million dollars (adjusted for inflation yearly).

Anything further than that should be taxed at no less than 75%, possibly as much as 90%.

Solution: All the revenue generated from this would go into a fund which would be redistributed to every citizen in the form of an annual payment (it should not be used to fund government programs which usually hurt more than help).

Why?
All products of the economy are products of the Earth, and each man being created with equal importance at birth deserves the product of that Earth at an equal amount as their neighbor at birth. As they become fully functional human beings, the amount of their wealth should be proportional to their productivity as a citizen in the capitalist economy.

I'm sick of tired of the "family farm" or "family business" crap. If you want to be a farmer, buy a farm. You don't deserve a farm just because you grandpa had one.

Agree or disagree?
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,199
4
76
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Let me first off say that I am 100% capitalist and free trade.

I however do think that each man as born of the Earth (which is owned by all occupants of the world) and each person a sovereign individual (not inheriting the accomplishments of their ancestors) should not entitled to any significant amount of wealth that they did not help create.

I think you should be allowed to inherit no more than $5 million dollars (adjusted for inflation yearly).

Anything further than that should be taxed at no less than 75%, possibly as much as 90%.

Solution: All the revenue generated from this would go into a fund which would be redistributed to every citizen in the form of an annual payment (it should not be used to fund government programs which usually hurt more than help).

Why?
All products of the economy are products of the Earth, and each man being created with equal importance at birth deserves the product of that Earth at an equal amount as their neighbor at birth. As they become fully functional human beings, the amount of their wealth should be proportional to their productivity as a citizen in the capitalist economy.

I'm sick of tired of the "family farm" or "family business" crap. If you want to be a farmer, but a farm. You don't deserve a farm just because you grandpa had one.

Agree or disagree?
The irony of the whole farm argument is that they're exempt if they work them for a set period of time (five or ten years, I forget).
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: Strk
The irony of the whole farm argument is that they're exempt if they work them for a set period of time (five or ten years, I forget).
Yeah I do not understand the farm arguments. A farm is a business just like anything else. It is also a form of wealth, just like stock or solid real estate. It should be treated no different.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,388
1,013
126
Create whatever plan you want, the rich won't give a shit. That's what offshore tax havens are for.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: glenn1
Create whatever plan you want, the rich won't give a shit. That's what offshore tax havens are for.
No such thing anymore. You will almost always get caught these days, I've looked into it.

It's hard to hide hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions, especially if people knew you had it in the first place.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,271
3,324
126
Though it seems to be a great way to level the playing field, I think there would be unintended negative consequences to it. Each generation of inherited Wealth frees the Inheritor from the concerns of the previous generation. This allows the Inheritor to pursue all kinds of different paths that simply would not be available to someone who had to work from nothing. Inherited Wealth may not found new Industry, but it often Invests in new Industry and helps it to Grow/Succeed.

Of course you get the Paris Hilton types who just Party 'til death, but not all pursue that path.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Though it seems to be a great way to level the playing field, I think there would be unintended negative consequences to it. Each generation of inherited Wealth frees the Inheritor from the concerns of the previous generation. This allows the Inheritor to pursue all kinds of different paths that simply would not be available to someone who had to work from nothing. Inherited Wealth may not found new Industry, but it often Invests in new Industry and helps it to Grow/Succeed.

Of course you get the Paris Hilton types who just Party 'til death, but not all pursue that path.
If you do the math, the amount of annual payment would probably not even be enough to live off of. I would estimate each citizen would receive no more than $5k annually. There are 300M citizens in this country, but there aren't that many rich people to make everyone else rich.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,308
1
81
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,898
1,722
136
There is a reason that sole proprietorships and partnerships have trouble getting funding: the business dissolves upon the death of the proprietor or ANY partner. In order for businesses to be successful and have any longevity, they have to incorporate or form some other legal entity separate from ownership.

Your proposal would, in effect, turn every small to medium business in the US into a proprietorship. It would kill America as you know it. All of the power would be transferred to the largest corporations.

No thanks.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,271
3,324
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: sandorski
Though it seems to be a great way to level the playing field, I think there would be unintended negative consequences to it. Each generation of inherited Wealth frees the Inheritor from the concerns of the previous generation. This allows the Inheritor to pursue all kinds of different paths that simply would not be available to someone who had to work from nothing. Inherited Wealth may not found new Industry, but it often Invests in new Industry and helps it to Grow/Succeed.

Of course you get the Paris Hilton types who just Party 'til death, but not all pursue that path.
If you do the math, the amount of annual payment would probably not even be enough to live off of. I would estimate each citizen would receive no more than $5k annually. There are 300M citizens in this country, but there aren't that many rich people to make everyone else rich.
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not talking about the Government Payout part at all.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,229
26
91
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
Far out maaaaaaaan. We are like one with the earth and the trees and nature. Yaaahhh maaan.


Pass some of that over here.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: sactoking
There is a reason that sole proprietorships and partnerships have trouble getting funding: the business dissolves upon the death of the proprietor or ANY partner. In order for businesses to be successful and have any longevity, they have to incorporate or form some other legal entity separate from ownership.

Your proposal would, in effect, turn every small to medium business in the US into a proprietorship. It would kill America as you know it. All of the power would be transferred to the largest corporations.

No thanks.
I do not see how it would be transfered to the largest corporations. And even if they were it would not matter. The largest corporations would be owned by the shareholders and there were no wealthy dynasties the general middle class would own these corporations.

Furthermore, what would be required is a more extensive stock market system, where when the owner dies the shares of the company would simply be floated public and sold off.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
What you've been smoking comes from the Earth too. Sorry to hear you're not going to inherit any money. Sucks to be you.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,624
1
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
Far out maaaaaaaan. We are like one with the earth and the trees and nature. Yaaahhh maaan.


Pass some of that over here.
Do you think that there is something fundamentally wrong with there being a level playing field?
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,624
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Government deciding how much or how little wealth/money one should have is...WRONG.
philosphically speaking, do you think that there would be something wrong with a society that voluntarily destroyed its monetary wealth upon death?
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,229
26
91
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
Far out maaaaaaaan. We are like one with the earth and the trees and nature. Yaaahhh maaan.


Pass some of that over here.
Do you think that there is something fundamentally wrong with there being a level playing field?
Its called life. Get over it.

Debating this is like debating if we should colonize Jupiter. It isnt going to happen.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
What you've been smoking comes from the Earth too. Sorry to hear you're not going to inherit any money. Sucks to be you.
Not true, I will inherit several million, but not enough to be taxed under my plan. And I don't smoke nor did I have hippy intentions.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
i agree on the need for a strong inheritance tax, but i don't want to directly redistribute that wealth. i think having it be used as tax revenue would be about the best option.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
What you've been smoking comes from the Earth too. Sorry to hear you're not going to inherit any money. Sucks to be you.
Not true, I will inherit several million, but not enough to be taxed under my plan. And I don't smoke nor did I have hippy intentions.
Oh, I see now! Your plan won't affect you. This is getting much better. A closet socialist who's grandiose plans only affect who, the truly rich?

Your poll is telling you something. Time to listen.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i agree on the need for a strong inheritance tax, but i don't want to directly redistribute that wealth. i think having it be used as tax revenue would be about the best option.
But then that gives the government more funding to create large and inefficient social programs that cause more harm that good.

It should be redistributed as a check, each man gets an inheritance for being born of the Earth, and created equal.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,297
4
81
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Let me first off say that I am 100% capitalist and free trade.

I however do think that each man as born of the Earth (which is owned by all occupants of the world) and each person a sovereign individual (not inheriting the accomplishments of their ancestors) should not entitled to any significant amount of wealth that they did not help create.

I think you should be allowed to inherit no more than $5 million dollars (adjusted for inflation yearly).

Anything further than that should be taxed at no less than 75%, possibly as much as 90%.

Solution: All the revenue generated from this would go into a fund which would be redistributed to every citizen in the form of an annual payment (it should not be used to fund government programs which usually hurt more than help).

Why?
All products of the economy are products of the Earth, and each man being created with equal importance at birth deserves the product of that Earth at an equal amount as their neighbor at birth. As they become fully functional human beings, the amount of their wealth should be proportional to their productivity as a citizen in the capitalist economy.

I'm sick of tired of the "family farm" or "family business" crap. If you want to be a farmer, buy a farm. You don't deserve a farm just because you grandpa had one.

Agree or disagree?
Great, do it if you want the majority of the capital base to feel the country.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY