Originally posted by Sam The ShamAs long as they were giving it back in increased infrastructure/quality of learning and universally accessible health systems, I would say the people would be doing very well thank you!
KN think for one second what the end result would be if the government took EVERYTHING from every citizen at death.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo for you, social justice (whatever that is) gives you grounds to walk into someones vault and snatch everything they've ever owned because they're dead?
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.
Why wait for the parents to die? Isn't waiting for death just needlessly perpetuating social inequities? Accelerate the process!
This is indefensible on moral grounds, and the fact that it's perniciously being dressed up as a social argument which will help 'the people' should be alarming for every citizen concerned over governments who have no limits to what they can plunder.
Originally posted by The Dude 84Perhaps the arguments given in this thread will inspire you to attempt a rebuttal with arguments, too.
So for you, social justice (whatever that is) gives you grounds to walk into someones vault and snatch everything they've ever owned because they're dead?
Why wait for the parents to die? Isn't waiting for death just needlessly perpetuating social inequities? Accelerate the process!
This is indefensible on moral grounds, and the fact that it's pe ...[text shortened]... for every citizen concerned over governments who have no limits to what they can plunder.
1 edit
Originally posted by The Dude 84This is indefensible on moral grounds
So for you, social justice (whatever that is) gives you grounds to walk into someones vault and snatch everything they've ever owned because they're dead?
Why wait for the parents to die? Isn't waiting for death just needlessly perpetuating social inequities? Accelerate the process!
This is indefensible on moral grounds, and the fact that it's pe for every citizen concerned over governments who have no limits to what they can plunder.
actually, its very defensible. Its the very moral concept that a person's standard of living and success should be based on their OWN efforts, and not just because some people happened to be born with a more valuable spoon in their mouth than others.
but it does conflict with another moral principle - that people should be able to use their wealth to pursue their own happiness, or to freely give it to whomever they wish.
The clash between these two moral principles is the basis of most political debate. But both sides have a legitimate moral ground for their beliefs.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe main reason wealthy people continue to work is to be able to pass on benefits to their children. If inheritance were taxed at 100% and so were gifts then productive people would have no incentive to work. Just because it might increase equlaity does not mean it is a good idea. In fact, it would make society far worse off.
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.
More importantly, why should death be a taxable event? The simple fact that the government feels morally ok to take peoples money every time the earn (income tax), every time they spend (sales tax), every time people make gifts (gift tax), every time the get government required licenses (usage fees), for the right to own land (property tax), the right to travel on planes (air line taxes)... is an abonination. The real moral question to me is at what point do you have a moral right to tell the governement "I have paid enough you are not entitled to take anymore"
Originally posted by joneschrthat's not inheritance tax, that's gift tax or generation skipping taxt (GST).
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 ...[text shortened]... ty unreasonable rates.
I don't really understand why there has to be such a loophole though.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrawhy have possessions or currency at all?
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.
surely there are countries in the world that have neither?
vote with your feet!!!!
join the Lord's Army!!!
Originally posted by kmax87I believe that is the justification for fascism. The government can provide for all better than themselves. I think it is time to let people keep their fair share.
As long as they were giving it back in increased infrastructure/quality of learning and universally accessible health systems, I would say the people would be doing very well thank you!
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't "attack" parents. I'm just saying society is better off if talent rather than luck is rewarded
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.
???
so you don't attack parents but you still want their (usually) hard-earned money to be taken away after they die.
Society would also be better off if people weren't punished for their luck.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraa society that doesn't respect property isn't likely to respect talent, either.
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.
Originally posted by MelanerpesGood post.
[b]This is indefensible on moral grounds
actually, its very defensible. Its the very moral concept that a person's standard of living and success should be based on their OWN efforts, and not just because some people happened to be born with a more valuable spoon in their mouth than others.
but it does conflict with another moral principle - tha ...[text shortened]... asis of most political debate. But both sides have a legitimate moral ground for their beliefs.[/b]
Originally posted by Melanerpesor based on their own efforts and not because the fruits of someone else's labor was handed to them.
[b]This is indefensible on moral grounds
actually, its very defensible. Its the very moral concept that a person's standard of living and success should be based on their OWN efforts, and not just because some people happened to be born with a more valuable spoon in their mouth than others.
but it does conflict with another moral principle - tha ...[text shortened]... asis of most political debate. But both sides have a legitimate moral ground for their beliefs.[/b]