Originally posted by spruce112358The first part of your argument is a false dilemma. It would be great if all parents were perfect, but you can't make that happen with tax policy.
You 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.
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 ye ...[text shortened]... ouldn't be a horrible idea. Yet the justification is identical to a 100% tax on inheritance.
The second part does not make any sense. Yes, you can increase social mobility too by just killing everyone except one person - wow, everyone has the same chances! Obviously you don't want to increase social mobility - if your attempt at reductio ad absurdum does indeed increase it - at every cost. A heavy inheritance tax, if evasion is managable, is also a great boost to the economy due to its redistributive nature.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, you are the one not making sense.
The first part of your argument is a false dilemma. It would be great if all parents were perfect, but you can't make that happen with tax policy.
The second part does not make any sense. Yes, you can increase social mobility too by just killing everyone except one person - wow, everyone has the same chances! Obviously you don't want to increase soci ...[text shortened]... f evasion is managable, is also a great boost to the economy due to its redistributive nature.
You've attacked parents over one means of providing for their offspring, inheritance, -- calling it immoral and unjustified and desiring to outlaw it entirely. Yet I can list a hundred other ways parents provide for their offspring which you are not objecting to. Presumably you don't think there should be limits on parental love or advice or teaching?
I want you to justify your position on inheritance. Why is that different? If it is just because you can't think of a way to tax love then say so, and the moral force behind your argument collapses.
Originally posted by spruce112358I don't "attack" parents. I'm just saying society is better off if talent rather than luck is rewarded - to the highest degree practically possible. But apparently, you don't agree.
No, you are the one not making sense.
You've attacked parents over one means of providing for their offspring, inheritance, -- calling it immoral and unjustified and desiring to outlaw it entirely. Yet I can list a hundred other ways parents provide for their offspring which you are not objecting to. Presumably you don't think there should be limits ...[text shortened]... t think of a way to tax love then say so, and the moral force behind your argument collapses.
If it were possible to make parents better parents in terms of love, teaching morality etc. by using a tax then I would support that. This is not the case, so this is irrelevant to the debate.
3 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's just nuts.
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.
The government would eventually own everything.
Can you imagine the riots that would result if the government said they were going to take 100% of what you own when you die?
That you would suggest such a thing as a good idea is unbelievable.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNo they wouldn't.
That's just nuts.
The government would eventually own everything.
Can you imagine the riots that would result if the government said they were going to take 100% of what you own when you die?
That you would suggest such a thing as a good idea is unbelievable.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have no problem rewarding talent -- the capitalist system rewards the talent for making money in spades.
I don't "attack" parents. I'm just saying society is better off if talent rather than luck is rewarded - to the highest degree practically possible. But apparently, you don't agree.
If it were possible to make parents better parents in terms of love, teaching morality etc. by using a tax then I would support that. This is not the case, so this is irrelevant to the debate.
But let's take an example that seems to be really grinding your gears: a father with a large talent for making money makes a large pile which he passes on to his offspring who has no talent for making money -- didn't inherit the gene or whatever. So you think this is intolerable -- that the kid didn't earn/doesn't deserve that money. They should have had to start from scratch and earn it all over again. But if the kid has the talent to make money, they will undoubtedly make more - under your morality somehow "earning it." But if the kid has no talent for making money -- here is the leap, but it is pretty sound -- they will tend to lose that fortune over time.
So please tell me -- where is the problem that society needs to concern itself with? Maybe it is the "higher jumping off point" you object to -- every child should start the Game of Life with XXX dollars and no more?
Well, let's look at the rest of the equation: Kids have different genetics, different parents, different upbringings, different LUCK, different life experience. None of that can be legislated away -- clearly you would LOVE to legislate that all away, but I suggest it is just a fixation you have.
Let's take another case: beautiful people also make more money over the course of their life. So if the principle of forcing everyone to start from the same basis is correct, then we need plastic surgery for anyone who is below average looking to make them more attractive AND plastic surgery for anyone who is above average looking to give them a few defects so they are not TOO perfect! After all, clearly no one did anything to earn their good looks -- that is just totally luck.
My speculation is that this desire for an absolutely level playing field is rooted in some sort of deep-seated jealousy. You like to attack an easy target, e.g. money, not because of a greater moral sense, but just out of opportunism and a desire to "stick it" to someone you are jealous of, i.e. The Rich.
Sure, everybody hates the Rich and Beautiful, but everybody hates Lawyers, too, and I don't see the reason to institutionize persecution of people with law degrees....wait a minute...hmmm.
Originally posted by spruce112358It's easier to make money when you have money by far. An incompetent could become competent with the support of enough wealth and connections. This is why social mobility is low. The USA economic system is only partly a meritocracy.
I have no problem rewarding talent -- the capitalist system rewards the talent for making money in spades.
But let's take an example that seems to be really grinding your gears: a father with a large talent for making money makes a large pile which he passes on to his offspring who has no talent for making money -- didn't inherit the gene or w ...[text shortened]... n to institutionize persecution of people with law degrees....wait a minute...hmmm.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAlso easier if you are smart, beautiful and have connections.
It's easier to make money when you have money by far. An incompetent could become competent with the support of enough wealth and connections. This is why social mobility is low. The USA economic system is only partly a meritocracy.
I've suggested a solution for beauty. Not sure what to do about smarts. But maybe networking should be outlawed. People must be able to prove that they have interacted randomly with others, so that no one has an unfair advantage by knowing or talking to the right person at the right time.
I'm sure if we spend enough, we can create a government agency to look into the problem...
5 edits
Originally posted by spruce112358Slippery slope! Besides, smarts (education, health), beauty (health, social skills) and connections come with money.
Also easier if you are smart, beautiful and have connections.
I've suggested a solution for beauty. Not sure what to do about smarts. But maybe networking should be outlawed. People must be able to prove that they have interacted randomly with others, so that no one has an unfair advantage by knowing or talking to the right person at the right time.
I'm sure if we spend enough, we can create a government agency to look into the problem...
EDIT - With that attitude, why not do away with all laws and government? No police, no public transportation, no quality control. We can't make everyone absolutely equal in every respect so why bother at all? Some people can fight better and are connected with local organized crime, some aren't. Why is it up to us to protect those who are weak?
Why is it up to society to protect the property of the rich? The damn cops keep protecting the weak rich against the muggers and robbers. Let those born strong take what they want! It's not our business to make up for the weakness of the weak any more than it's our job to make ugly people beautiful, ignorant people educated or people in poverty with enough resources to allow them to work their way up!
If you're unlucky, too bad for you!
Originally posted by spruce112358There are multiple capitalist systems, of course. Some with higher social mobility than others. Why do you not want to strive for the highest social mobility - that is, rewarding talent most? Smart, talented kids from rich families will make it without the inheritance, too. Dumb idiots will waste the fortune on cocaine and hookers. I'd rather use that money for meaningful investment and to create a level playing field.
I have no problem rewarding talent -- the capitalist system rewards the talent for making money in spades.
But let's take an example that seems to be really grinding your gears: a father with a large talent for making money makes a large pile which he passes on to his offspring who has no talent for making money -- didn't inherit the gene or w ...[text shortened]... n to institutionize persecution of people with law degrees....wait a minute...hmmm.
I yawn at the usual libertarian accusation of "jealousy" when the arguments run out. I am a scientist and will get my master's degree this year. Now scientists usually don't make a huge wad of cash but they do pretty well so I will be paying my fair share of taxes. It doesn't bother me. Indeed, I recognize that the system has allowed me to get a university degree and while my parents supported me it has never been essential.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraKN think for one second what the end result would be if the government took EVERYTHING from every citizen at death.
Is everything you own inherited?
You're gonna make one hell of a scientist LOL
If you don't believe me ask one of the big people at skool
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe president of the United States should determine this. In fact, I think he should have direct access to all of our bank accounts and investments and redistribute them according to his wisdom. That way if you don't like the way his is taking your money just vote him out of office in 4 years. That sounds democratic to me, so why don't we do it?
How much should people be able to inherit? Would it be reasonable for one person to inherit everything in the country? How about for 99 people to each inherit 1% of all wealth in the nation?
Originally posted by Sam The ShamWell, it wouldn't be that the government owns everything. Most things people own, especially ordinary citizens, they acquired through earning money through work. Maybe you should think a little longer than that second.
KN think for one second what the end result would be if the government took EVERYTHING from every citizen at death.
You're gonna make one hell of a scientist LOL
If you don't believe me ask one of the big people at skool