This sort of stuff makes the argument for inheritance tax

[Anarchist420]

First of all, it's their money.

2nd, if there is income tax, then all income should be taxed. If there was a 15% flat marginal rate (12.8k dedution) on all income, then there would almost be enough revenue to waste.

3rd, the liberals who fight this so much are the first to defend paper money and FRB. If there wasn't a limitless money supply, then guess what? There wouldn't be as much to inherit.

 

[werepossum]

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".

And who among us doesn't immediately correlate government with efficiency?

 

[fskimospy]

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?

They both came by it legally? Are you arguing that we should only protect the perpetuation of wealth earned through industry? What other distinctions would you draw as to what wealth should be protected and what shouldn't?

Be careful with your answers, you could get yourself into trouble.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

I'm not talking about saving anyone or anything, I'm trying to figure out why some kinds of perpetuated wealth are bad (monarchies) and some are good. Maybe you guys can explain.

 

[Munky]

It's her right to do what she wants with her money. If she wants to squander it on a life of laziness, then so be it.

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not talking about saving anyone or anything, I'm trying to figure out why some kinds of perpetuated wealth are bad (monarchies) and some are good. Maybe you guys can explain.

In other words, you're talking about something entirely different than the point of this thread as outlined in the OP.

 

[yllus]

I kind of agree with the inefficient use of money argument, but it's also hard for me to see $400 million to the arts as a worse use of that money than $400 million to the government.

Mostly I'm amazed at how much damn money there is in this world. Never heard of this family at all, and they've been sitting on a mountain of cash and assets for years. Truly amazing.

 

[matt0611]

They both came by it legally? Are you arguing that we should only protect the perpetuation of wealth earned through industry? What other distinctions would you draw as to what wealth should be protected and what shouldn't?

Be careful with your answers, you could get yourself into trouble.

I'm not even really sure what you're asking...

I think we should protect private property rights, if people have money and its earned through legal means then they should be able to do whatever they want with it, including giving it to their spoiled children.

 

[fskimospy]

In other words, you're talking about something entirely different than the point of this thread as outlined in the OP.

I'm asking for clarification on the ideology of a poster commenting on the OP in order to better understand the context of the opinions expressed about it. Thanks for your interest though!

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not even really sure what you're asking...

I think we should protect private property rights, if people have money and its earned through legal means then they should be able to do whatever they want with it, including giving it to their spoiled children.

So you believe that the massive fortunes amassed by the leadership of countries should be untouchable because it was acquired through legal means? Just checking.

 

[zsdersw]

The bottom line is: Do any of us get to decide what "efficient" is with regards to other people's money? Must inefficient wealth be abolished or taxed out of existence?

If your answer to either question (or both) is "Yes", you're an idiot.

 

[Munky]

So you believe that the massive fortunes amassed by the leadership of countries should be untouchable because it was acquired through legal means? Just checking.

Are you saying that massive fortunes acquired legally should be taxed like hell to "even the playing field?" What are you, a communist?

 

[matt0611]

So you believe that the massive fortunes amassed by the leadership of countries should be untouchable because it was acquired through legal means? Just checking.

Well when a monarchy is massing wealth through taxes and force of course its "legal" at the time, by definition the monarchy is the leader of the government.

If a monarchy ends and the people want to take their money back that was taken from them through force thats their prerogative.

But we're not talking about a monarch, we're talking people people who earned money by people freely giving it to them within a free society in exchange for goods and services.

 

[fskimospy]

Well when a monarchy is massing wealth through taxes and force of course its "legal" at the time, by definition the monarchy is the leader of the government.

If a monarchy ends and the people want to take their money back that was taken from them through force thats their prerogative.

But we're not talking about a monarch, we're talking people people who earned money by people freely giving it to them within a free society in exchange for goods and services.

Okay, so again you're okay with taking certain kinds of wealth earned in ways you view to be illegitimate, but not other ways. So your protection of private property is not absolute?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you saying that massive fortunes acquired legally should be taxed like hell to "even the playing field?" What are you, a communist?

Are you sure you're responding to the right person? Where did I say that?

 

[zsdersw]

Okay, so again you're okay with taking certain kinds of wealth earned in ways you view to be illegitimate, but not other ways. So your protection of private property is not absolute?

Governments.. even monarchies.. derive their power from the consent of the governed. Taxes are something you consent to pay in exchange for the government you want. In effect, taxes are us choosing to pay for our desired government. It's nothing more than a simple business transaction; exchanging money for goods or services.

404 Wedge on private property issue not found.

 

[matt0611]

Okay, so again you're okay with taking certain kinds of wealth earned in ways you view to be illegitimate, but not other ways. So your protection of private property is not absolute?

If a person robs a bank and stashes the money in his house he has infringed on people's private property rights and if he's found guilty for this he should have to give up that money.

I don't see this as the same thing though.

 

[Munky]

Are you sure you're responding to the right person? Where did I say that?

Nm.

 

[fskimospy]

Governments.. even monarchies.. derive their power from the consent of the governed. Taxes are something you consent to pay in exchange for the government you want. In effect, taxes are us choosing to pay for our desired government. It's nothing more than a simple business transaction; exchanging money for goods or services.

404 Wedge on private property issue not found.

Rule by the consent of the governed is a pretty new idea, and one that is hardly universal.

 

[a777pilot]

Governments.. even monarchies.. derive their power from the consent of the governed. Taxes are something you consent to pay in exchange for the government you want. In effect, taxes are us choosing to pay for our desired government. It's nothing more than a simple business transaction; exchanging money for goods or services.

404 Wedge on private property issue not found.

LOL!

You voted for that Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, didn't you?

 

[zsdersw]

LOL!

You voted for that Fool, Bobo, the Post Turtle, didn't you?

Actually no. I was explaining the concept of why taxes are not a breach of private property rights.

 

[theeedude]

Someone getting money from relatives for doing nothing should be taxed at least at the highest rate that someone who makes money through work income is taxed.

 

[zsdersw]

Rule by the consent of the governed is a pretty new idea, and one that is hardly universal.

As something explicitly used to form a government, perhaps... but the concept applies almost universally. Governments exist and continue to exist because the people they govern let them exist. Whether the government is popular or unpopular.. if the people do nothing to try to overthrow or change it they've essentially said they agree to it.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Someone getting money from relatives for doing nothing should be taxed at least at the highest rate that someone who makes money through work income is taxed.

The money already was taxed.

 

[theeedude]

The money already was taxed.

So was money that pays my paycheck, but when I get it, I pay taxes on it myself. Same should apply to inheritance. There is nothing that says money is only taxed once, ever. It's only taxed once per person.