The Top Fifth

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

I think entitled is the perfect word to use for people who get benefits based solely on their circumstance. Not sure what else to call it when they do nothing in return for receiving it. It is simply handed over because of their situation.

I like this quote because, while it's intended to describe the poor on welfare, it exactly states why I have issues with inherited wealth.

 

You have a problem with inherited wealth?

 

What would you propose de done about it in the example I posted in post #31?

 

Read what I quoted and you'd see my issues with inherited wealth.

 

As for post #31, yes, we should break the chain of inherited wealth, whether that's a rancher or a banker should make no difference. Why should someone get millions or billions of dollars having done nothing to earn it?

 

As for my solution, it would be to allow small (relatively speaking) transfers of wealth but just prevent the gigantic transfers of wealth, which is similar to the estate tax today. I'd select a limit case - say $10 million/person - that a person could pass on to anyone they wanted (not just their kids), and then tax the rest at 90%. In this case, your ranchers could pass up to $20 million (for a couple) worth of the ranch without taxes. I'd even go so far as to agree to a higher limit like $50 million/person if the associated tax was also higher like 99%.

 

Another idea would be to completely change the tax system to tax accumulated wealth instead of income (which is the rate of wealth increase/decrease). Then there's no need for an estate tax as the total inheritance is being taxed regardless of who owns it. I like this idea since it tends to encourage people to spend their money, which drives the economy. But it's probably impractical since someone like your ranchers may have their land value increase and then pay a lot more than their income stream in taxes, which likely leads to them having to sell parts of their ranch.

 

I am so friggen against this it's amazing.

 

You have a family who has a ranch. These kids have ALSO worked on this ranch since they probably could walk. Let's say they are now in their 50s and the parents die which creates an inheritance issue. These people who are now in their 50s should be forced to lose their ranch that they have also worked their entire lives to build and maintain? All this just because their parents passed away?

 

What kind of loony toon logic is that?

 

That's the loony logic of a strawman since I didn't say anything that should lead you to that weird conclusions

[knapplc]

You may have phrased that wrong, RD, because I think BRB, zoogs & I all took the same thing from it.

[RedDenver]

So, someone builds a ranch and it becomes valuable.

 

Who has a more solid claim to the value of that ranch when the person dies? Their family or the State?

Both have some claim to the value of that ranch. The ranch has a large part of it's value from the things the State provided to the ranchers (e.g. roads, schools, research, military, etc.) and for the services the State provides that even make running a ranch possible (e.g. being able to own property, clean water, clean air, police, etc.).

[RedDenver]

You may have phrased that wrong, RD, because I think BRB, zoogs & I all took the same thing from it.

Someone help me see where the confusion is.

 

I'm saying that inherited wealth is unearned. Then I'm saying that we shouldn't allow massive wealth transfers through inheritance. Then I proposed what is a variation on the current estate tax. And finally I gave an impractical idea about taxing wealth directly, which I like as an idea but don't support because it's impractical due to illiquidity of assets.

[BigRedBuster]

 

You may have phrased that wrong, RD, because I think BRB, zoogs & I all took the same thing from it.

Someone help me see where the confusion is.

 

I'm saying that inherited wealth is unearned. Then I'm saying that we shouldn't allow massive wealth transfers through inheritance. Then I proposed what is a variation on the current estate tax. And finally I gave an impractical idea about taxing wealth directly, which I like as an idea but don't support because it's impractical due to illiquidity of assets.

 

So...this is basically what Knapp, Zoogs and I are talking about. So.....in my example, the 50 year old who has worked on the ranch since he was 5 hasn't earned that wealth by helping build that ranch? And....it's logical for the state to just come and take a very large percentage of it?

[knapplc]

The State has no claim on wealth my family built. That's where you're wrong.

 

Estate taxes are wrong, and should be abolished. The government does not deserve to double- and triple-dip into wealth me and my family created so it can be redistributed to others. We already pay taxes to cover roads, clean air, police, etc.

[BigRedBuster]

The State has no claim on wealth my family built. That's where you're wrong.

 

Estate taxes are wrong, and should be abolished. The government does not deserve to double- and triple-dip into wealth me and my family created so it can be redistributed to others. We already pay taxes to cover roads, clean air, police, etc.

 

+100000000000

[RedDenver]

 

 

You may have phrased that wrong, RD, because I think BRB, zoogs & I all took the same thing from it.

Someone help me see where the confusion is.

 

I'm saying that inherited wealth is unearned. Then I'm saying that we shouldn't allow massive wealth transfers through inheritance. Then I proposed what is a variation on the current estate tax. And finally I gave an impractical idea about taxing wealth directly, which I like as an idea but don't support because it's impractical due to illiquidity of assets.

 

So...this is basically what Knapp, Zoogs and I are talking about. So.....in my example, the 50 year old who has worked on the ranch since he was 5 hasn't earned that wealth by helping build that ranch? And....it's logical for the state to just come and take a very large percentage of it?

 

In your case here, the kid should BUY the ranch over the 45 years he's working there.

 

To use a counter example, what about the 50 year old who left the ranch at the earliest opportunity and never worked a day on that ranch. Should that person get the unearned wealth of his parents?

[zoogs]

Estate taxes in the United States are relatively mild and apply to only the top 0.2%. I find it hard to muster up a vocal complaint about the status quo here. A married couple with $10M to transfer would not pay any. I'd disagree that above this line they should be hit with 90%.

The estate tax is part of the reason why the tax burden we pay is not higher.

I'm all for progressive taxes. I just don't agree that "the State" has earned private wealth. It's merely its prerogative to levy higher taxes at the very top.

[RedDenver]

The State has no claim on wealth my family built. That's where you're wrong.

 

Estate taxes are wrong, and should be abolished. The government does not deserve to double- and triple-dip into wealth me and my family created so it can be redistributed to others. We already pay taxes to cover roads, clean air, police, etc.

 

 

The State has no claim on wealth my family built. That's where you're wrong.

 

Estate taxes are wrong, and should be abolished. The government does not deserve to double- and triple-dip into wealth me and my family created so it can be redistributed to others. We already pay taxes to cover roads, clean air, police, etc.

+100000000000

 

I strongly disagree with both of you.

 

Spending drives the economy, and wealth tied up for generations without being spent hurts the economy. The amount being hoarded matters here, which is why I'm saying that some inherited wealth is fine, it's the massive amounts I'm opposed to.

 

Additionally, inherited wealth leads to an aristocracy/landed gentry/royalty. If we're going to have a merit system as an economy (capitalism), then let the kids earn that money.

[RedDenver]

Estate taxes in the United States are relatively mild and apply to only the top 0.2% of estates. I find it hard to muster up a vocal complaint about the status quo here. A married couple with $10M to transfer would not pay any. I'd disagree that above this line they should be hit with 90%.

 

The estate tax is part of the reason why the tax burden we pay is not higher.

 

I'm all for progressive taxes. I just don't agree that "the State" has earned private wealth. It's merely its prerogative to levy higher taxes at the very top.

Good points.

 

Let me state my case a different way. I'm proposing that the top 0.1% should not be allowed to pass ALL their wealth through inheritance, but instead bump their descendants down from the top 0.1% to the top 0.2%.

[knapplc]

 

The State has no claim on wealth my family built. That's where you're wrong.

 

Estate taxes are wrong, and should be abolished. The government does not deserve to double- and triple-dip into wealth me and my family created so it can be redistributed to others. We already pay taxes to cover roads, clean air, police, etc.

 

 

The State has no claim on wealth my family built. That's where you're wrong.

 

Estate taxes are wrong, and should be abolished. The government does not deserve to double- and triple-dip into wealth me and my family created so it can be redistributed to others. We already pay taxes to cover roads, clean air, police, etc.

+100000000000

 

I strongly disagree with both of you.

 

Spending drives the economy, and wealth tied up for generations without being spent hurts the economy. The amount being hoarded matters here, which is why I'm saying that some inherited wealth is fine, it's the massive amounts I'm opposed to.

 

Additionally, inherited wealth leads to an aristocracy/landed gentry/royalty. If we're going to have a merit system as an economy (capitalism), then let the kids earn that money.

 

You're proposing that everyone starts at zero. If there's no incentive to working hard, building things, and passing that on to your children to give them a better life, then why should I try? You're basically talking about true communal living. Nothing you earn is yours, it's all owned by the State, and when you die your things pass to the State and your children start out at zero.

 

If you disincentivize their work, a sizable portion of the workforce is going to stop trying. The whole system will collapse.

[RedDenver]

 

I strongly disagree with both of you.

 

Spending drives the economy, and wealth tied up for generations without being spent hurts the economy. The amount being hoarded matters here, which is why I'm saying that some inherited wealth is fine, it's the massive amounts I'm opposed to.

 

Additionally, inherited wealth leads to an aristocracy/landed gentry/royalty. If we're going to have a merit system as an economy (capitalism), then let the kids earn that money.

You're proposing that everyone starts at zero. If there's no incentive to working hard, building things, and passing that on to your children to give them a better life, then why should I try? You're basically talking about true communal living. Nothing you earn is yours, it's all owned by the State, and when you die your things pass to the State and your children start out at zero.

 

If you disincentivize their work, a sizable portion of the workforce is going to stop trying. The whole system will collapse.

 

Maybe this is the disconnect. I'm NOT proposing that everyone starts at zero. read the part from my post you quoted that I bolded.

[zoogs]

 

If everyone can start from up to nearly $11M, is that still zero? I strongly disagree that everyone must start from scratch.

[knapplc]

The government still doesn't deserve my assets more than my heirs. That is a non-starter, period.