• 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.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Originally posted by: JS80
Great, do it if you want the majority of the capital base to feel the country.
I don't think they would flee, because I would low tax and free trade capitalism while they are alive.

I would make it easier than ever to build wealth, but as difficult as possible to inherit it.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,900
14
81
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
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?
Yes.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
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?
The only place a TRUE level playing field exists is in Utopia. If everything were equal, so would motivation, intelligence, and luck. Throw those in the mix, and its uneven. History has shown the more a government TRIES to make a level playing field, it fails miserably, not to mention stifles freedom. Good concept, impossible to achieve.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Government deciding how much or how little wealth/money one should have is...WRONG.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

:music::music:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
You couldnt live on 5 million for 75 years. Not really.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Government deciding how much or how little wealth/money one should have is...WRONG.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

:music::music:
Yep. And our government, at least for now, has decided there is no limit. Which is the right choice for a free society.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
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?
Yes.
so if i want to burn all my shit to the ground when i die, society should not let that happen?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Government deciding how much or how little wealth/money one should have is...WRONG.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

:music::music:
Yep. And our government, at least for now, has decided there is no limit. Which is the right choice for a free society.
perhaps the right choice for a society that wants to develop an aristocracy.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
639
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
All a human being needs to survive is food, clothing and shelter. The two million you say will be yours is far, far beyond what is needed to meet those requirements. It could be argued that a warm climate would negate the need for clothing and shelter. I say you should inherit enough to purchase an acre of land, you can then farm it to feed yourself. There should be no need whatsoever to live where land is expensive, I'd say your inheritance should be, oh, $30,000. Now if you should earn that much on your own, prior to getting your inheritance, so much the better. You can start right then. Under your new modified plan, you'll just forfeit it all. Just leveling the playing field. ;)

You're a hypocrite, but you haven't realized it yet.

This is my plan for you. Agree or disagree?

blackangst1 nailed it. When you remove the incentive to work, contribute and succeed there are plenty of people in this world that will choose to let others do the work. I'll put my hand up first. Under your plan, I will be receiving a continuous stream of income for doing nothing. Why would I want to get off the couch. I'll let those that are more ambitious do the work.

A Margaret Thatcher quote for you.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
You couldnt live on 5 million for 75 years. Not really.
Yes you could. No one just puts the whole amount in this checking account and lives off the principal, they invest it and it draws interest.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: JS80
Great, do it if you want the majority of the capital base to feel the country.
I don't think they would flee, because I would low tax and free trade capitalism while they are alive.

I would make it easier than ever to build wealth, but as difficult as possible to inherit it.
look, here is the reality. i plan on amassing $20 million+ in my lifetime. If the inheritance tax in this country were to go to the levels you are talking about, you can guarantee that I will be sending my money to Canada, Korea, Hong Kong and Switzerland before I die, and possibly relocate to another first world country for my children.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Originally posted by: JS80
look, here is the reality. i plan on amassing $20 million+ in my lifetime. If the inheritance tax in this country were to go to the levels you are talking about, you can guarantee that I will be sending my money to Canada, Korea, Hong Kong and Switzerland before I die, and possibly relocate to another first world country for my children.
I would force other countries to comply with my request by policing my redistribution efforts by imposing trade restrictions if they didn't, like Europe is doing now with countries like Andorra and Luxembourg.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,525
3,634
126
I wish some could think outside the box a little. What the OP has suggested is not "Socialism" or even "Socialist" in the least. :roll:
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Originally posted by: boomerang
blackangst1 nailed it. When you remove the incentive to work, contribute and succeed there are plenty of people in this world that will choose to let others do the work. I'll put my hand up first. Under your plan, I will be receiving a continuous stream of income for doing nothing. Why would I want to get off the couch. I'll let those that are more ambitious do the work.

A Margaret Thatcher quote for you.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Like I said before, if you the math, the average citizen probably not be receiving much more than $5k a year. This is hardly enough to not work. People will still work. I don't think I could survive on $5k a year if I was living in the woods.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,525
3,634
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: JS80
look, here is the reality. i plan on amassing $20 million+ in my lifetime. If the inheritance tax in this country were to go to the levels you are talking about, you can guarantee that I will be sending my money to Canada, Korea, Hong Kong and Switzerland before I die, and possibly relocate to another first world country for my children.
I would force other countries to comply with my request by policing my redistribution efforts by imposing trade restrictions if they didn't, like Europe is doing now with countries like Andorra and Luxembourg.
Well, that wouldn't be a good course of action. If the program needed anything like that it would be doomed to failure.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
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?
Yes.
so if i want to burn all my shit to the ground when i die, society should not let that happen?
It's your shit. Do with it what you want....

what corner are trying to back me into?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
You couldnt live on 5 million for 75 years. Not really.
Yes you could. No one just puts the whole amount in this checking account and lives off the principal, they invest it and it draws interest.
I have a series 6, 63, and 7 license, and Ive done the math. It cant be done.

I guess it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. But I wouldnt want the one 5 million over 75 years would provide.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,991
853
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: JS80
look, here is the reality. i plan on amassing $20 million+ in my lifetime. If the inheritance tax in this country were to go to the levels you are talking about, you can guarantee that I will be sending my money to Canada, Korea, Hong Kong and Switzerland before I die, and possibly relocate to another first world country for my children.
I would force other countries to comply with my request by policing my redistribution efforts by imposing trade restrictions if they didn't, like Europe is doing now with countries like Andorra and Luxembourg.
LOL! You have officially hit fairy tale territory. This is now a troll thread.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
I've posted about this here before and I agree with you (and I think I'm the only one), but for slightly different reasons. Quite simply, a society where there is no transfer of wealth from parents to children and where children start from a more level playing field will be a far more meritocratic society. Success will depend far more heavily on who you are and what you can do, rather than how lucky you got in the birth-lottery.

Practical implementation difficulties aside, the real reason why you won't ever see this is that people are generally terrified for their children - they go to absurd lengths to protect them from phantom predators, they keep them locked inside as much as possible, they disallow simple things like kids walking around the neighbourhood and they are really terrified of having their children compete in the world without mama and papa always being close by to help.

Some people will try to mask this by saying things like "the government doesn't have the right to take your money when you die", but there are already income taxes - we'll just decrease taxes on the living with the extra dough from 100% death tax.
 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
I plan to be in debt at the time of my death. I am unmarried, plan to be that way so I do not have anyone to leave an inheritance to. As such, when I get up there in years, I will be buying all sorts of toys. Like a good viking, my possessions will be burnt upon my death. All that will remain is the debt accumulated on my credit cards and any outstanding loans I would have left.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: JMapleton
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.
Make up your mind.

First you start this thread by saying that we're all entitled to the results of the work of others (by the mandatory redistribution of wealth upon death), then you say that we aren't entitled to the product of others' work. There's a disconnect here.

ZV
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,525
3,634
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: JMapleton
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.
Make up your mind.

First you start this thread by saying that we're all entitled to the results of the work of others (by the mandatory redistribution of wealth upon death), then you say that we aren't entitled to the product of others' work. There's a disconnect here.

ZV
He probably should have added "Living" into statements.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: JS80
Great, do it if you want the majority of the capital base to feel the country.
I don't think they would flee, because I would low tax and free trade capitalism while they are alive.

I would make it easier than ever to build wealth, but as difficult as possible to inherit it.
look, here is the reality. i plan on amassing $20 million+ in my lifetime. If the inheritance tax in this country were to go to the levels you are talking about, you can guarantee that I will be sending my money to Canada, Korea, Hong Kong and Switzerland before I die, and possibly relocate to another first world country for my children.
why, so they can take your inheritance instead of the us?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY