Why one should not be subject to monetary inheritance

You are not giving to them. They have earned it by mowing your grass. You will die broke and they will have a very successful lawn care business

 

People do it all the time. They give away their house to get qualified for medicaid nursing home; they put their kids on their accounts or give it to their most trusted child, etc.

 

Because there are a lot of people in this world that operate on envy - envy is their only reason to live.

 

That's what my grandma did, when she was diagnosed with cancer she put all her assets in my dads name.

It kinda chaps my ass that some people believe people should work for 45-50 years and then be forced to fork over their life savings to the government(s) when they pass away.

 

Robin Hood economics

 

I once had a small inheritance, but it was lost in the Savings and Loan Scandal my day got caught up in. He lost all his children's inheritance to a bunch of criminal bankers whose children all have inheritances. They go through and wipe us out on a generation by generation basis. They actively work to dispossess, and oppress the lower classes.

I don't think it is immoral to enjoy an inheritance. I just wish they would stop taking our little paltry (compared to theirs) inheritances. During the S&L Scandal, they preyed on older people who had worked and saved all their lives. I would bet most of older people who lost everything were going to pass down their savings to their children as an inheritance. A lot more of us would have been able to climb a little further up the social ladder if we hadn't been robbed by bankers.

 

I don't think that's quite what the OP was getting at, although that may be to do with the blood levels in my caffeine.

This "people should get what they earn and not what they inherit" logic has nothing to do with making people "equal", otherwise the proposal would be for governments to redistribute all wealth until everyone has the exact same income, which literally no one advocates. It's about ensuring equal opportunity so that "the fittest" can naturally rise to the top, rather than some people who have not contributed so much to society getting more than they deserve. It's the essence of meritocracy - which capitalists are supposed to support.

 

It is a smart thing to do practically regardless of the tax aspects just to make sure the money isn't locked up in an estate for an extended period of time.

If the government weren't broke and getting broker every day, I would be fine with no estate tax. As we get broker and the wealth increasingly pools in a few hands, the more sense it makes to use the estate tax as an essential tool in stabilizing the economy going forward. Thomas Piketty's work got distorted and politically misconstrued in pop culture/politics. What it showed was the danger of having intergenerational pooling of wealth in the hands of the ubberwealthy to go unchecked. Most Americans will never come close to needing to pay estate tax. We probably need some really smart geeks to sit down and try to come up with a very targeted set of taxes aimed at preventing this from happening over so many generations. It could be a combination of taxes on estates and on trusts that automatically increase over generations. For example: for the first 30 years of a trust the tax could be 30%; for the second 30 years it could be 40%; and in all years after that it is 50%, or if it has been 40 years since the last gift of property, any regift of that property is not eligible for any gift-tax exemptions. Just some ideas of how we can ease into a progressive estate tax system that addresses both the economic needs of society while mitigating the deterrence to the accumulation of wealth.

 

I understand. You're a communist and have no clue about business. Your claim that a business could be started for $500,000 is so nieve it is absurd. But at least you admit whenever a business owner dies his/her company should be liquidated and everyone unemployed. Of course you hate large families too, obviously.

Simply put, your message indicated total hatred of business, hatred of children, and a sadistic attitude towards employees.

Name any country anywhere in the world with your model that works?

- - - Updated - - -

Instead, why don't you blame yourself for your failures? Oh, that's right, all your problems are due to life being so terribly unfair to you.

Hey, here's an idea. Get off the forum and get off your ass and try working.

- - - Updated - - -

Instead, why don't you blame yourself for your failures? Oh, that's right, all your problems are due to life being so terribly unfair to you.

Hey, here's an idea. Get off the forum and get off your ass and try working.

- - - Updated - - -

The OPer has a solution. The government steals everyone's inheritance. Then, like it was in the USSR, only those in government are rich.

 

It wasn't the government who was responsible for the Savings and Loan scandal. It was big bankers and the good ole boys like Neil Bush.

 

Yeah, you've gotten the wrong impression of this thread. It's obvious to see through your claims I am a communist and sadistic, either of which I am not.

$500,000 can go a long way depending on the type of business you are running, especially in terms of startup costs. If you're looking to start a record label, it won't cost that much. But if you're looking to do something in say, real estate, that is something completely different and will probably cost more. Every business prospect requires money, but every type of business does not require a fortune like what your response is implying. You've jumped to assumptions that are not true.

$500,000 is also enough of a inheritance for anyone, its half a million. No one needs to become a millionaire off of the deceased. if you wish to look at me as some type of Mr. Burns figure, go ahead. I don't care, but offspring that become millionaires through their own work, over that of their parents doing, teaches them the true value of being a millionaire, the true value of having wealth. I will repeat, when someone goes through hardships, it makes them appreciate what they have much more, say like health. Health is quite valuable, and people don't know how valuable-and vulnerable, health is until you know someone close like me, who's body has been breaking down. Money is no different. Someone who reaches 1 million dollars themselves comes to appreciate it much more than if it is passed down.

 

But the OP wants the government to take everyone's inheritance, so what difference does it make? The OP believes it was evil for you to have gotten any inheritance anyway. You should have nothing and build your future starting with nothing. Each generation, the government should seized everyone's wealth and the next generation always start in total poverty. So, really, according to the OP, it was correct that you lost any inheritance and you should thank the S&Ls and Bush for helping you be a more ethical person.

 

You really have no clue how business works. Of course, as I noted, you insist that everyone should only have 1 child - obviously.

Drive around - assume you have a car and if not walk around - and name off the businesses you see and building you see that could be built fo half a million dollars.

WHY DO YOU HATE EMPLOYEES? Why do you think everyone should be laid off everytime a business owner or major stockholder dies? You absolutely refuse to address you hatred of employees.

Oh, and of course you want every farmer's family to lose the family farm upon death of the farmer too. So also explain why you hate farmers and ranchers so much.

As I said, your message is communism - not even socialism - wanting the government to have and control everything and everyone. Everyone is just a worker bee for the government as within 1 generation the government would have virtually every business and all land in the country.

Nor do you address the obvious that anyone with any wealth would just take their wealth out of the USA - more than they already do.

We do recognize the dangers of people like you so the trusts set up for our children mostly are NOT in the USA - meaning working capital elsewhere. Many countries in the world welcome money and will protect you money if you'll let them use it for THEIR growth. The sad fact is that the next generation largely hates and wants to destroy the free enterprise, capitalism and goal of trying to improve your children's future - meaning destroy everything that made this country a wealthy and safe country.

Here's the fact. Unless you plan on building a wall around the USA entirely, prohibit all foreign travel and severe all communications of any kind with the rest of the world - and have a way to actually make that 100% work - you'd never be able to keep people from fleeing with their money. Exactly no one would undertake any significant construction, business venture or anything else of substance in your pure communist reality. Only poor peasants would remain, peasants who are essentially slaves of the government.

Your envy wouldn't help you or make life any fairer. It'd just make you a slave. Privately owned business can't make you do anything. A government owned economy can. Total control of you.

 

Take a deep calming breath. Ready?

A company should still go on, despite the founder being deceased, the next of kin can become the President, the COO, or the CEO of the company.
Of course, when I said estate that should be auctioned off, that is estate the family is not directly living in. That includes REI's, both single family and multifamily, commercial property investments, basically if you are a real estate mogul like Trump, minus the estate you are living in, all other estate is auctioned off, or sold by a broker or realtor. Golf courses are sold, apartment complexes are sold, shopping malls are sold, hotels are sold to other clients after the owner has deceased. Yes, that would mean even Trump Tower goes up for sale, unless somehow Trump has found some way to claim that as his residence.

Remember, the main point of this thread is about monetary inheritance, not estate inheritance or whether or not you inherit a possession, like a car.

 

And bought by who since no one dare ever have of $500,000? Obviously you mean the government simply keeps and operates everything it seizes - ie the USSR.

The real problem this country faces is going into the 3rd generation of schools that did not teach education, but instead teaches liberal philosophy.

The country has a 19 trillion dollar debt. Who do you think puts up that money? Buys the T-Notes? Poor people? Middle class? Under your concept the next T-Note auction would see an empty room for bidders and buyers. Within 6 months a hamburger would cost $100,000 as money became worthless.

Where does the money come from to build golf courses, clinics, apartments and housing developments for people to live in, venture capital for new projects? Poor people? Middle class? No, it comes from rich people's cash.

Already there is an increasing problem of the wealthy disavowing USA citizenship and leaving the USA for tax rates. Unlike the increasingly socialistic USA, there are still many countries that want and rewards success and wealth - rather than hate it as you do.

Finally, in stating it is only "monetary" inheritance that would be seized basically reduces your claim to nothingness - other than there would be no working capital for anything in the country and the government would default on it's debts turn money to worthlessness. Just keept their wealth in possessions like gold, silver, high dollar art, collectable cars etc. But I suppose you also propose a barter system of taking chickens for wood for heat since money has become worthless under your plan.

Other than you hate that other people had successful parents they inherited from, you have given no reason you would totally destroy the USA economy to have the government steal everything for itself.

Name any country with your system that is not an impoverished country for which only those in the dictatorial government are wealthy.

Here's what I'm confident of. You don't employ one person, do you? You don't have any wealth. Not pursuing it either. Instead you rant on the Internet about how unfair life has been to you beause you weren't born rich. CURSE YOUR FAILED PARENTS then, rather than you goal of destroying everyone and the country as your bitter retaliation.

Or a shorter response could be "Loser says what?"

 

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 to give a few hundred dollars to the painter to paint my house, why should that be government's (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) business any more than you giving it to your kids?

Let's just give everything back and forth. Then there will be no taxes and we can become Somolia.

- - - Updated - - -

So the guy you hire to paint your house shouldn't have to pay taxes on it either, right?

 

Unless it struck a nerve , I don't know why you are acting so defensive, and furthermore, rude .

Did I start this thread off with, "Jake, here's what your children's lives are going to be like.... " No, maybe I should have put, "Opinion:" at the beginning of this threads title, for further clarification so people wouldn't get the flawed impression that I am going after them with a cow prod.

Next, quite frankly , it is arrogant to label me as a "loser," or assume I am a envious or hate filled person, or assume I am a lazy person, some of which I have made known in prior responses that I am neither of those things . How do you know for a fact that I am not hard working? No one is a "loser" here. Let me make the point again, if I haven't already done so. I am not some fat ass who sits at a computer all day.

People are responsible for their own legacies, without the handicap of ones wealth.

Does that mean the kids of Bill Gates sre entitled to Bills wealth? No.
Does that mean the kids of Mark Zuckerbergs are entitled to Marks wealth? No.
Does that mean the kids of Donald Trumps are entitled to Donald's wealth? No .
A certain portion of that money? Yes.

It would be irresponsible to leave millions to the next of kin. It sends the message you don't have to work hard for what you have, as well as the message it is okay to take advantage of others. It sends the message everything is given to you. Would you want to go to your grave knowing you gave off those messages in your will? I'd certainly hope not. I mean, if George Lucas were to leave all that money, it would be leaving his kids feeling entitled to everything, and everybody owes them something.

If you want that Rolls Royce, you'll work for it. If you want that vacation mansion on the Cayman Islands , you'll work for it. None of it you are entitled to . Creating your wealth is up to you, and you only, so goes your legacy and any of your assets . It's not up to your daddy to do it for you.

 

My point is that that the fairness is based on when you start to look at it. There are basically two ways. The way I'm criticizing just looks at the do-nothing who inherits money he didn't earn. The second way consider the one who earned the estate. That one who worked so hard decided that he'd like to leave his estate to his heir - to deny that to his heir is tantamount to robbing him. The rest is just quibbling over two terms - to deny the inheritance is to deny the earner control over his own assets.

Fundamentally were juxtaposing two beliefs - one which believes at the core that a man has the right to use his own assets as he sees fit (so long as he isn't directly harming anyone else), and the second believes that a man is not entitled to the fruit of his own labor.

 

So tax an inheritance - I just see no basis for taxing anywhere beyond regular income levels. If the top personal tax rate is 39.6%, the inheritance tax should be capped at 39.6% (though I think there is a basis for a lower tax on an inheritance). But really we might as well simplify it because there are so many ways for rich sods to get out of taxes on what they leave to their kids.

 

Why? Your paying him with that same money that's already been taxed, which, according to you, seems to mean that the person who receives it shouldn't have to pay taxes on it because that would be double taxing or something.

I'm just applying your own argument.

Fair enough. You should be able to give your money to the the painter or your kid, in my book. You said that "it's none of the government's (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) business" which sounds like your saying that money shouldn't be subject to tax.