My plan for the estate tax and wealth redistribution.

[paperfist]

Originally posted by: JMapleton

Originally posted by: paperfist
So why would any 'ole smoe be entitled to your inheritance but not your children? And you want the government to distribute the checks? So after all the red tape, embezzlement, etc there won't be anything left to hand out.

While I may believe there shouldn't be any poor, suffering, homeless, uneducated in the U.S. due to its wealth I don't agree your fortune should not be handed down to your children if you so choose.

First of all, you're exaggerating so say there would be nothing left. Secondly if there isn't, that's the citizen's fault for electing bad politicians so they will pay their own price for their mistakes.

Of course I'm exaggerating, but by how much? It's a given that processing through the government is going to cost you a good chunk of overhead.

Ahh have you voted recently? Last time I voted a few month ago (just like every time I vote) I got to pick between the lesser of two evils for each and every office. We wouldn't even need a plan like yours if 90% of government would stop wasting tax payer money.

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: paperfist
Of course I'm exaggerating, but by how much? It's a given that processing through the government is going to cost you a good chunk of overhead.

Ahh have you voted recently? Last time I voted a few month ago (just like every time I vote) I got to pick between the lesser of two evils for each and every office. We wouldn't even need a plan like yours if 90% of government would stop wasting tax payer money.

Since we already have a system that distributes money to millions of people (Social Security) we already have a structure in place to distribute this money. I doubt it would cost all that much compared to how much money we're dealing with here. We could even funnel the money back to each individual person through their tax returns (government just figures the estimate and each individual person gets that amount added onto their tax refund.) It would actually be very easy.

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You seem to respond to any comment about the need for you to do more research with some side issue. If you don't want to do it, just say so.

I'm always open to research, however I'm not going to go consult a tax lawyer because I had an argument on the internet. I read about this issue constantly.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
Why should people be able to pass on the entirety of their vast wealth to their children, all it does is inspire an oligarchy of people who haven't worked a day in their lives and spend their time making sure poor people starve to death (See William Buckley)

If you knew the numbers about wealth, you would know this isnt true for the majority of wealthy Americans. A very small percentage of the current millionaire/billionaires inherited it, and many of those who do work in the "family business" so to speak to maintain it. Your assertion holds *some* merit for a select few, but is no where near the majority.

Do you have numbers for this? I'd like to see how many people that die wealthy were born wealthy. Just curious.

I'll try and find them again when I get back from running errands. I posted it in a similar thread a few months ago. But as I recall the number of wealthy who inherited their wealth is something like 15-20%. But included in that is businesses which will require the heir to continue working to sustain the wealth. They cant just sit home and collect checks. I'll look later today if I get a chance. But I found it via Google, so you can look if you want.

Googling class mobility yielded this study from Pew. It suggests what I thought was the case.

Most studies find that, in America, about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income are passed on to the next generation.11 This means that one of the biggest predictors of an American child?s future economic success ? the identity and characteristics of his or her parents ? is predetermined and outside that child?s control.

It also suggests the relative wealth mobility in the US is below that of many European countries, including France. It's obviously not complete and doesn't address the specific question that I asked. It does, however, suggest some class stratification. I'm not sure if a highly progressive estate tax would address that particular problem.

The decline of inherited money.

1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation?s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.)

2. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today?s multi-millionaires cited ?inheritance? as their source of wealth.

3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today?s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.

So it?s not just that the same old rich folks are getting richer. The more-important shift is that the rich are getting more numerous.

Most wealthy individuals earned, not inherited, their wealth.

Just a couple of examples.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JMapleton

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JMapleton
Then this becomes a discussion about free will, which in my opinion does not exist. It seems completely ridiculous to say that a person can, just out of nowhere, CHOOSE something, and then say it somehow was not a result of a endless string of action-reactions birthed from the beginning of time.

It must be nice to live in that little fantasy world where you're not responsible for any of your screw-ups.

ZV

Typical emotional response.

You nor anyone else on this Earth cannot explain free will in a logical sense of exactly how the mechanism of free will operates and trace every cause, feeling, emotion, action, and notion back to it's roots in the "mechanism of free will."

Well, if you're right, then you're wasting your time since there's no possible way for you to convince anyone of anything. It's already pre-ordained and nothing you do matters in any way at all. Why bother with discussion and argument? Better to just stay in bed and not make an effort. Much easier.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JMapleton

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
So which of these two opposing claims is your real position? They are clearly incompatible with each other. Money, having no intrinsic value, is nothing if not the product of a person's work and effort. It is not a naturally-occurring resource in any way.

ZV

They make perfect sense.

Each man has an inheritance from the Earth, a completely fair and equal dividend for having been born. This was set from the beginning of mankind when the first modern humans took it upon themselves to use the natural resources of the Earth - because they did without having earned it, so should people deserve a "start" today.

Secondly, there is wealth you worked for. THis is in addition to what was inherited. This is non transferable from one generation to the next and is an add on to what was inherited.

It still does not follow that wealth, in the form of money, should be redistributed. You once again miss the fact that money is entirely a creation of society and is not at all part of some sloppily mystical "bounty of the earth". One could just as easily say that wealth should be destroyed rather than redistributed. Frankly, it would make more sense to just destroy it since the mechanism to distribute it would cost more than it's worth to manage.

But you'll come in with another non-sequitur or refuse to acknowledge the patent contradiction because it disrupts your little fantasy world, so I might as well go have a conversation with a brick wall.

Go join a commune or dance naked around a standing stone or do whatever it is that useless hippies do, but don't come around here expecting people with legitimate intelligence to accept your new-age nonsense as anything remotely worthy of respect.

ZV

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It still does not follow that wealth, in the form of money, should be redistributed. You once again miss the fact that money is entirely a creation of society and is not at all part of some sloppily mystical "bounty of the earth". One could just as easily say that wealth should be destroyed rather than redistributed. Frankly, it would make more sense to just destroy it since the mechanism to distribute it would cost more than it's worth to manage.

But you'll come in with another non-sequitur or refuse to acknowledge the patent contradiction because it disrupts your little fantasy world, so I might as well go have a conversation with a brick wall.

Go join a commune or dance naked around a standing stone or do whatever it is that useless hippies do, but don't come around here expecting people with legitimate intelligence to accept your new-age nonsense as anything remotely worthy of respect.

ZV

Money is nothing, it's just paper. However, money is a mechanism to represent goods and materials. Therefore money does indeed represent the "bounty of the Earth." It's the mechanism in which we trade this bounty.

A Basic Income has been advocated for hundreds of years and has been popular throughout the 20th century, so your notion that I'm some new age hippy is ridiculous. I am man who simply recognizes the inherent debt we all are born with having been born on this plentiful Earth without having earned nor deserved it and recognizing that each individual deserves their fair inheritance of having been born of the Earth and of the human race just as much as the next.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JMapleton

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
It still does not follow that wealth, in the form of money, should be redistributed. You once again miss the fact that money is entirely a creation of society and is not at all part of some sloppily mystical "bounty of the earth". One could just as easily say that wealth should be destroyed rather than redistributed. Frankly, it would make more sense to just destroy it since the mechanism to distribute it would cost more than it's worth to manage.

But you'll come in with another non-sequitur or refuse to acknowledge the patent contradiction because it disrupts your little fantasy world, so I might as well go have a conversation with a brick wall.

Go join a commune or dance naked around a standing stone or do whatever it is that useless hippies do, but don't come around here expecting people with legitimate intelligence to accept your new-age nonsense as anything remotely worthy of respect.

ZV

Money is nothing, it's just paper. However, money is a mechanism to represent goods and materials. Therefore money does indeed represent the "bounty of the Earth." It's the mechanism in which we trade this bounty.

A Basic Income has been advocated for hundreds of years and has been popular throughout the 20th century, so your notion that I'm some new age hippy is ridiculous. I am man who simply recognizes the inherent debt we all are born with having been born on this plentiful Earth without having earned nor deserved it and recognizing that each individual deserves their fair inheritance of having been born of the Earth and of the human race just as much as the next.

So let me get this straight...we are born indebted to Earth ("the inherent debt we all are born with having been born on this plentiful Earth") yet each deserves their fair inheritance? WTF you smokin man?