Do you think you should be allowed to pass on wealth to your children when you die? This is a no-brainer for most people. Yet most people in the world have precious little wealth to pass on. Those who do pass on wealth also pass on advantages. Those advantages lead to more advantages, and so on. Soon you have a small super-elite who control a huge amount of wealth and power. Dynasties have been created that span decades and centuries. Look at the Bush and Kennedy families, the Hiltons. the Rockefellers etc. Why should these families be allowed to keep accumulating more and more wealth and power?

One thing's for sure. If everyone's money went back to the nation rather than to their children we would soon destroy the dynasties that rule our lives. I detest dynasties, so I support 100% death taxes. If you've got it, spend it - and spend it on yourself (you should not be allowed to transfer it to others to avoid paying your death taxes). If you die in possession of a fortune, it should go to the country rather than your nearest and dearest.

So, what's it to be: democracy? (which supports inheritance and hence gives rise to dynasties that are like ancient monarchies - father and son of the Bush family have both been presidents; one son is a governor and might run in the future. Is America the personal fiefdom of the Bush family? It certainly looks like it.)

Or meritocracy? Which takes active measures to ensure that no one can pass on unearned advantages to others, including immediate family. Meritocracy opposes dynastic rule.

Which side are you on?

The Meritocracy Party - Introduction

It's your wealth to do with as you please.

It belongs to you, not to the nation. If you're stupid enough to want to leave your wealth to the government when you die, put it in your will.

Passing the family wealth on to the next generation doesn't have a damned thing to do with fathers and sons each becoming President (remember John Adams and John Quincy Adams).

I'm opposed to the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and this is one place where it doesn't belong.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I'll give you this, it's interesting. Bookmarked for reference. Thanks.

People (Americans) tend not to have a problem with monetary elitism and inherited aristocracy. What they dislike most is intellectual heritage and advantage, which is what they really mean when they whine about elitism so much.

People don't really want merit, because that limits them and they WANT people like them to run things. At least with wealth, they have the false hope offered to them by RepubliCON ideology that they too one day will be rich.

I fully supported inheritance taxes for a certain income bracket. It's good for society and promotes independence and minimizes the impact of inherited wealth power.

__________________

Why would I work hard all my life, to hand my money to someone else's children?

The suggestion carries all kinds of problems and risks to society. The current system is not perfect, but if you take this right from people, what incentive do they have to work hard or to build a succesful business and support other people as employees? What will happen to your economy once people realise they are working essentially for nothing?

Many people work hard and save so their offspring don't have to.

Why wouldn't you work hard all your life for yourself? Just because you can't give all your wealth to your kids doesn't mean you worked for nothing.

Obviously taking all wealth away wouldn't work, given there is some motivation to save for that. You don't need to take it all. Just over a certain amount.

__________________

Do you ever read what I write? I did not say I don't work for myself. But what's mine is mine as I have worked my *** off for it and when I die, it will belong to my son. If you have anything to say about that, I'll go sit by the river all day and eat shellfish to survive and not bother dragging my *** into work every day to keep the country on its feet.

Death tax above a certain level is fair enough, but it may deter the very rich from investing and living in your country...they will simply move to a country which doesn't tax them and take their money with them as such people tend to be astute enough to hold onto their assets despite tax laws.

This person is quoting contentious examples of ridiculously rich people in order to stimulate outrage and support. Most people don't attain that level of financial success but they still want to pass down what they do have, to their own.

Almost always. Unless I missed it.


I never said you didn't. You said this: "Why would I work hard all my life, to hand my money to someone else's children?"

To which I said essentially: "why wouldn't you?"

I took your statement as a rhetorical device, not something you literally do or don't do. Wasn't really referring to you, personally.

Some of it you naturally owe to society simply for being a part of it, given society is partially responsible for developing your abilities, protecting you, bequeathing knowledge to you, giving your your stability, structure, etc. It's not actually true that you deserve everything, just because you worked for it. You deserve a good chunk, but only to keep you motivated to keep going. Just living in society is a privilege that society allows you. Everyone lives on the shoulders of society in general.

But even if you didn't, it's still bad to have vast inherited wealth, hence the utility of an inheritance tax above a certain level. It usually doesn't effect most middle class people, so you. nor most of society, needn't worry much.


I don't think you actually read what I wrote, which is ironic. I never said to take everything you own and earned so you have nothing, thus forcing you to live off the grid. Where did you get this bizarre idea? I actually disagreed with the idea that you should have a significant chunk taken.

__________________

If you know your parents are just going to give you their fortune, what incentive do you have to word hard or build a successful business and support other people as employees?

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why wouldn't you work hard all your life for yourself?...is what you said. I have that in writing.

And everyone is taxed by that society in payment for that privilege, every day of his working life.

You have no idea what position I hold in life.

As I did...but I think we can call it a day here. Any further attempt to clarify is likely to completely obscure the point. In any case, of course you're ok to answer my points, but I was addressing the OP, not your post.