This sort of stuff makes the argument for inheritance tax

[halik]

http://online.wsj.com/article/APda2d3b5b163b4003bfe2f6c18916149e.html
http://www.ksby.com/news/huguette-clark-mansion-in-santa-barbara-to-turn-into-museum/

Talk about crazy perpetuity of wealthy - the lady's father was robber baron at the turn of the century and she just recently passed after a life of zero productivity with more assets than top 1% of this country.

The thing that gets me is that none of these assets are used in a productive manner - Warren Buffets/Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/* all put their money to use and and add value... this just sits there. I can't imagine that 80 years of maintenance staff for a mansion that no one uses is an efficient allocation of money.

 

[PeshakJang]

Yeah, property rights are the worst. If you don't use your money to benefit society in a way society approves of, you deserve to have it taken by force.

 

[SearchMaster]

Yeah, property rights are the worst. If you don't use your money to benefit society in a way society approves of, you deserve to have it taken by force.

Why should she be able to support the arts - we have wars and entitlements to fund dammit!

 

[Genx87]

http://online.wsj.com/article/APda2d3b5b163b4003bfe2f6c18916149e.html
http://www.ksby.com/news/huguette-clark-mansion-in-santa-barbara-to-turn-into-museum/

Talk about crazy perpetuity of wealthy - the lady's father was robber baron at the turn of the century and she just recently passed after a life of zero productivity with more assets than top 1% of this country.

The thing that gets me is that none of these assets are used in a productive manner - Warren Buffets/Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/* all put their money to use and and add value... this just sits there. I can't imagine that 80 years of maintenance staff for a mansion that no one uses is an efficient allocation of money.

Did she hide her 400 million under her bed? Or are you under the deluded idea because she
lead a solitary lifestyle it produced nothing?

And I find it rather amusing you link an article that shows she took her wealth and created a 300 million dollar foundation for the arts while claiming she did nothing with the wealth.

And what is your solution to this supposed problem?

 

[piasabird]

We live and we die. What are you doing with your assets? Is envy a reason to take someone's money? Your jealousy of someone's money does not make you a very good person. What about all the starving artists?

What are you really doing with your money that is so great?

 

[boomerang]

Where is the dividing line between those that have enough to 'do something productive' with their money and those that don't?

Would that line ever change? As wealth is being redistributed would it eventually reach a point of equality for all? Who will do something productive with their money then? Is the endgame true equality or will some always have more than others? Who decides what is the best use of other people's money?

I just posted the following in another thread. I think it's appropriate here too.



You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Her assets were surely invested in something, and the very article you link says she set up a foundation to support the arts.... what on earth would make you conclude her wealth "did nothing"? What makes anything you do with your money any better or different than what she does with hers, other than she had more of it? Why is buying a new PC any different than her buying some expensive pair of shoes? Because you're not interested in shoes?

Typical idiotic dimlib reasoning.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Why should we wait to take people's money until they die? Should be not be taking Gates' and Buffet's money now? Why does being alive make you any more entitled to it?

 

[zsdersw]

Yeah, property rights are the worst. If you don't use your money to benefit society in a way society approves of, you deserve to have it taken by force.

This.

OP, it's not our (the public's) money to allocate. If the rich want to invest their money in worthy causes and other interests, great.. more power to them. If some of them want to convert it to cash and do nothing more than roll around in a big pile of it, great.. more power to them.

 

[MotF Bane]

Yeah, leaving $300 million to "the arts" is such a terrible waste.

 

[Cogman]

What's even funnier is that she stopped the perpetual wealth train, she didn't leave a dime to family.

Estate taxers are funny. If someone gives all their money to their kids before they die, it's ok, "Ho, Hum it was just a gift, can't stop those"! On the other hand, once someone dies they become evil wicked people if they ever think to leave a dime to their family. Heck, they become evil wicked people just BECAUSE they have any money to give to anyone or anything.

 

[rudder]

If the money sits under a mattress then it is not taxed. Interest earned is taxed. If an asset gains in value and they sell it... that is taxed. If the person gives $400 million to a foundation.. that foundation will do something with the money and that will be taxed... whether through interest or buying crap with the money.

Do we really need to tax people to oblivion... even if they have a lot of money just sitting?

 

[JD50]

thread backfire

 

[matt0611]

I don't see any problem with this. People should be allowed to leave money for their children, its their money.

 

[ElFenix]

OP must hate art

 

[fskimospy]

What's even funnier is that she stopped the perpetual wealth train, she didn't leave a dime to family.

Estate taxers are funny. If someone gives all their money to their kids before they die, it's ok, "Ho, Hum it was just a gift, can't stop those"! On the other hand, once someone dies they become evil wicked people if they ever think to leave a dime to their family. Heck, they become evil wicked people just BECAUSE they have any money to give to anyone or anything.

I don't think you understand the US tax system, nor the estate tax.

 

[a777pilot]

Essentially, we have the right of private property or we don't. Choose.

 

[a777pilot]

I don't think you understand the US tax system, nor the estate tax.

Nobody knows or understands the US Tax system.

The current tax system is anti freedom. It assumes all wealth is the States' and denies private property.

In a free society income and private property would not be taxed.

 

[fskimospy]

I love how all the ultra capitalists on this site, those who most fervently believe in 'you make what you earn', are totally down with the perpetuation of wealth that allows vacuous and worthless people to sit on piles of money they never earned simply by virtue of who donated the sperm for them. I mean really, who were we to overthrow the monarchies? The Kings and Queens of old had amassed wealth legally, they are just passing it down to their children.

We also tax the transfer of assets in every other aspect of our society, in fact conservatives LOVE transaction taxes generally, just not when a transaction involves giving tens of millions of dollars to your kids.

 

[fskimospy]

Nobody knows or understands the US Tax system.

The current tax system is anti freedom. It assumes all wealth is the States' and denies private property.

In a free society income and private property would not be taxed.

So then all tax systems in every industrialized country on earth are anti-freedom. Gotcha.

Nowhere does our system assume all wealth belongs to the state. In fact if it did, there would be no need to tax it.

You are terrible at this. Go back to fixing your boat or whatever.

 

[Genx87]

I love how all the ultra capitalists on this site, those who most fervently believe in 'you make what you earn', are totally down with the perpetuation of wealth that allows vacuous and worthless people to sit on piles of money they never earned simply by virtue of who donated the sperm for them. I mean really, who were we to overthrow the monarchies? The Kings and Queens of old had amassed wealth legally, they are just passing it down to their children.

We also tax the transfer of assets in every other aspect of our society, in fact conservatives LOVE transaction taxes generally, just not when a transaction involves giving tens of millions of dollars to your kids.

Are you really trying to compare a women with 400 million in wealth to a monarch? Really? You liberals and your robin hood mentalities are funny. Saving the rest of us from the mythical monarchs in this country.

Likewise I love these "liberals" who complain about concentrations of wealth by private citizens while working as hard they can to concentrate it within govt. Allowing a select few the pursestrings to trillions.

 

[werepossum]

thread backfire

Indeed. But eskimospy is here to explain about the nobility of government and rescue the thread.

Why should we wait to take people's money until they die? Should be not be taking Gates' and Buffet's money now? Why does being alive make you any more entitled to it?

Indeed. If it's morally acceptable for us to organize and rob a man's heirs of his accumulated wealth, it must be equally morally acceptable for us to organize and rob the man himself. In fact it's even more morally acceptable, as the very fact that one accumulates great wealth is proof of malfeasance since it's absolutely impossible that anyone could be smarter, thriftier, luckier, or work harder than anyone else.

 

[zsdersw]

I love how all the ultra capitalists on this site, those who most fervently believe in 'you make what you earn', are totally down with the perpetuation of wealth that allows vacuous and worthless people to sit on piles of money they never earned simply by virtue of who donated the sperm for them. I mean really, who were we to overthrow the monarchies? The Kings and Queens of old had amassed wealth legally, they are just passing it down to their children.

We also tax the transfer of assets in every other aspect of our society, in fact conservatives LOVE transaction taxes generally, just not when a transaction involves giving tens of millions of dollars to your kids.

The OP talks about "efficient allocation" of this money... which is a veiled way of saying "the government should get more of this money because efficiency is what matters.. not ownership".

 

[matt0611]

I love how all the ultra capitalists on this site, those who most fervently believe in 'you make what you earn', are totally down with the perpetuation of wealth that allows vacuous and worthless people to sit on piles of money they never earned simply by virtue of who donated the sperm for them. I mean really, who were we to overthrow the monarchies? The Kings and Queens of old had amassed wealth legally, they are just passing it down to their children.

We also tax the transfer of assets in every other aspect of our society, in fact conservatives LOVE transaction taxes generally, just not when a transaction involves giving tens of millions of dollars to your kids.

People give money to Bill Gate / Microsoft freely and voluntarily for a service.
If he hypothetically wanted to give all his money to his spoiled kids to spend it on booze and parties and Lamborghini's, then that's his choice and their prerogative.

He earned the money and he wants his kids to have it. That's his choice because its his property that he earned legally and voluntarily.

Kings and Queens amassed wealth through force on their subjects.

How is this anything like a monarchy?

 

[a777pilot]

So then all tax systems in every industrialized country on earth are anti-freedom. Gotcha.

Nowhere does our system assume all wealth belongs to the state. In fact if it did, there would be no need to tax it.

You are terrible at this. Go back to fixing your boat or whatever.

Yes, all those countries, to include our country, have a tax system that is anti freedom.

If you think that your home is not owned by the government, just trying not paying your property taxes and see what happens.

We either have private property or we don't. As to taxing income.....why? Having a job and making income is a good thing. Why put penalties on a good thing?

There is no reason that our governments cannot run with taxes on consumption, sales and user taxes. At least we as individuals would then have the freedom of choice as to what we buy and when we buy it. Freedom is a good thing.

Why do you hate freedom and want the government all up in your business?