In this post, Baphomet's Advocate said something very interesting.

The principle of a merit-based society, which most people (left AND right*) would like to see, is that everybody gets the chance to succeed. Logically, as BA intimates, this also means that everybody should get the chance to fail.

EVERYBODY

Now, it's a natural human motivation to want to provide for our children & grandchildren while we're alive. To want to secure for them the best possible education, health, and so on. Traditionally in Western societies, it's also been viewed as laudable to try to keep doing that from beyond the grave, by leaving property and other valuables as our estate in our Will, giving them to people and institutions we care about after our death, through our will.

In most Western societies, the estates of the dead have been subject to taxation at varying rates and under varying qualifying conditions. In recent years, the trend in most countries has been to reduce these taxes on inheritances (Inheritance Tax is a more accurate name for such taxes than "Death Taxes", since it is the people who inherit property who pay taxes on its value, and not the people doing the dying.)

The idea of a meritocracy, though, is that one's position in a society rests solely on one's own shoulder's. Not only should one not be artificially be propped up by state welfare or held back by taxation (the right's critique of the left), but one should not be artificially propped up by one's family connections or held back by not having such connections.

Horatio Alger can and should succeed, but should his grandchildren should not get a leg up because he did?

*Typically, the left want to enforce the parts of the idea of meritocracy that concern themselves with giving everyone a fair chance to start on the road to success by imposing limits on how far down that road everyone can go (by taxing the rich), while the right want to remove all limits to success (by minimising taxes) but often don't recognise any external barriers to success, assuming that if anyone doesn't succeed, it's their own fault.

Everyone now knows that the left's approach to meritocracy has a blind spot over the attitude to success - it's all too easy to see the left as wanting to punish success, and reward failure or (worse) apathy. They avoid the aspects of true meritocracy that they are most uncomfortable with?

But doesn't the right also have a blind spot? By frowning on any attempt to prevent the rich from keeping their descendents at the top of society, by bequeathing sometimes vast wealth or even dynasitc power to them, doesn't the right also avoid the aspects of true meritocracy that they are most uncomfortable with?

Questions for debate:

Do you agree that nowhere on the political spectrum, even Libertarianism, fully embraces all the implications of meritocracy?

If not, which politicians and/or political movements do, or even come close?

Could a fully meritocratic society work at all?

If so, how could it work, and would it be desirable to move our society in that direction, even if not all the way?

In the light of your answers above, should Death Taxes be abolished altogether, set at 100%, or set at some intermediate level?

Yes I agree. The mindset of the American is not the Lone Cowboy but more of Me & Mine. Subsequently the idea that your family will be secure going forward is strongly, and properly, ingrained in our culture.

Conservatism is more in line with a merit based society than other isms. Although many will argue that if people like GWB are forwarded by their family connections then that can't be true. I'd like to remind you GWB is no Conservative. However, I understand your argument.

Well in some ways it already does. The best often rise to the top. Not always, but often enough so that people understand to be wildly successful you should be really good at something. Think sports or entertainment... try not to think of Paris Hilton.

Well essentially it's working now. The Government just needs to get MORE out of the way.

That money has already been taxed. Taxing it again is just wrong.

American meritocracy will never work 100% of the time, particularly when discussing uber-rich and their generations of wealth. The rich will most likely stay rich so long as they don't squander the wealth. Interest alone on a few million dollars provides a pretty steady income. Figure that 3% on $5M is $150K annually. Not bad if you ask me.

However, the idea that an estate should be taxed post-death is literally ABSURD. This is double if not-triple taxation on someone's lifetime earnings. Consider that houses and durable assets such as cars were subject to sales tax and all income had taxation.

A little taxation does not keep rich people from allowing their kids to stay rich. All it will do is force them to give the money and assets to the kids before they die. That's all. If I had (and I don't) $2M in the bank and I was really sick, then I gave it to my son in the form of a check (and or signing of titles to homes, etc) there wouldn't be a whole lot the IRS could do. Rich people can afford high-powered accountants and shelters for this money to ensure that there is as much left over as plausible.

HOWEVER, the working middle class that comprises the majority of the US doesn't have this luxury. If you work hard and save for your lifetime and have $100in the bank, a little life insurance money, and a house to give to your kids... will that really create a ripple in the meritocracy? Let's say total assets are $350K and you have 3 kids. Is $150K really going to change the dynamic of the US? Of course not. That's not the kind of money that starts big business and buys yachts.

But if the kids have to pay 30-40% of this money, they may not have a whole lot left. What if there are bills to pay?

The point to me is that it's just plain wrong to tax money 3 times. If I give the government its 20% on the front end, then I have to pay sales tax on homes, cars, and other assets, why again when I pass it on?

We've had inheritance tax for ages. It will NEVER change the dynamic in reference to the wealth in America. The emergence of some of the world's richest people coming from modest beginnings in America is a sign that those days are waining anyway (Oprah, Bill Gates, etc). Sure- their kids are set. Sure- the Kennedy's and Bush family won't likely go hungry anytime soon. So? How's a little tax on their estate gonna change much?

If I got $3M instead of $4 or $5M, is that going to keep me from being rich? Again, most importantly, people with those types of inheritances can afford to protect that money. Workin' people like us really can't.

Let me start by stating the obvious.

When you die, you are you no more.

I work hard my whole life, I earn wealth that will likely keep my childrens. children's children set for their life. Why shouldnn't I be able to pass it on.

The reason is simple... they didn't earn it. The people who work a company I built for years upon years have more right's to that money than my kids... at least they did something.

Aevans


Absurd?!?! They're dead. If they could take it with them they would have. Your not even taxing them... because they're gone.


Do you agree that nowhere on the political spectrum, even Libertarianism, fully embraces all the implications of meritocracy?

Yes I agree. It is just that the further right you go on the political spectrum the more you run into people who have convinced themselves or have been convinced that they believe more in the idea of meritocracy.

Could a fully meritocratic society work at all?
Could it work, yes, would it happen... no. At least I don't think so. It would be to hard to surpress that much greed.

If one were to look at military society one would see an example of a working meritocracy, well as close to a meritocracy as I have ever seen (with the exception of officers). Starting at boot camp where we are all nothing... but our selves, regardless of wealth. Our pay is the same, (I've never seen any family hook-ups). Many promotion points go to how well you shoot, how well you perform in a physical fitness test...etc.

But even there there are glitches. If you were in the same unit as someone but had different job fields, one job field could require less point to achieve the next rank than another, causing a disparity.



It has to start at the root. You have... HAVE to make education equal as best as you can. You have to nationalize education. You have to have a standard of $$ per student, same books nation wide, same Curriculum nation wide, same standardized tests nation wide. Same teacher:student ratio nation wide.

And that's just the start. They're must be studies and added money for schools to provide safe and clean environments.

Now would it be desireable... to some yes, to others no. However it would benefit most I believe, and hurt very few.



If I could make the tax laws I think I would have no taxation for 50-100,000 per immediate family member to include wife, children, siblings and/or parents up to a million dollars.
Then I would introduce scaling tax it starting at 50% and ending at 90%. Anything over 10,000,000 would be at the 90% tax rate.

WHUH????
90%! Surely you gest. Starting at 50% for $100,001??? HOLY COW!!!! I've never heard anything so wild.



This... this is just ridiculous.

What if a family sacrificed, worked in a business with a family member, or endured hardship while someone built a business and/or career?
How do you think small business is built? Have you ever even worked in a business like this? The people who work in a business deserve more? That's 100% subjective.

All I can say is that this is the most liberal thing I think I've read on this board. Seriously.

What you're saying, emphatically, is that the government deserves the money AS MUCH OR MORE than the kids/wife/family?

My folks don't have a ton of money, and I could care less if they spend every nickel. However- the life I lead growing up (i.e. sacrificing, etc) helped to create the financial stability my parents now enjoy. I paid my own way through college, bought my own cars, even bought my own school clothes in latter years. Don't you think that if all that was saved/invested (and trust me, it was) that I have MORE stake at that $ than the IRS???



Of course, UNLESS, you happen to be a minority. In the Military, being something other than a white male DOES get you preferential treatment in the eyes of policy. Unabashedly.

Back to the point-
The fact of the matter is that the US government can't discern why or how someone acquired wealth. If I'm a kid that worked a farm (which at times I did), and my grandparents sold it off later (or post death), do I deserve a piece of the "pie"? Does the IRS?

Here's my theory. In many Americans homes, kids helped to create an environment where the parents COULD leave some money at the end of their lives. Some plowed fields (or bailed hay), some worked their way through college, some worked in the family store for pennies or for free, some even contributed when times were tight. How does anyone know?

A policy that takes 30-40% of someone's life savings upon kickin' the bucket is literal garbage. It's the most liberal thought process in the world. Most of America isn't comprised of millionaires.

Most of American success BEGAN as a kid working in a store, a garage, or in a field. Sure- some of American inheritance comes from millionaire parents handing the torch... but that's the exception as opposed to the rule.

Agreed you likely have not. See in this country we do our best to increase the power of the status quo. But no, look up to the first 500'000$ would be tax free. But lets see... 90 % taxed of 1mil equals 100,000. So you just got 100,000. Now tell everyone here what you did to earn it??


Oh boo hoo... your rich daddy or mommy died. Ten million and you'd be getting a million of UNEARNED money. How deplorable...


This... this is just ridiculous.



I forgot to add in my last post. I think there should be a serious, if not total, exemption to any monies left to a spouse of 10 or more years.

Other than that... yes... a kid did nothing to deserve the money of their father/mother... NOTHING.



You called what I said liberal, I call what you are saying the most spoiled thing I have ever heard.

YOU sacrificed by putting your self through school??
You sacrificed by buying your own cars??
You sacrificed by buying your own school clothes (likely because you wanted more than what they were prepared to pay)

You gave a rant in another thread about our problems in our generation and the ones coming... but look how entitled you sound right now.

And the IRS isn't getting the money, the people are. It is being recycled back to all of us. Because it is our society that allows anyone to become wealthy. I don't you don't, no one gets rich in a vacuum.

If a person worked a business with some one then that business should already be legally partly theirs.



I haven't seen a shortage of White male officers... you all must just be superior, huh



No, because you probably worked the farm when you were visiting. I'm sure they provided you with food, housing... etc...



Do you have Kids??? Kids are the reason why parents don't have money. Clothes, Diapers, daycare, summercare, after school care, school supplies, marriages, colleges, automobiles, lunch money. Anything you did for the parents was nothing to the money it cost them to raise you...

Again... woo, that was funny.



You said the key word life savings. They don't have a life anymore, and you didn't EARN the money they saved.

Add to that I said 50-100thousand should be not taxed per dependent, and I added in an exemption to a spouse of moe than 10 years.



And how would my liberal tax idea change this??

To be clear, this is not a trait exclusive to Western societies. It is universal amongst all human societies. By referencing "human nature", and then narrowing the framework to "Western societies", you encourage an erroneous viewpoint.

Questions for debate:

Do you agree that nowhere on the political spectrum, even Libertarianism, fully embraces all the implications of meritocracy?
I agree, and I'm thankful that none of them do so. Such an embrace of idealism, if implemented, would bring about a dystopian nightmare on par with the disparity between the utopia of communism and the reality. Human society is about relationships, relationships extending from the past through the present and into the future. A "fully embraced meritocracy" could only be established by destroying many of those relationships.

If not, which politicians and/or political movements do, or even come close?
The greater emphasis a movement or politician places on individual rights and responsibilities versus collectivism, the closer they come. The key here is "versus collectivism". Libertarianism and classical liberalism (i.e. small gov't, free market, morally anchored modern conservatism) come closest.

Could a fully meritocratic society work at all?
No. The destruction of human relationships that a fully meritocratic society would require would inevitably horribly warp society.

If so, how could it work, and would it be desirable to move our society in that direction, even if not all the way?
Not applicable.

In the light of your answers above, should Death Taxes be abolished altogether, set at 100%, or set at some intermediate level?
In light of the above, Death (aka Inheritance Taxes) predicated on "levelling the field" should be abolished. There may be other reasons to justify such taxes, but any such justifications must stand scrutiny vis a vis "double taxing" income and/or assets.

Finally, there's one factor that is overlooked when considering the American inheritance taxes and the dynamic nature of our economy. Unlike European nobility, and South American wealthy families, the average "life" of an American family fortune is a mere 5 generations. Our economy itself (i.e. "destructive" capitalism) and the natural increase in the number of family members serve to dissipate family fortunes.

Do you agree that nowhere on the political spectrum, even Libertarianism, fully embraces all the implications of meritocracy?

Absolutely, capitalism is a system that does not reward merit, it rewards value. If I open a bakery and another person opens a bakery, people will choose which bakery to go to on the value that they see in the products produced and not in the merit that went into producing them. A complete meritocracy is NOT a preferable system because it involves as arbitrary power deciding when my merit is equal to your merit and hence we should be equal. Our system is based on value which is based on what the consumer freely chooses to consume.

If not, which politicians and/or political movements do, or even come close?

No ideologies come very close to meritocracies because there is always aspects of merit that a person will find wrong...such as talent. Its like when people take offense to the fact that Lebron James profits off his basketball skills.

Could a fully meritocratic society work at all?

If so, how could it work, and would it be desirable to move our society in that direction, even if not all the way?

It would be tyrannical. It requires an arbitrary third party deciding when the merit of one person equals the merit of another, which is of course subjective. People's merit is should certainly be valued, but in no way should it be the hallmark of our system. To give a concrete example, I could practice just as long and just as hard for the rest of my life like Andrea Bocelli and still be a bad singer. Is that fair? Bocelli will make millions off his voice while I will not. I worked just as hard as him so according to a meritocracy there shouldnt be any difference between our standard of living. But its the people who freely choose to buy a ticket to Bocelli's show and not to mine. They value his voice and not mine. And thats the most preferabale because it involves no form of coercion.

In the light of your answers above, should Death Taxes be abolished altogether, set at 100%, or set at some intermediate level?

Abolished. There is no justification for taking away a person's money that they worked hard all their life for and putting it into the government. If they put in their will that they want all their money to be given to their children, then that right there sets in stone what they want to happen to their property.



That doesn't matter. They earned it and if it is their wish to pass it on to their children than that is their choice.

Leder


Earlier I said:


Aevans thought it was ridiculous... but here we have you Leder talking about how wrong it is to take a person's money....

Do you realize that a person is not a person when they are dead?? They're dead. If you take a dead person's money, then you didn't take anyone's money. Because without life... you're existence resides in the memories of others.



Agreed. But as a society it is our right to tax it as heavily as we please. And stop calling things tyrannical that are not. It's called a death tax, or a inheritance tax, the person is dead.... dead, dead, dead... they are not suffering under the heels of the government.

Let me be the first to disagree with this, if only to a certain extent. If my case is correct, a philosophy of competitive fair trade probably comes the closet to a merit based society.

I have two arguments; let me begin the first one below.

Let us assume that our society respects merit and rewards it. Merit must have some kind of motivation, otherwise the tasks necessary to imbue one with merit would not be taken. Therefore, we assume that their are some fruits, or rewards, for merit granted by society in various forms (financial, spiritual, etc.) From this, I draw two simple axioms which are the only ones necessary to make my point.

1. We are a society that values and respects Merit

2. We respect merit to such an extent that we reward merit and motivate the merit earner by allowing them to spend the fruits of merit as they (legally) please.

If such a case is correct, an argument can be made that we are already a merit based society. We grant some people "free-rides" because we respect and value the merit upon which their free rides are based. Let me make an example:

Suppose I'm a 20 year old college student with a dream of making a financially powerful family (A fruit granted by society in the form of money). In order to do this, I chose a safe route, investing in an index fund with $5000 every year for 40 years. I bring merit to society by advancing companies in need of cash flow, and I am rewarded with a 7% yearly return. At the end of my life, I "spend" the fruits of my merit on my family, knowing the motivation for my investment has been fulfilled. Society then respects the work I have done by allowing my family to live off my merit earnings.

In such a case, we respect and reward accomplishments, not people. We are a society that assigns value to merit based on what we've done, not who we are. In such a case, the gravity of accomplishments are independent of the person. As such, so too should the rewards.

My second case is a bit more touchy-feely: What is merit and who can give rewards for merit. If we acknowledge that merit is ultimately a subjective concept, perhaps those good for nothing, free loader children have as much merit as kid Einstein polishing shoes for a living. Or, its better to say, there is nothing objective to prove kid Einstein necessarily is more deserving of the fruits of merit than rich lazy kids.

In such a case, the only defend able position for a re-distributive society would be to equalize everyones ability to grant merit based rewards. That way, the super rich uncle couldn't inflate his subjective ideas of merit.

However, because merit based rewards we are assuming have some degree of transience (otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate, right?), this lofty goal is ironically self-defeating. Obviously kid Einstein will go on to create the teleportation device and we will reward him, only to take away those rewards to prevent him from inflating his own ideas of merit. This, of course, destroys the motivation for merit in the first place (Ironic that in an attempt to elevate merit, we prevent it).

On a philosophical level, who are we to decide who gets what? We have some say, but is that the same as enforcing something by law? Can you really justify taking away something from someone who "doesn't deserve it" to someone who "does deserve it" if we are unclear about what "deserving it" really means?

Do you agree that nowhere on the political spectrum, even Libertarianism, fully embraces all the implications of meritocracy?

I don't think it's possible to embrace all the implications of meritocracy and still have a functioning society. Some parents give their children extraordinarily good looks…something that is nearly as influential as a pile of money, and often more so. Glenda married John and became wealthy because (aside from her plastic augmentation) she was born beautiful. What do we do with her? Some parents give their children mathematical ability, some athletic ability, others money. Children of the affluent have access to better educations, healthcare, nutrition, ect, than others. They usually benefit long before their parents depart from the earth.

To take this to an extreme, we live in a first world country because of the luck/ efforts/ crimes of our ancesters. Not a single one of us has much to complain about by comparison to third world nations. Are we morally obligated to level/liquidate everything and start over with each generation?

If not, which politicians and/or political movements do, or even come close?

IMO, "merit" means doing well with the plate you are given, not uniformity. Not punishment or handicap for having a head-start or advantage. It isn’t an even playing field from the start, and I don’t think that the “Conservative philosophy” contradicts itself by not expecting it to be (or demanding by force that it is). Strict conservatism is perhaps unforgiving for those who aren’t able to achieve but it isn’t based on the premise that life should be fair or equitable. It’s based on the premise that life is going to be inherently unfair, so what is the best way to tap into that very human system and use that unfairness to the advantage of society overall? If a person cannot donate his/her money or transfer their businesses to his/her offspring that will affect the way they produce and live their lives, which will, I think, adversely impact society overall.

Could a fully meritocratic society work at all?

See above, it isn't possible or even (IMO) desirable.

In the light of your answers above, should Death Taxes be abolished altogether, set at 100%, or set at some intermediate level?

The concept of Meritocracy is based on the award for personal achievement, not punishment for lack of achievement (or luck, or whatever). To take it to the level of schoolyard playground, Judy earned five dollars for babysitting. Sally did not. Sally has no money and Judy has five. Judy doesn’t have to share with Sally. If Judy chooses to share with Sally, no one is stopping her and demanding Sally earn her share or she get nothing. She earned it, she gets to spend it or give it away as she chooses…that this offers Sally an advantage is irrelevant.

In a similar vein, from my perspective it should be entirely up to the person who earned the wealth to do with it as he/she pleases. If Warren Buffet wants to give his 40 billion dollars to Africa rather than the country that offered him the chance to create that wealth, that is his prerogative. That Africa didn’t earn it, or that our country won't benefit is irrelevant. Goodness knows we could use that money here (it could pay for an entire month in Iraq! )

I'll add that family dynamics are very complex too. They are really beyond price. A child might care for her parents for decades before they pass, if they are in ill health, greatly sacrificing their own personal finances and time. They might take over a family business that requires significant effort, though they didn’t “earn it all” they likely contributed a significant amount, perhaps without payment. I don’t think the assets should be liquidated rather than passed on against the wishes of the founder.

Edited to add: Just thinking further...what about life insurance policies? Aren't those along a similar vein? Should we eliminate the option to protect our families from catastrophic loss in the interest of "meritocracy" and isn't that kind of a similar concept?

Ummm... I'll try to put this in terms you can understand, but more officers are white, mostly because more white people go to college and then enlist (and/or go via ROTC, an academy, etc). Do you think that people should send you to OCS BECAUSE YOU'RE BLACK???. The Military DOES promote black men and women based SOLELY upon their skin color, even though their records may be inferior. That is NOT a meritocracy unless you see black skin (or hispanic skin, etc) as a qualifier for a good officer.

Entitlement? Lord. Maybe you don't know what working through college is like. Maybe you got a free ride and/or didn't go. I dunno. It doesn't matter. The point is that the IRS shouldn't be able to tax income multiple times. Who the heck is the IRS?

Maybe you're jaded because your parents didn't save their money. Maybe they don't have life insurance. I could care less. If that's the case, it's their fault, and maybe partly yours for not helping them to plan accordingly. However- even lower middle class Americans of our parents age GENERALLY made an attempt to save some of their earnings. Maybe that's not your idea of fun... "3 hots and a cot, I'm good to go"....

However- be realistic. Why is there life insurance? If it was solely to pay for funerals and debts, we wouldn't have $1/2M and $1M policies out there for $100/month.

I'm truly sorry if you feel left behind in this process. It's not my fault. But you STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED why the IRS should get the money someone worked hard to save. Hell, if the money had to go to the poor or someone that really needed it... so be it. The IRS spends BILLIONS on collecting taxes and the nightmare of it all is that then it may end up going to a congressional bowling trip or golf outing. Seriously man.

The theory of our parents' generation was to try to leave their kids with more than they were raised with. This IS part of why or nation has retained so much wealth (for the time being anyway). Each generation had more than their parents, and of course partly due to the notion that there will be something "left over" at the end.

My family is NOWHERE close to rich. If you've read my posts, you know that I was raised in a military family. My mother didn't work, and people in the Army never get rich. My folks may have a couple of pennies to scrape together when they pass, and frankly it IS because they didn't spend frivolously when we were growing up. I won't even broach the subject of your "interesting" math and tax notions. Those ideas are pretty subversive... and the spouse thing... umm... what if my wife gets cancer, and we've only been married a couple of years. I take care of her for the next 3 years and she's got a little life insurance + some money saved. Should the IRS still get 1/2? (I have a very close friend who was in this boat).
Not no... but _____ no!

The problem with your theories is that you automatically assume that inheritance is going to someone undeserved. What about kids who took care of their parents in their elderly years (i.e. my parents taking care of their parents until very recently). Many families take in their folks as opposed to locking them away in nursing homes. Even SOME grandkids go mow grandparents lawns, see them on Sunday afternoons, etc. It's how GOOD families (at least in the real south) work. You may think that the kids don't DESERVE the $$$$... but I think there's no reason that the IRS should get a stinkin' penny more than they already do.

I think it is important to note, since this thread has really turned into a discussion about "Death Taxes":

1) The money has already been taxed at least once.
2) The money like other assets (cars, pictures, houses, fishing rods) is not the US Population's and certainly not the US Government's money. It is the owners. Just be cause the owner happens to be dead there's no reason to hand the money out to people who have not right to it.
3) Being born into wealth is as likely as being born into poverty. Life isn't fair. It's like that.

Aevans,


Man you sound angry...

So why are more Whites going to colleges(% wise) are Whites superior??


Whoaaa... lol Where are you stats on this?? Heck, I'll even take a personal story to hear how you justify this comment.



man, you are just cracking me up... You know what they say about asssuming right?? Let me tell you so you know. I joined the Marines and over the seven years I served I managed to eek out an AA... then once I was out I worked full time and completed my B.A. online. So..hmmmm yeah I guess I SACRIFICED for my Mom and Dad too. I'm a Hero




yeah... or maybe I am just seeing a pattern of wealth staying in the hands of few due to our laws that protect the lineage of the very wealthy.



Oh is this is what huge life insurance policies are about, making sure your kids get paid??



Again, the IRS is not a person getting the money. They are merely a branch of the government. The Government is suppose to be an extension of the people. Large sums of money do more for groups of people than it does to hoarding individuals. And congress is going bowling on our dollar regardless. But haven't you done anything fun on the military dime when you were in?? A little MWR... maybe.



I thought the theory was to make sure you could try to provide your kids a better life than you had growing up. A better school, more tools, more opportunities so that they could MAKE a better life for themselves. But maybe that's the difference between a man who wants togo out and get his and a man waiting for his parents to give him his.



Ok Aevans how would you feel if I conceded that we should also allow all debts incurred by an individual be exempt from taxation... Or does you friend just deserved to get PAID for taking care of his OWN sick dying wife??




Read above... typically (just listen to yourself) people don't deserve the money. They didn't do it for money did they. Or maybe a part of them did. I'll take care of mom or dad so they will give me that fat portion of the check.

And good families shouldn't feel slighted because they don't get some huge check when their grandparents die.

They don't desrve it cause they didn't earn it. Taking care of someone you love is it's own reward. That is how a GOOD family member should feel. Now as i said above you shouldn't be straddled with the debt of caring for them.

And lastly, if you read my proposal you would see that middle and lower middle class would be largely unaffected by my proposal. How many middle class people can afford a million dollar life insurance policy??

BA



But what would be the first thing you would say if there was a death tax like the one I proposed. "That's unfair!!"


What is up with the right and fairness. The wealthier you are the more outrageous it is to be unfair to them, the poorer you are the more you need to know, "life is unfair, get over it" Does it ever occur to you all that you have it backwards???

But that WOULD be unfair. Why are the poor (who often can't manage money (see also Lotto Winners) no doubt from lack of practice) deserving of the money made by others more than the relatives of the money makers? Of course they're not.

From your own words so is growing up poor. That money is not going to the poor it is going to the government. The same government that provides the law and order that allowed some one to make the wealth they made. The fact of the matter is no one becomes wealthy by themselves in a vacuum, if they could they wouldn't need to hire others have other working for them at lesser pay. All you are doing is regenerating the money back into a society that created the environment for someone to become wealthy.

The money has already been taxed at least once

I think this is one of the myths of this thread. Not that it hasn't been taxed at least once, but where can you find me a dollar anywhere that hasn't been taxed multiple times. Double, triple, googliple taxation is taxation. Once a dollar changes hands it likely is effected by at least one tax on that exchange. Should it now be a tax exempt dollar for perpetuity?

I am never amazed by the belief in society that is presently dominant in the United States that a person working at minimum wage should be taxed at a higher rate than a person making money off of a capital investment AND at a higher rate than someone who receives the money as an unearned gift. In our system the first dollar earned by the poorest person in the direst strait is subject to 15 cents in payroll taxes yet we have an entitled bloated class in our society arguing how capital and inheritance taxes harm our society.

The person who receives an inheritance should at least pay an income tax on this money. Tax on labor should never be higher than gift and capital income taxes. But we don't live in a true democracy, we live in a society where money has as much influence over our public policy as a vote does.


On your points two and three I respect your opinions but I believe that they are harmful to our society and the stability of our future. In my studies of history, democracy almost always flourishes where the middle class flourishes. Also, capitalism is a superior economic system with an inferior system of distribution of wealth. To me the correction for both of these problems requires a tax policy that aims at redistribution of wealth.

The life isn't fair and that's the way it is answers don't make good policy. Let them eat cake led to the guillotine. (Historical misquote or not) Allowing a society to drift into poor distribution of wealth is a drift toward disastrous cyclical poverty and losing the value from our talented underclass. The question is not whether we have lost the Carnegie's and Bill Gates in the past and present, but how many have we lost?

And they were paid for doing it. Therefore they have already received full compensation for their efforts. What then gives any of them any more rights to my money? Especially what gives them any more rights to it than my children?

That happens inevitably whenever someone spends the money. Every time the recipient buys a home/yacht/whatever, jobs are produced and supported. That stimulates the economy more than paying for another day in Iraq (via taxes) would.




Is there something keeping you from giving those (hypothetical) "deserving people" your (hypothetical) money?

Look the money could go to the kids or to the workers, it should be taxed regardless. Give the dependents a break to a certain point but from there heavily tax it. Hey, we don't want handouts right??? And if you don't mind handouts one way don't complain about them another way.



You know what would stimulate growth more... laws hampering the wealthy from doing anything and everything to become more wealthy and keeping that wealth within their bloodline like some sort of nobility.

But on the the point that worker deserve the money more than the kids.

Think of any rich person, Bill Gates, Oprah... whoever. Thy could not grow their business with out workers. The worker could not work with out a leader giving direction and the initial capital that the company owner provides. So for a company to grow it needs a consumer, workers, a leader. With out any one of the three the business is nothing but an idea inked on paper. That makes their relationship is symbiotic.

In other words I can point out how workers actually did something to help a person get wealthy, can you think of what the kid did?? Of course you all could think like Aevans who believes he sacrificed for his parents by taking out the trash when he was a kid.

Says who? I don't work for my employees? My boss doesn't work for me. I work for me. I work for my kids. My boss works for his and the owner, who is a genius, works for hers! She built a company that brought me in at very good wages to steer them in a new direction. My skills, my reputation and my ability got me the position. My hard work keeps me employed. Do my techs do great work? They sure do. And not only do I play them well I train them to do things they didn't even know about before they met me. They should PAY ME at the end of the year for all the free training (whether I send them to a class, or sit them down and explain how things work) they get. Some of my guys WOULD pay me.

It's my money. If I amass 10,000,000USD before I die and decide to give 5,000,000USD to each kid on EARNED money that HAS BEEN TAXED already whose business is it? It's mine. It's what I deem my PROPERTY to do, and to go to. Since I'm dead I guess the house, the cars, stuff doesn't really need to go with me - using your bizarre "He's dead Jim" logic.

Frankly I'd burn the money before I gave it to the inefficient US Government. If they couldn't make on the 33% they are already taking (and we all know it's more when you break out all your taxes) then SCREW THEM. And golly Mr Dropped out of college cause I was kegging it up sorry you make crap money all your life in a dead end job. Try working your lower hind quarters off next time. However, you don't deserve a DIME from me!

huh you O.K. ???



I'm sorry I thought this topic dealt with death tax\inheritance tax.... I was pretty sure the premise was

YOU'RE DEAD!!! It's not your money... you don't exist. What is it about the finality of death that people just don't want to except??



Again... you're dead.



I'm sorry I didn't know that this was my logic, I thought there was a general understanding that when you die your car, house, money would trascent into the heavens with you.



It would serve the same purpose in the end... enjoy the bonfire.

To the debate:

Let's look at your scenario... under droop224's inheritance tax.

Each dependant can get up to 100,000 exempt. At a 90% tax rate, we are talking about 500,000 to 550,000 dollars. And what did they do to deserve such a sum of money.... Nothing!! They did nothing. So you would rather "flame on" or maybe you could better say "not over my dead body" well, pinch your nose to spite your face.

But what we do as a society to prevent plutocracy, to prevent consolidations of power through wealth should be important to all of us.

I'm a little late to this party, but let's see if I can add a little heat or light to the subject.


But it's not really. What we are really talking about, however it's labeled in the tax code, is taxation on unearned income.


Quite true. However, the money you may win in Las Vegas has also been taxed at least once - when the casino made it.

For anyone who inherits wealth, the principal is the same - they are gaining unearned income. Why should the source of the income make a difference on the rate of taxation?



However, as has already been noted, the tax isn't really upon the dead person - it's upon those that gain the inheritance.

And while I'm thinking about it, there's something that needs to corrected:


That's not at all correct, Aevans. There is actually a lifetime total of something like $10,000 or $11,000 that you can "gift" to someone, like a family member, before any amount over and above that amount begins to get taxed as unearned income, as well. Write a check to your son $1 million dollars on your deathbed, and the IRS is going to tax him on whatever rate applies to that $1 million of income plus whatever else he made in employment during that year.

Now, all that said, I don't see where the Inheritance Tax needs to be any higher than the current rate of income tax, based on the amount each recipient gets. But eliminate the tax altogether? I don't think so....

Actually, the tax code is even more generous than that. I'm surprised I know this! A rare event for me when it comes to economics or money questions of any kind....the annual limit is 10,000 per donee up to a lifetime total of around 650,000. A person can give away a substantial sum to his/her children before their departure if they plan accordingly and aren't killed or struck mortally ill unexpectedly.




I agree. I think part of the reason people save and invest, or start a business is for the financial security of their children. I don't think taking away the option to pass much of it on would benefit society, quite the contrary. But taxing inheritance at income tax rates likely wouldn't hamper productivity. It's a good compromise.

BA- it is also very important to note- the rich NEVER pay 33% of thier INCOME in taxes- Bill Gates has NEVER paid 33 billion dollars in taxes on his 100 billion dollars in earnings (I know the figures are off, but just as a point- the man HAS NEVER, since becoming a billionare, paid 33% of his net increae per year- if he did, his tax accountants should be fired for incompetance)

ONLY the upper middle class ever pay this kind of taxes, or the middle class in general- just to be clear, the ken lays, Warran Buffets and Donald trump I doubt pay more than 1% of thier net increase per year in taxes.

Honestly I can't say that I'd ever have a problem with the "death tax" myself...


My reasoning is simple

1. I live in NH, so there is no state "inheritance tax"
1. I'm pretty sure I'll never have more than 2 million dollars worth of anything, so I'd be exempt from the federal estate tax. Case in point - my kids will get everything, tax-free.

Now, the only way I would ever have 2 million dollars, IMHO, is either by:
1. Winning the lottery, (which, since I didn't earn it, I wouldn't really take issue with giving more of it away) or
2. If an investment (property,stock) took off and suddenly became several million dollars, also not exactly worked for, so if they have to give some of it back then good -- it teaches them karma.

My bad, MrsP. You are correct. It's $11,000 per year, up to a lifetime limit. I think my point is still valid for aevans176's example, however, where he gives everything to his son on his deathbed. Either way, his son is going to have a heck of a tax bill for that year.

You're clearly missing an important point here. It's NOT your money to decide whether or not MY children get MY money! What did the US Government do to get that money? And what the Hell did they do with all the money I already gave them?


I'm not going to even bother mentioning that you have absolutely not backed up a thing you said... Oh wait I just did.

Who do you think pays the Lion's Share of US Taxes? Do you think it's the Middle Class (whoever they are)? Do you suspect it's the poor? The top 1% pay ~29% of all the taxes in the country. The top 50% pay ~96% of the taxes leaving the bottom 50% of wage earners paying ~4% of the taxes in the country. The rich are already paying your bill!

BA

Once again you have it wrong.



Take a look at these charts:



Depending of the definition of wealth you want to use the top 1% have 33.4 or 39.7 percent of the wealth in the U.S. Can you do the math?? The top 20 percent have 84% or over 90% of the wealth in this nation. Yet though the top 20 percent of this nation owns up to 90 percent of the 84% - 90% wealth. It takes the top 50% to pay the bill of 96% by your numbers.

So whos actually paying who's bill?? The same person that is making sure some super rich can pass on the million made off of the people's backs to give to their children. US.



No you're missing the point. It's not a dead man's money either. A person in America can not become fealthy rich with out standing on the backs and heads of other Americans. A company can't grow with out the most essential resource known to man. Human labor. A heavy inheritance tax does not as some conservative would say "punish" the wealthy. He retained his wealth till he died. And then it was no longer his.

Yes- you would be correct- the wealthy "1%" do pay around the figure you cited, I am sure (though, curiously, after chastising me for no source, you left one out yourself ) - HOWEVER- tax AVOIDENCE and tax EVASION are two completely different thing- you do realize that the "1%" you quote are pretty much anyone making, oh, I believe it is around 215k? per year is where the definition of those "1%ers" you are talking about- intersting, that the figures have such a HUGE disparity of actual income- for instance- a Dr, making a straight up salary, from say, an S-corp private practise, earning 350k a year, will probably pay that 33% of his salary, if he is not smart and engages in no "tax shelters". HOWEVER- lets say, for round numbers and giggles- that Bill Gates net worth increased by 5 billion dollars last year, are YOU saying that, on that 5 billion dollars, that he paid 33% of 5 billion?

Oh, I make it into the tax bracket right below that "1%"- so really NO one "pays my bill" LOL

You know- the prez certainly didn't pay 33% of his net income


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060414-1.html
President and Mrs. George W. Bush reported taxable income of $618,694 for the tax year 2005. This resulted in a total of $187,768 in federal income taxes paid by President and Mrs. Bush.

So, why aren't the rich being taxed at the same rate as the Dr there BA?

The prez is not even a millionare huh? He ONLY EARNED 618,694, both he and his wife- is what his tax return says, right (which was about , what, 30% even, NOT 33% of even that figure)-

but, since he is in, most likely, a very large number of tax shelters- I am willing to bet that the 618k is "walking around money" for him, as it is with most rich- thier stated "income" has nothing to do with thier ACTUAL net worth increase- only thier "stated income".

Are you following me here?

The middle class, or rather, what most would consider the upper income middle class- but NOT bill gates- DO pay the lions share of taxes- but they aren't billionares paying those taxes,

and, even the definition of "millionare" is very slippery today- since assets can be in excess of a million dollars and STILL barely net 60k a year in "unearned income"- meaning, the investments themselves give them a 60k a year salary.

right now, the average house in Anchorage costs 250k, and a 4 or 6 plex can run around 750k or more. so, you have a house- and one rental- POOF- you are a millionare. Sell that rental complex, and don't engage in a 'tax shelter"- and I will INSTANTLY be in that "1%" figure you quoted before

a very, very misleading number.

I would MUCH rather see a figure on what those that make a net increase of over 1 million in assets per year pay in taxes- might be a tad more realistic when it comes to tax revenue.

This has been a subject I have followed for years, as I have done quit a bit of real estate and small biz myself- and CEOs CERTAINLY are NOT paying 33% of THIER income in taxes either-

Or are you tellingthat ken lay paid over 10 million dollars a year in taxes or something? Or Bill gates for that matter?

The most misleading part of that entire statement falls in the debate of "what is rich"- a thread I started, I believe, over a year ago-

what is Rich BA? Is it someone that earns 250k on a payroll salary? Or is it bill Gates, that pays a miniscule, if any, taxes per year?

Who knows- you know, it is so complex- he has is own computer with the IRS- no foolin'-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1334.html

Bill Gates Gets Special Computer at IRS

by Gerald Prante


Yesterday at a conference in Spain, Microsoft founder Bill Gates claimed that his tax return is so complex and so filled with large numbers that a special computer is required at the IRS in order to process his return. From Agency France Press:

Microsoft founder Bill Gates, the world's richest man, said the tax office in the US has to store his financial data on a special computer because his fortune is so vast.

"My tax return in the United States has to be kept on a special computer because their normal computers can't deal with the numbers," he said at a Microsoft conference held in Lisbon.

"So I am constantly getting these notices telling me I haven't paid something when really it is just on the wrong computer," he added in comments broadcast on television.

"Then they will send me another notice telling me how bad they feel they that they sent me a notice that was a mistake," he said. (Full Story)

It appears as if Bill Gates is personally responsible for a large fraction of the compliance costs of our income tax system, including the required purchase of a special computer. There is a simple solution to much of the problem – have a simple income tax with a low rate that treats all income equally with few exemptions or deductions. The charitable deduction alone for Bill and his wife, Melinda, probably consumes the bulk of this problem for the IRS and his army of accountants.

Here’s a few interesting questions to ponder regarding Bill Gates’ tax return: Did Gates pay cash for his mansion or borrow and thereby claim the home mortgage interest deduction? Do Bill and Melinda file jointly or separately? Is he hit with AMT?

(end of story)

the needlessly complex tax code definately favors what I call the "truly rich" vs the "I am trying my best to get into that really rich place too".


Though, I DEFINATELY agree that the goverment really don't need to be telling me that I shouldn't be leavin' all my money to my kids either- I earned it, I should be able to decide who gets it when I die- not the damn goverment, that is for sure!

On this, I am in total agreement with the idea that it is "double taxed"- I already paid taxes, (unless, of course, I am super rich, then I have certainly NOT paid my "fair share" of taxes- because, once again, the current tax code has allowed me to avoid paying anywhere near the percentage of our good, but hypothetical, Dr) and it should NOT be taxed again when I die.

But, then again, a good estate planner would negate that all anyway. It is only those that do not plan for thier death and have alot of assets, liquid or property, that are dumb enough to actually end up paying those taxes.

for instance- If I BUY my ma and pa's house, before they die, and then, turn around and make it a life lease holder, that they pay the mortgage on "rent"- then I get all the equity in that house- no inheritance tax- etc etc.

And DROOP- not everyone that "gets rich" made it off the "backs of others"- many are the folks that have made our lives much easier- it may seem that I am picking on Bill Gates- rather the opposite- his extreme wealth was earned, in fact, we wouldn't be debating on this forum without it- he basically changed the entire universe for the global community- he is probably the most important producer of our time, and started it out of his mom's garage.

So, above all, he EARNED HIS MONEY- by making something everyone wanted and needed, and left the world a much better place than he came into it- so, no I don't believe he should have to pay more than his fair share in his lifetime- which, like most libertarians, believe it should be a flat tax of 20% of increase in net worth, no deductions, no avoidance.

Hmm. It's apparent that my opening statements didn't quite frame the debate as I entended.

My first thought was to quote individuals and then reply, rebut or agree on a point-by-point basis. But I ended up quoting nearly every post, so a more general approach follows:

From my opening post

It bears repeating - we on the left (by the look of it, droop, Eeyore and myself on this thread so far) already know that we have a blindspot in our perception of meritocracy. Rather than pointing out what we already know, I think it would be more interesting for those on the left to think more about what barriers there might be that prevent the useless rich from falling down the social mobility ladder than about the barriers the left might want to put in the way of the talented poor and middle-class who want to advance up it. That's the blind-spot I was talking about - please use this thread to force yourselves to look at your own assumptions, rather than pointing out everyone else's.

My preamble about what is the norm, and what is natural, was intended to indicate that I don't have much problem with parents leaving their estates to their children, or grandchildren. (I referred specifically to Western societies when I talked about natural desires because I wanted to echo what I said later about most Western societies applying some form of inheritance taxation, rather than trying to limit what was correctly pointed out as a universal desire for family betterment as a purely Western trait. My bad English clearly let me down there )

My beef is with dynasties - with the bequeathing of wealth and assets which were themselves inherited.

Forgetting for the moment the practical implementation (this is after all the forum for Principles and Personal Philosophy, and was deliberately chosen by me for that reason), but imagine we reform Inheritance taxes to leave all transfers of wealth and assets from the testator (the person who dies and leaves a will) to relatives who were already born (ok, even conceived) at the time of their deaths completely and totally untaxed.

So all the arguments on this thread so far about how MY money should be freely available to MY kids and grandkids vanish in a puff of clever framing. (Or weasel words, depending on your viewpoint.)

Instead, let's say we only apply this new-fangled inheritance tax to wealth and assets that were themselves inherited by the person doing the dying.

Because, even in a meritocracy, arguments about the merits and wishes of the recently deceased can (and should, I think) impinge upon whether kids "deserve" to inherit their wealth. To quote Unforgiven "deserve's got nothing to do with it".

But I don't think anyone can sensibly argue that MY "merits" are anything to do with any descendents I may have in 150 years' time. Not least because my grandchildren's great-grandchildren - my 5th generation descendents - have only 3.125% of my DNA. That's broadly comparable to the amount I would have in common with pretty much any randomly selected person alive today.

Therefore, my 5th generation descendants getting their hands on the fruits of my labours makes about as much sense as the government taxing me now on my income and "just giving" it to someone I don't know. And while most of us don't like paying it very much, and many would restructure the bandings, very few of us would abolish income tax altogether. In other words, we can assume that, in principle, the idea that one person with 3.125% of my DNA because they inherited it directly from me should have a greater claim on the fruits of my labours than another person with 3.125% of my DNA from random coincidence is pretty daft.

Which brings me neatly on to another unspoken assumption which has no place in a discussion of principle and philosophy.

All this talk of double and triple taxation? Piffle. Who says that, in a notional meritocracy, inherited wealth (even that which only skips a single generation, as most debaters have thus far assumed) would or should be taxed AT ALL during it's creation. No income taxes, no sales taxes, no transactional taxes - no personal taxation AT ALL.

EXCEPT...

... every single cent you have at the moment of your death goes to the government. (With some sensible loophole-closing in the framing, to avoid the kind of avoidance that accountants come up with to minimise or avoid current inheritance taxes altogether. If you gave it away with the intention of avoiding tax, it automatically becomes taxable. Impossible to enforce, I know, but again - we're talking about the princples here.)

Another unspoken assumption - that government would be redistributive and give MY hard-earned tax money away to the reckless and the feckless.

Nope.

Again, in my notional meritocracy, there would be no welfare at all.

For adults, at any rate.

Assuming the closure of loopholes (a BIG assumption, I know), the overall tax take from an inheritance-only personal taxation system would be rather larger than the current tax take.

(Limited companies would carry on much as now, since sole traders and partners income's are already almost the same as personal income, and people with a stake in limited companies are only taxed on monies paid out to them by that company.)

But I say again - NO REDISTRIBUTION, at least not in the conventional sense.

All that tax money raised (and the money saved from abolishing much of the welfare budget) would be spent on schools, universities, and on healthcare, in an attempt to bring every seat of learning and source of treatment up to the standards of what would be, now, the upper quartile. So every pupil and student gets the quality of teaching and the facilities available now only to the better-off.

Every school, university and hospital would be entirely free at the point of use for everyone under 21 year old (the improvement in school standards would likely mean first degree courses could condense to a three year course). So every pupil and student gets the quality of healthcare available now only to the better-off.

And every school and university would be equipped with good quality kitchens on site, so that everyone attending would be entitled to at least one good-quality nutritionally balanced meal every day. So every pupil and students gets at least the opportunity of a healthy, balanced diet. (If they blow it by living on pizza and chocolate the rest of the time, that's their look-out.)

As for what constitutes "merit", I don't propose we change the definition very much from now - the common-or-garden market value of the combination of skills, luck and hard work that most self-made successes have today would be the same.

I'm not proposing we change the market, as such, but that we consider how we might change the way we prepare our children and young people to enter it in a way that allows their success to depend more on their own skills, luck and hard work than on who their daddy (or great-great grand-daddy) is or was.

Lastly, I'm not proposing these ideas because I think they are a fuly formed "answer" to anything.

Frankly, as something of an old-fashioned Euro-lefite, the idea of abolishing welfare completely does not appeal to me at all.

But it can't hurt to explore if there is any merit in meritocracy at all, and if so, how can it be applied in the real world.

Cruisingram



You could not have picked a more perfect example CR. Besides an empire... what did Bill Gates make?? Bill Gates exemplifies how we are not a meritocracy. The thing that made Bill Gates, is not Bill Gates creation. He did not create DOS he did not create Windows, he made a company, and that company used the minds and brains of others. But what good is a Brain with out wealth. You can be a bum that is the smartest chess player in the world, that just makes you a real smart BUM.

So tell me what did bill gates do to earn billions upon billions?? I'll tell you he sucked up resources. He bought creative company after creative company, because as we all know....

EVERYONE has a price.

IF gets big enough... they'd get bought, just like napster, just like myspace, just like everything else. That just human nature so there is no real way to stop that.

So you have a company with all these worker bees, but then you have an owner. Now the only reason the owner is making all the money he is making is because the worker bees. But te way the law works, you pay off the owner, and regardless of the worker bees now you're the owner of the company.

So it stands the reason the more money one has the more likely one can become an owner. And the less money one has the more likely they will end up being the worker bee. How does the owner make a profit CR??

Two ways... he distributes less percentage of the earning to the worker bees than what they produced. If their work produce him 100 in income, he gives them 75. Secondly he charges the customers more than what it cost him to produce something. If it take a dollar in resources to create something, the owner charges 1.25.

So whether it's the backs of the consumers, or the backs of the workers, You CANNOT make a profit with out ripping off someone.... typically. I can see a situation here and there where it can be done.. but it is very small.

Julian


I'm a little confused as to your wording here.

No one(generally speaking) gives their money to a fifth generation descendant. But if I can give it to my children, who invest it and give it to their children and so on it continues into a dynasty. So wouldn't you have to snip it at the very root. The next generation down??

http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/1QQ.HTM

The military does employ Affirmative Action. It's just a fact. I can give you a hundred more links if you'd like.

The point you refuse to understand is that it's not about who has or who doesn't. I do pretty well, but 100% by the sweat of my brow. I earned it. I didn't qualify for any minority scholarships and surely never qualified for any Marine Corps affirmative action policies. I've never had a hand out in my life. Point blank.

The issue is that the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DESERVE IT. If I die, it's my money. I should have the ability (and legally I DO) to do what with it I please. It's called a will. Simple enough. If I wanna bury it with me, so be it. If I wanna give it to UFO research... it's mine. If I wanna give it to my kids, why should it be taxed for the second or third time???

See this is where you come off the rails for me. Why is making a profit ripping someone off? Does Bill Gates' time have no value? Should a luthier charge you for wood glue and strings when he sells you an instrument and nothing more? How on Earth does your society sustain itself?

There are worker bees. Many of them are quite happy with it. I work with people every day who have been doing the same job for 3 decades. They wouldn't change a thing. I meet people who have been making ~40K for most of their working life and they have absolutely no ambition to make more or work any harder.

Bill Gates clearly isn't one of those people. Some people strive. Constantly. Every move they make is a move to make their lives better, to make more, to do more, to get and save more. Some of those people are deplorable, I understand and agree how you might feel about those people. End of the day though... as long as they didn't do anything illegal to obtain the money then it's their money. Dead or alive. Why should Bill Gates hand over his fortune upon his death? So you'll feel better? Please.

I don't know if you're Socialist, or have Socialist leanings or whatever... the fact remains the same though. Wealth redistribution doesn't work. Never has, never will. Socialism fails everywhere it is tried. Communism isn't really much of a system either. Frank Zappa's quote comes to mind:

“Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff.”

It is patently unfair that some kids are born into insane wealth. I'm with ya. Your job, droop, is to make it so your kids are born into insane wealth, or their kids are. THAT is the American Dream. Your kids will have it easier than you.

"Useless rich"? Julian, I think before you invest in examining the possible barriers, you'd be well, nay, very well served to examine that assumption. To get a head start, begin by contemplating the concept of the "useless poor."

To the rest of your post, the key philosophical objection rests on a simple foundation. Private property rights. Once the probate is complete, the inheritance belongs completely to the beneficiaries. They can do with it what they please. Squander it (as do many), live comfortably on it, invest it. And give it away or will it as they choose. By the way, do you, with your abhorrence of "dynastic wealth", have any property inherited from prior generations?


Ahh, but they don't have a greater claim than any other person. Private property rights, i.e., the decision of the testator, trumps any "claim" that the descendant has. If the testator chooses some random 3.125%er as heir over a 50%er (i.e. child), then Random Joe gets the estate. Now, long experience with human nature results in a certain skepticism by the legal system regarding Random Joe, but all that means is that FittyPercent can bring an action against Random Joe with the presumption of good faith, whereas the reverse is less likely.