Debates
05 Apr 10
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWho gives you the authority to determine how much should be taxed? and is that morally justified?
Ideally, it should be taxed at 100%. Pragmatically, it should be taxed at the highest rate possible without causing massive tax evasion. Inheritance is a great enemy of social mobility and social justice.
Inheritance is a great enemy of social mobility and social justice.
That may well be true, but the idea that you should be allowed only a small percentage (if any) of your inheritance because others are not as affluent as you doesn't strike me as being fair at all, especially considering other people who may benefit from all the taxation involved are not entitled to the inheritance.
05 Apr 10
In the U.S. people can already inherit vast sums tax free. The limit is $12000 per year per person. So, if I give my son, and his wife each $12000, every year for say, the next 30 years before my death, I can give them 12k*2*30 = 720,000. Or put another way, I can easily transfer my entire estate to them pretty easily.
Quite frankly, any inheritance over that amount, really ought to be taxed at pretty unreasonable rates.
I don't really understand why there has to be such a loophole though.
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by generalissimoWho gives you the authority to determine how much should be taxed? and is that morally justified?
Who gives you the authority to determine how much should be taxed? and is that morally justified?
[b]Inheritance is a great enemy of social mobility and social justice.
That may well be true, but the idea that you should be allowed only a small percentage (if any) of your inheritance because others are not as affluent as you doesn't strike me ...[text shortened]... ther people who may benefit from all the taxation involved are not entitled to the inheritance.[/b]
I don't have the authority since I'm not the dictator of my own country. I think it's not morally justified to just let people reap the benefits of other people's work for no reason.
That may well be true, but the idea that you should be allowed only a small percentage (if any) of your inheritance because others are not as affluent as you doesn't strike me as being fair at all, especially considering other people who may benefit from all the taxation involved are not entitled to the inheritance.
What do you mean? If it's the law, they are entitled to it. If it's not, then they aren't. What's not "fair" about it? The rules apply to everyone equally. Being denied opportunities because your parents are poor - that's not fair.
05 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBeing denied opportunities because your parents are crack-heads and don't provide you with a loving and encouraging environment isn't fair either.
Being denied opportunities because your parents are poor - that's not fair.
Successful parents are both better role models and have a better tendency to pass down wealth to kids. Good for them. Why punish them?
Why do we want to put policies into effect that discourage success and reward failure?
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by joneschrInheritance rewards people for their parents' success, not their own.
Being denied opportunities because your parents are crack-heads and don't provide you with a loving and encouraging environment isn't fair either.
Successful parents are both better role models and have a better tendency to pass down wealth to kids. Good for them. Why punish them?
Why do we want to put policies into effect that discourage success and reward failure?
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think it's not morally justified to just let people reap the benefits of other people's work for no reason.
[b]Who gives you the authority to determine how much should be taxed? and is that morally justified?
I don't have the authority since I'm not the dictator of my own country. I think it's not morally justified to just let people reap the benefits of other people's work for no reason.
That may well be true, but the idea that you should be all ...[text shortened]... equally. Being denied opportunities because your parents are poor - that's not fair.
it seems like you're contradicting your first post- where you claimed inheritance should be taxed 100%.
If it's the law, they are entitled to it. If it's not, then they aren't. What's not "fair" about it? The rules apply to everyone equally. Being denied opportunities because your parents are poor - that's not fair.
Indeed. What isn't fair about it is that it should be all taken away for the sake of "social justice". I see, so you're saying the government should act as some sort of robin hood because some people have parents who failed to provide their kids with wealth?
05 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by joneschrWell, if you can buy your degree then you are rewarding failure. If you reward the incompetent trustfund baby while the next Einstein is cleaning the streets you are rewarding failure and punishing talent. Children of rich parents will always have an advantage, but why make that advantage bigger than necessary?
Being denied opportunities because your parents are crack-heads and don't provide you with a loving and encouraging environment isn't fair either.
Successful parents are both better role models and have a better tendency to pass down wealth to kids. Good for them. Why punish them?
Why do we want to put policies into effect that discourage success and reward failure?
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou cannot -- and should not -- stop parents passing on a multitude of things to their offspring most of which are worth far more than money -- teaching, advice, philosophy, conversation, LOVE.
Ideally, it should be taxed at 100%. Pragmatically, it should be taxed at the highest rate possible without causing massive tax evasion. Inheritance is a great enemy of social mobility and social justice.
And yet you pick out wealth and say that children have not earned it. As far as I know, very few children earn the love their parents shower on them -- and yet the parents are still willing to provide it.
By what rationale do you want to interfere only with wealth?
Following the rationale of what children earn, it would be much more "fair" to remove children from their natural parents at birth and randomly assign them to new parents. It would doubtlessly increase social mobility, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a horrible idea. Yet the justification is identical to a 100% tax on inheritance.