The Instigator
Jawz366
Con (against)
The Contender
Grovenshar
Pro (for)

There should be laws in place to limit/eliminate inheritance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Jawz366 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 308 times Debate No: 98179
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Jawz366

Con

This is an interesting thing someone brought to my attention the other day, should the state limit inheritance? I talked to two friends about it, one of them believes that the state should take all of a person's money after they die. The other believes that there should be a limit of $1 million on inheritance. This of course, is more likely to be an issue for wealty people, so I'll focus on them. Now, his reasoning is that people who inherit all their money are useless in society and don't contribute to society at all. So, he believes there should be a limit so that people have to work. In my opinion, I think those people had a family member or good friend who cared about them enough to leave them that money, so the state has no right to limit it. Also, I believe that those who inherited all/most of their money still contribute to society quite a bit, they pay bills, pay taxes, spend a lot of money, helping the economy. Also, the wealthy invest their inheritance quite a lot, helping the stock markets, they also provide jobs to personal chefs, and other people of that nature. So, I believe that the state shouldn't limit how much money someone leaves to someone, and that people who don't work and have inherited all their money still contribute to society. Also, if a person worked in their life and became successful and wealthy, I believe that the state should have no control over what they wish to do with their money.
Grovenshar

Pro

Here's the thing. The United States already limits inheritance for the wealthy. The system is known as the Federal Estate Tax. It applies to less than 99.86% of the population (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 19th, 2013). Heirs to estates don't have to pay any tax on the first $5.3 million left to them. The rest is taxed fairly heavily.

Keeping this in mind, we know that this system has been in place for years now and has functioned quite nicely in that time period. Rationally speaking, if you're dead, and your wealth is large, it doesn't really matter if some of that wealth (or even most of that wealth) goes to the government. Your heirs will already receive an amount of money that is unnecessarily large and will likely set them up for life. There is no reason to to remove the laws already in place to limit inheritance.
Debate Round No. 1
Jawz366

Con

I simply believe that it is unfair to take away someone's money just because they have passed on. If a person worked in their life to build up enough wealth, the state doesn't deserve any of it. Even if some of it is enough to set them for life, the heirs should get all of it unless a person states otherwise in their will. If it sets them for life, what if they want to help out their children in the future? They might not have enough to help their child. Also, if a person does inherit a lot, they will be likely to donate some of it to charity to help others. Or they could use the extra to help a friend if they got really sick. Whatever way, I don't believe the government deserves any of the money.
Grovenshar

Pro

There's this funny thing called a trust. If you place the money that you have accumulated into that trust, then the money goes to your heirs. If you don't, money shouldn't de facto to heirs, it should go to both the government and the heirs. Giving money to the government leads to less economic stagnation in the long run due to government expenditures such as the military.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
The amount of money received over a lifetime is incidental to any inheritance taxation. It has already been taxed both by State and Federal government. An heir is structured as a guide to teach economic issues privately within a family.
State and Federal Government are both competitors in this education process. Therefore should not be allowed to legally monopolies their own best interests in these matters for profit. Taxation is about representation not a contest of popularity and who can spend money in best ways.
In order not to incriminate other colleagues a legislator is bound by Oath to the United States Constitution to support the non-biased separation process. Not promote by taxation the public bias separation process.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.