Why one should not be subject to monetary inheritance

In a thread, there is mention of how Trump has become a business tycoon, and made his mint from within the private sector. I would have respect for Trump for this, however, what stops me from doing so is the ill-morality of Trump's father giving Little Trump a $100 Million dollar handout to start his business. This disgusts me (no, it is not a bi-product of jealousy), for the fact Trump never should have touched one penny of his fathers money. That leads me to creating this thread.

Imagine if Eric Trump or Chelsea Clinton were never able to claim any of the millions their families have made, once their parents have died. No money, no real estate, no stocks or commodities whatsoever.That's the way it should be. If people want to be as rich as their parents, or any sort of relative, they should be held responsible for creating their own massive wealth, let alone their own empire.

Rags to riches stories are always more heartwarming, and great examples than those who are born into wealth, and make something out of wealth. Could it be argued it was hugely irresponsible of Trump's father to give Donny a penny of his money? Sure. Extremely wealthy offspring are no better off than say, that of the Royal Family of England. Make something from nothing, and you'll get a whole lot more respect than from a father with a massive amount of wealth.

Fortunes should always, and forever be earned, and never inherited.

 

It is heartwarming when one has a rags to riches story... I'm not arguing that.

Although my fortune is considerably less than millions of dollars, it is paid for, there is no debt on it, and it has been taxed. So if I want my kids to have what's left of it after I leave this world, that should be between me and my kids, and it's none of the government's (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) business.

My two cents ....

EDIT: gol dang

 

Charities, scientific research, humanitarian efforts, etc.

 

So what you are saying that whenever a business owner dies the company closes, all employees are laid off, and the spouse and children go on welfare.

All widows and all children should be thrown into poverty because you believe forcing them to lose everything and live on food stamps is in the best interests of the country?

I understand people are envious of what other people have, but your message is a level of such intense envy that it goes beyond cruelty to sadistic in my opinion.

 

Envy has nothing to do with it.
If something happens to a working husband, there's this thing called life insurance one should ensure they have.

 

This post is nothing more than an exercise in envy. Let me guess, you'll be voting for Bernie? Yeah, why earn it, when you can steal it.

 

The OP message is pure communism and total hatred of children. In his opinion that when a parent dies their children can starve as can everyone else whose jobs, homes, and income depended on that person. I truly hope anyone who has the OPer's opinion absolutely never has children, never has a business and never is wealthy as it is a total self-fixation for which everyone else can just go to hell when the OPer dies.

 

What an unintelligent response. So a wealthy person just needs to have massive life insurance to get around what you want.

I gather you're an insurance agent for which working people living hand to mouth managing to just make their mortgage should have to sell their house and move into a mobile home so to buy life insurance because you're going to take 50% of everything else.

- - - Updated - - -

Should the employees and their families of the person's now defunct company be shot to not have to suffer?

 

Yeah....seems like you took something out of context. Let me help guide you in the right direction.

First off, I never said anything about government control, nor did I say anything about hatred for children.
What the point was in my OP was children, sons, daughters, should have to work for what they have. Not inherit it, work for it.

You want a $100 million. Work your ass off for a $!00 million, that's what Donny Trump would have done had he been guided in the right direction, over just being given $100 million by his father. Trump is a excellent example of what shouldn't happen when you start out.

 

What's a rag to riches story if you deny that person their riches?

The simple fact is that if it is your money thay you earned, then you get a say in how it is distributed. If you wish it go to your son on your death, that is no different than wanting it to go to a specific charity on your death. It's your money - what you're doing, OP, is effectually denying that the wealth earned by those rags to riches stories was ever really theirs at all.

 

Everyone is responsible for their own rags to riches story, without a handicap of any kind. That makes all the possessions and sweet rewards that roll in that much sweeter. Let's say for example, you're born to a successful, rich recording artist family, like the Cash's or the Jackson's. Should you be given any special treatment just because your last name is Jackson, or Cash? No, you should haul your equipment from venue to venue, and work your way into the industry. No handicaps.

 

Not saying something doesn't change it. If a person can not leave money to whom they want, who do you say gets it?

- - - Updated - - -

That's so naive it is hard to comprehend such a level of foolishness.

 

You could do all that, or you could just give Junior a million dollars for mowing your grass and then he has earned it too.

 

The legitimate issue of inheritance is whether their should be an inheritance tax on extreme wealth, not your view that each generation and each person is 100% singularly self centered, totally narcistic, and is required by law to be so in relation to their own spouse and children in your advocacy that everyone should be equally impoverished.

I was born into abject poverty. My wife into the lower end of middle class income. All our children will start out their adult life as millionaires. That means they will be carrying many other people economically, not just themselves.

 

You're deliberately ignoring the previous hard work and success. If i work my nuts off and become a billionaire, born to poor parents without high school diplomas, why should I not be able to have a say in whay happens to my hard earned wealth if i have a heart attack at 50 and die?

 

Money is the direct proof of a valuable service/commodity, etc. Those who contribute the most value are directly rewarded monetarily. No government scales, etc. That is Capitalism at its simpleist and it most closely represents human development throughout the ages. Those who are most successful have the right to bequeath that same monetary success to their children. Sometimes the children magnify their inheritance sometimes not so much. Trump is a success billion-fold.

 

Okay here's an idea to end the communist and child hater allegations.
A set maximum of say, $500,000 can be inherited , and shared among the family. Any estate is auctioned off (say REIs or commercial property). Stocks are sold, including commodities such as gold or platinum, and returned to the stock/commodity market.

$500,000 should be enough for anyone to start a business, or do whatever with. Millions, if not billions, don't need to be left behind .

 

How is it foolish? Just because you're born into a certain family, or bear a certain last name does not entitle you to any special treatment . Even if you were the sister of Michael Bloomberg, you shouldn't be able to live or be treated differently than anyone else . Simple as that.

 

I would treat land differently from financial assets. Land is limited - there will never be more land than there is now. Land should never be heritable. Monetary assets being heritable is fine, within broad limits. You can give your children financial assets up to a certain amount. The one thing we don't want is a situation like the Rockefellers or Walton's with massive inherited wealth. This leads to aristocracy, and is death to a republic.

 

I do not mind that they get an inheritance, anything over 5 million is taxed

but.... if they got that much money, they did not really become successful on their own, they inherited it.. that goes with it

 

Good point . I would add to your point on the basis on land, that it includes islands as well.

People learn to better cherish what they have when they are put through hardships, not be cuddled in heaps of money or investments. If I were a tremendously wealthy person, I would say to my offspring, "Since it would be morally irresponsible of me to leave you my money, or my investments , I'll guide you on the right path while I'm alive so you won't go into panic mode when I'm gone ."

 

It's none of your business nor the governments business who people give their inheritance too, not only that but Trump's father invested in Trump - it was a business proposition - an investment... Again - none of it is your business tho...

If it matters tho - to go from rags to riches it takes a lot of funding, and if I had a wealthy father I would rather borrow from him or give him a stake in by business than borrow from a bank...

The notion that someone can just build an empire on 50 bucks is absolute nonsense.