A Riveting Discussion About Estate Taxes

Quid

An estate tax, also known as an inheritance tax or pejoratively as a death tax, is a tax levied on the transfer of a person's estate after death. The primary reasons for it are to generate revenue for the state and to help decrease the gap between the poor and the rich. Some people want it to go in to effect at a lower amount with a higher rate, some do not, some want it abolished entirely.

I fall in to the first group, personally. I'm not a fan of people getting to live a life of luxury solely via winning the genetic lottery. There's valid reasoning behind letting people ensure their children are able to obtain certain material comforts but I feel it's safe to say after the first several million they're taken care of.

Quid

Quid wrote: »

tbloxham wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

tbloxham wrote: »

Phyphor wrote: »

tbloxham wrote: »

Magus` wrote: »

Maybe it's my nature or upbringing I can't imagine having all that money and resources and not wanting to help. If I had 10 million dollars I could tell you at least 5 people I know who would suddenly not find themselves in crippling debt.

I have no sympathy for people who refuse to use those resources to help.

If this is really the position we want to get to, I'd rather see some kind of asset tax, where if you are taxed an amount based on the value of your total estate. A smaller continuously applied tax will be more 'normal' and harder to avoid than a titanic single point tax.

10-50 million = 1% each year
50-100 million = 2% each year
100 million + = 3% each year

But democracy isn't about who you have sympathy for. Thats just not a good way to make decisions.

I'm not sure I can really get behind continual wealth taxes. Inheritance sure because it's changing hands. But, owing taxes just because you have a bunch of money (and not necessarily earned any money, just sat on it) not so much. All this would really do is drive investors to seek ever-riskier ever-higher returns, not only do they have to beat inflation to maintain value, they also have to beat their wealth tax just to break even

Yes, and then those foolish investors would lose their money. The smart response to this sort of thing is to just really not be incentivized to earn that extra million when you already have a billion. It would be designed to be continually pushing estates back below the value of 100 million dollars, then pushing 'well managed, but not creating growth' estates below 50 million, and the 'lazy estates' below 10 million.

If you do a massive inheritance tax people will just transfer all the money to a lawyer managed fund held in trust for the two youngest members of the family, the dispersal's from that fund being paid out each year to the eldest members.

I guess I see the value in the 1%, and even in the 0.1% in society. Just not the value in the 0.01%, and thats where I draw my fiscal lines when I evaluate these things.

No one said they don't have value. Some of us just have priorities that rank higher than someone suffering under the burden of having only a few million dollars handed to them.

Then why allow estates above 1 million dollars to be held intact? 90% tax above 1 million it is?

When we create this laws, we imagine them being implemented effectively we're effectively saying "We don't think it is a net help to society that there are people with more money than X dollars"

I think X is somewhere around 50 million. You seem to think its about 10 million.

Nah, one million's good too.

And the reasoning is that money can be better used helping society than ensuring an individual lives in luxury.

So all people who live in San Francisco, New York or a wide variety of other major cities shall be forced to sell their homes to pay your inheritance tax?

Effectively it seems that you want to completely eliminate the concept of inherited money or property? Which I can say I disagree with entirely.[/quote]

As to this, no. I'm fine with inheritance in general. But while it's unfortunate that some people might have to make some difficult choices after family passes, that's something nearly everyone has to deal with. I see no reason the very rich of all people should get a pass.

@Goumindong made a valid point about an estate tax being too low (around a million) would quite possibly cost more than it generates to put in to effect. So starting at an inheritance higher than that is perfectly reasonable as far as I'm concerned. But to contend that people inheriting 10 million dollars and more deserve to get all of it is nonsense as far as I'm concerned. And the justifications I've seen so far are focused entirely on the ability of a single person to laze about for the rest of their life over the literal needs of millions others.

syndalis

How do you propose a family business, in which a family member has 50-60% of their assets tied up in equity, should be handled?

10-20 million in terms of a business with a couple hundred employees is super reasonable, and forcing family to sell the equity (or sell their homes and other assets to preserve said ownership) because the matron passed on seems kind of shitty.

I know this is an edge case but the law is going to create winners and losers and if you are fine with situations like this happening then cool, but I'm not.

Quid

syndalis wrote: »

How do you propose a family business, in which a family member has 50-60% of their assets tied up in equity, should be handled?

10-20 million in terms of a business with a couple hundred employees is super reasonable, and forcing family to sell the equity (or sell their homes and other assets to preserve said ownership) because the matron passed on seems kind of shitty.

I know this is an edge case but the law is going to create winners and losers and if you are fine with situations like this happening then cool, but I'm not.

I'd contend there are people dealing with far worse problems that could be alleviated by the money generated from a higher estate tax. I'd find that edge case to be extremely unfortunate and don't know that it could be avoided. But some people sometimes having to trade their family home and/or business for millions of dollars is not a problem that compares, in my opinion, to people having trouble putting food on the table because of crippling college loans or medical bills. Like you said, the law's going to have winners and losers, except in my case the losers still end up with enough money to guarantee a comfortable life. In yours, millions more die early because we can't fund healthcare and meal programs.

Multimillionaires might have to make some sacrifices the rest of us have to routinely live with is a concern that rings very, very hollow to me.

SummaryJudgment

Quid wrote: »

syndalis wrote: »

How do you propose a family business, in which a family member has 50-60% of their assets tied up in equity, should be handled?

10-20 million in terms of a business with a couple hundred employees is super reasonable, and forcing family to sell the equity (or sell their homes and other assets to preserve said ownership) because the matron passed on seems kind of shitty.

I know this is an edge case but the law is going to create winners and losers and if you are fine with situations like this happening then cool, but I'm not.

I'd contend there are people dealing with far worse problems that could be alleviated by the money generated from a higher estate tax. I'd find that edge case to be extremely unfortunate and don't know that it could be avoided. But some people sometimes having to trade their family home and/or business for millions of dollars is not a problem that compares, in my opinion, to people having trouble putting food on the table because of crippling college loans or medical bills. Like you said, the law's going to have winners and losers, except in my case the losers still end up with enough money to guarantee a comfortable life. In yours, millions more die early because we can't fund healthcare and meal programs.

Multimillionaires might have to make some sacrifices the rest of us have to routinely live with is a concern that rings very, very hollow to me.

This is a really silly false dichotomy to lead the thread off with and puts words in Syndalis' mouth that aren't there. You might as well tell him that your opponents advocating for National Endowment for the Arts funding are also advocating for "millions more people dieing early" since that money isn't going towards rice and beans.

syndalis

I would be significantly more comfortable taxing properly during life so that this doesn't seem so essential I guess.

If our 1% and .1% were taxed at a level appropriate during their life, making end of life shit harder and more frustrating would be seen as wrong as I suspect it should be seen.

A proper progressive tax that hits massive incomes with high double digit percentages, regardless of if that income was cap gains or salary or bonus comp, seems fair.

A high double digit percentage on already-taxed money because you died seems wrong, even if the end result is the same.

Mostly because you aren't compressing the act of claiming those funds at the end and disrupting families.

Quid

syndalis wrote: »

I would be significantly more comfortable taxing properly during life so that this doesn't seem so essential I guess.

If our 1% and .1% were taxed at a level appropriate during their life, making end of life shit harder and more frustrating would be seen as wrong as I suspect it should be seen.

A proper progressive tax that hits massive incomes with high double digit percentages, regardless of if that income was cap gains or salary or bonus comp, seems fair.

A high double digit percentage on already-taxed money because you died seems wrong, even if the end result is the same.

Mostly because you aren't compressing the act of claiming those funds at the end and disrupting families.

I mean yeah, if the taxes were higher overall and the vast majority of people's basic needs were met, I wouldn't feel the need for as high a rate at as low an amount.

Shivahn

syndalis wrote: »

I would be significantly more comfortable taxing properly during life so that this doesn't seem so essential I guess.

If our 1% and .1% were taxed at a level appropriate during their life, making end of life shit harder and more frustrating would be seen as wrong as I suspect it should be seen.

A proper progressive tax that hits massive incomes with high double digit percentages, regardless of if that income was cap gains or salary or bonus comp, seems fair.

A high double digit percentage on already-taxed money because you died seems wrong, even if the end result is the same.

Mostly because you aren't compressing the act of claiming those funds at the end and disrupting families.

I'm not sure that this distinction makes any sense.

Or rather, it requires us to accept that in the case of a person generating income and paying it to his or her employees, we only count get to one of these moments of taxation, but in the case of a person generating income and giving it to their kids, we should count both as taxes.

But I'm also not certain we should care if money has been taxed before, especially when part of the point of estate taxes is to prevent a permanent overclass.

I guess we've already failed to do that, though.

Goumindong

syndalis wrote: »

How do you propose a family business, in which a family member has 50-60% of their assets tied up in equity, should be handled?

10-20 million in terms of a business with a couple hundred employees is super reasonable, and forcing family to sell the equity (or sell their homes and other assets to preserve said ownership) because the matron passed on seems kind of shitty.

I know this is an edge case but the law is going to create winners and losers and if you are fine with situations like this happening then cool, but I'm not.

They should have to sell equity if they cannot afford to pay the taxes in cash. A family business worth 10 million dollars should have roughly 600k profit/year... (Maybe more or less depending on if it's expanding). If they have no other savings or liquid assets to deal with the loss of equity and no insurance then yes they should have to break the company up.

The edge case is so small (people who make 600k/year and have no savings but their equity stake in a single business not any other assets) that it's really not worth considering

Knight

All money is already taxed. When it changes hands, it should be taxed again in almost all circumstances.

If you want something's owner to never die and never have to pay taxes, it has to be a corporation or the government. That's why these structures exist.

Feral

syndalis wrote: »

How do you propose a family business, in which a family member has 50-60% of their assets tied up in equity, should be handled?

10-20 million in terms of a business with a couple hundred employees is super reasonable, and forcing family to sell the equity (or sell their homes and other assets to preserve said ownership) because the matron passed on seems kind of shitty.

I know this is an edge case but the law is going to create winners and losers and if you are fine with situations like this happening then cool, but I'm not.

The IRS allows families who are in this situation to agree to payment plans that can spread the estate tax payments out for as long as 14 years, and there are a number of deductions for bona fide family businesses to further reduce their liability if the inheritor materially contributed to the business (for example, if they worked there as an employee prior to the proprietor's death). IRS Code 6166

Honestly, the scenario you describe is almost a non-issue. I won't say it never happens, but it's a bit like discussing voter fraud. The real-world instances are vanishingly rare.

Goumindong

Let's be clear, even if general taxes were higher an estate tax would have societal benefits. Inequality is a societal negative in and of itself while leisure is a strict good it is not so at the expense of others working.

Estate taxes break up political dynasties and other entrenched power structures, encourage consumption, discourage exorbitant salaries and so on and so forth.

Quid

I also don't find the idea that the (dishonest) rich would just work harder to avoid paying taxes especially compelling. That seems to me like an argument for better enforcement rather than not bothering.

joshofalltrades

I suppose it comes down to what we value as a society. Do we value a wealthy person getting to decide what happens to their fortune after they are dead? Do we value not allowing wealth to accumulate in one family for generations?

Feral

Here's a plain English article describing the 6166 deferment and payment plan: https://privatebank.wf.com/conversations/article/deferring_estate_taxes_on_a_closely_held_business_with_irc_6166

For the estate to defer the payment of estate taxes, section 6166 spells out elements that must be satisfied:

The decedent must have been a U.S. citizen or resident at death.
An interest in a closely held business must comprise more than 35 percent of the decedent's adjusted gross estate.
The estate's personal representative must make the section 6166 election on a Form 706 Federal Estate Tax Return filed in a timely manner.
If the estate satisfies all three elements, the estate tax attributable to the closely held business may be deferred, with principal and interest on the deferred tax paid over a 14-year period. During the first five years following the due date of the return, only the interest on the deferred tax must be paid. Generally, interest will be charged on the balance of the deferred tax at 45% of the rate in effect for underpayments of tax. However, a special 2 percent interest rate applies to a portion of the deferred tax.

Quid

joshofalltrades wrote: »

I suppose it comes down to what we value as a society. Do we value a wealthy person getting to decide what happens to their fortune after they are dead? Do we value not allowing wealth to accumulate in one family for generations?

I value both, just to different degrees.

I think it's fair for a person who's built up and/or maintained their wealth to dedicate some of it to giving individuals some extra assistance. I just don't value that ability up to a certain point. Especially once we start getting in to the tens of millions and higher.

Archangle

One thing that's idly gone through my head (although I'll readily admit to not having really thought it through), is some form of 2nd generation inheritance tax.

So the general idea is that I receive an inheritance worth $Xmillion. The underlying principal is that I should use that inheritance to create value, so if I essentially peg it to the stock market and do nothing except live a lavish lifestyle off the annual returns, when I try to pass on that wealth it's taxed at a higher rate. If my children sit around being idle rich, when they pass it on it will be taxed at an even higher rate etc. The idea being, if you want your family to maintain their standard of wealth, you should actually DO something with the money rather than be a trust fund socialite.

As I say, I have no real idea how practical that might be (or how you protect against the general bias of wealth transferring to the 0.1%), but a system that says "okay, you can pass on the fruits of YOUR efforts, but not those of your lottery winning ancestors" would be something I'd favour.

Tastyfish

It'd be nice to peg it to some level of income inequality, particularly a trend, so that when conditions are generally favouring a widening gap the rate goes up but once things have settled you're allowed to pass more on. The obvious benefit and perceived benefit of a inheritance windfall might then also encourage those normally against inequality reducing measures to throw their lot in behind it.

joshofalltrades

Quid wrote: »

joshofalltrades wrote: »

I suppose it comes down to what we value as a society. Do we value a wealthy person getting to decide what happens to their fortune after they are dead? Do we value not allowing wealth to accumulate in one family for generations?

I value both, just to different degrees.

I think it's fair for a person who's built up and/or maintained their wealth to dedicate some of it to giving individuals some extra assistance. I just don't value that ability up to a certain point. Especially once we start getting in to the tens of millions and higher.

American society tends to kind of worship its own concept of "freedom" though. Until that changes, and until people stop thinking of themselves as temporarily inconvenienced millionaires, an inheritance tax is gonna be a tough sell.

Hacksaw

My Super Sweet 16 is the greatest argument in favor of the estate tax that I have ever seen. Wealthy dynasties are not, in my opinion, something that should receive special legal shielding with their preservation in mind.

Mr. Fusion

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

Mr. Fusion

Hacksaw wrote: »

My Super Sweet 16 is the greatest argument in favor of the estate tax that I have ever seen. Wealthy dynasties are not, in my opinion, something that should receive special legal shielding with their preservation in mind.

What's the argument exactly? Some kid throws a tantrum so now we need estate taxes?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Mr. Fusion

Oghulk wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, strong, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

It can be redistributed to provide an actual benefit to society, whereas the others can't be redistributed.

Wealth is constantly redistributed in the form of investments. It's what funds companies and creates new jobs in the long term. Not everything has to be foodstamps and government housing.

Quid

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

I absolutely do as the government has demonstrated a significant better ability in ensuring people are fed, receive healthcare, and are guaranteed other necessities.

Having rich parents doesn't make someone "better."

Archangle

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Oghulk wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, strong, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

It can be redistributed to provide an actual benefit to society, whereas the others can't be redistributed.

Wealth is constantly redistributed in the form of investments. It's what funds companies and creates new jobs in the long term. Not everything has to be foodstamps and government housing.

That's an assumption that has never convinced me. Individual's wealth and the ability of a company to turn a profit and grow are fairly independent. Does it matter if one super wealthy person owns a company, or 100 moderately wealthy people? Edit: if I redistribute via tax so that 100,000 people's 401k are now "owning" a company, does that make a difference?

Companies create jobs. Not individuals. Edit: Why should we give special preference to wealthy people on the assumption they "create" jobs?

Giggles_Funsworth

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Oghulk wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, strong, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

It can be redistributed to provide an actual benefit to society, whereas the others can't be redistributed.

Wealth is constantly redistributed in the form of investments. It's what funds companies and creates new jobs in the long term. Not everything has to be foodstamps and government housing.

Which would be why there was discussion above about crafting policy to incentivize that instead of a generational overclass living off their forefathers investments.

surrealitycheck

Quid wrote: »

Having rich parents doesn't make someone "better."

doesnt it tho

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Mr. Fusion

Giggles_Funsworth wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Oghulk wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, strong, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

It can be redistributed to provide an actual benefit to society, whereas the others can't be redistributed.

Wealth is constantly redistributed in the form of investments. It's what funds companies and creates new jobs in the long term. Not everything has to be foodstamps and government housing.

Which would be why there was discussion above about crafting policy to incentivize that instead of a generational overclass living off their forefathers investments.

What's there to incentivize? Either you invest the money and live off a few % of the returns or you spend it all and it changes hands.

It's not like they are literally burning cash away.

Mr. Fusion

Quid wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

I absolutely do as the government has demonstrated a significant better ability in ensuring people are fed, receive healthcare, and are guaranteed other necessities.

Well then we disagree.

Polaritie

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Giggles_Funsworth wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Oghulk wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, strong, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

It can be redistributed to provide an actual benefit to society, whereas the others can't be redistributed.

Wealth is constantly redistributed in the form of investments. It's what funds companies and creates new jobs in the long term. Not everything has to be foodstamps and government housing.

Which would be why there was discussion above about crafting policy to incentivize that instead of a generational overclass living off their forefathers investments.

What's there to incentivize? Either you invest the money and live off a few % of the returns or you spend it all and it changes hands.

It's not like they are literally burning cash away.

Literally burning the cash would be better for the rest of society than them investing it (I mean, I'm being slightly facetious here)

Quid

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

I absolutely do as the government has demonstrated a significant better ability in ensuring people are fed, receive healthcare, and are guaranteed other necessities.

Well then we disagree.

Yes. Though it's worth pointing out I have historical evidence backing up my opinion.

If a person is so great they can work with their meager ten million dollars and regain everything they lost. But to pretend that the very rich are using money in a way that best benefits society is folly.

Khavall

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

Yes but people aren't born Kryptonian.

But with estates the difference can be "Need to work from nothing" to "Literally can piss away money like it's nothing and still have more money than they started with because they can afford to pay someone who will do something with the money"

Like unless babies are being born that can bench press a car on day one, this argument falls apart completely.

Mr. Fusion

Khavall wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

Yes but people aren't born Kryptonian.

But with estates the difference can be "Need to work from nothing" to "Literally can piss away money like it's nothing and still have more money than they started with because they can afford to pay someone who will do something with the money"

Like unless babies are being born that can bench press a car on day one, this argument falls apart completely.

No it doesn't, genetics plays a large factor into how a person will ultimately develop, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Again, the estate tax here is a purely emotion driven argument.

Mr. Fusion

Quid wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

I absolutely do as the government has demonstrated a significant better ability in ensuring people are fed, receive healthcare, and are guaranteed other necessities.

Well then we disagree.

Yes. Though it's worth pointing out I have historical evidence backing up my opinion.

If a person is so great they can work with their meager ten million dollars and regain everything they lost. But to pretend that the very rich are using money in a way that best benefits society is folly.

I have evidence too. Businesses pay people so they can put food on the table. Businesses pay for employee healthcare.

Anybody who is in a situation so bad they need direct assistance from the government for these things is better served working for a good business.

Styrofoam Sammich

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

I absolutely do as the government has demonstrated a significant better ability in ensuring people are fed, receive healthcare, and are guaranteed other necessities.

Well then we disagree.

Yes. Though it's worth pointing out I have historical evidence backing up my opinion.

If a person is so great they can work with their meager ten million dollars and regain everything they lost. But to pretend that the very rich are using money in a way that best benefits society is folly.

I have evidence too. Businesses pay people so they can put food on the table. Businesses pay for employee healthcare.

Anybody who is in a situation so bad they need direct assistance from the government for these things is better served working for a good business.

Funny how working for a "good business" necessitates direct government assistance so often....

Giggles_Funsworth

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

Yes but people aren't born Kryptonian.

But with estates the difference can be "Need to work from nothing" to "Literally can piss away money like it's nothing and still have more money than they started with because they can afford to pay someone who will do something with the money"

Like unless babies are being born that can bench press a car on day one, this argument falls apart completely.

No it doesn't, genetics plays a large factor into how a person will ultimately develop, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Again, the estate tax here is a purely emotion driven argument.

"Genetics."

Styrofoam Sammich

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Again, the estate tax here is a purely emotion driven argument.

A) If we need to tax its better to tax unearned transactions based on genetic lottery than wages or sales.
Inherited wealth is a direct challenge to meritocracy.

Neither is emotional.

Polaritie

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Quid wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

It's a tough thing to accept, but yes not everyone is going to have the same potential in life. When you accept that, you can walk in peace, because you know the only thing that should matter to you is reaching your maximum potential, and even if it's not the same as someone else's that's OK.

Trying to start people off on equal economic footing by taxing away inheritance is just petty and pointless. In practice, the revenue from those taxes isn't going to make a difference anywhere. Every argument I've seen in favor of such thing always involves some sort of disdain for the rich, and economic considerations secondary. Grow up. If you want money, get a job. If you want more, start a business. It's not like money is unattainable for everyone but a select few.

These vast sums of money aren't just sitting around doing nothing, they are invested, and that too has value. I don't believe the government will find more efficient uses for it.

I absolutely do as the government has demonstrated a significant better ability in ensuring people are fed, receive healthcare, and are guaranteed other necessities.

Well then we disagree.

Yes. Though it's worth pointing out I have historical evidence backing up my opinion.

If a person is so great they can work with their meager ten million dollars and regain everything they lost. But to pretend that the very rich are using money in a way that best benefits society is folly.

I have evidence too. Businesses pay people so they can put food on the table. Businesses pay for employee healthcare.

Anybody who is in a situation so bad they need direct assistance from the government for these things is better served working for a good business.

Please explain to me how the estates of the super-rich pay wages, again.

Last I checked corporations have separate bank accounts.

Mr. Fusion

Giggles_Funsworth wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

Mr. Fusion wrote: »

Ah, the good old "genetic lottery" problem.

Why do people get so twisted up over this? So what if some people are born rich, did you know there are also people who are born faster, stronger, hotter, and just plain better than you in every way?

Yes but people aren't born Kryptonian.

But with estates the difference can be "Need to work from nothing" to "Literally can piss away money like it's nothing and still have more money than they started with because they can afford to pay someone who will do something with the money"

Like unless babies are being born that can bench press a car on day one, this argument falls apart completely.

No it doesn't, genetics plays a large factor into how a person will ultimately develop, and there's nothing they can do about it.

Again, the estate tax here is a purely emotion driven argument.

"Genetics."

Yes, genetics. It governs things like intelligence, muscular potential, physical attractiveness, general health, etc.