Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Inheritance Cap

DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 12:31:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
--What are some of the pros/cons of having a limit to the amount of wealth one could inherit? (example: $1,000,000)
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 12:48:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Cons:
This policy is nothing more than theft. Robbing people at gunpoint isn't morally different when the government does it. If someone acquired that money justly, they have the right to spend it as they see fit, whether they want to blow it all and die penniless or give it to their children. If they acquired that money criminally, then no inheritance cap is necessary--all of the stolen money can simply be given back to the people they stole it from through the justice system.

Economically, this would hurt growth, which hurts poor as well as rich. If the government takes money, it generally spends it right away--usually on something corrupt or immoral--but the key is that it spends it right away on something. That's all fine and good for whoever the money gets spent on at the time, but that money doesn't come from nowhere; it otherwise would have been saved. If the money is saved--when talking about large inheritances, most of it is--then it is invested in the economy, boosting long-term growth, helping everyone.

In addition, this grave robbery has adverse effects on incentives to work. If you can only pass on X amount of money to your children, you won't bother working as much. People that make a lot of money do so by providing goods and services that people want--if they work less, then the world is deprived of the services those people otherwise would have provided. If they're an entrepreneur, then the products and jobs they otherwise would have created will not exist. If they're a doctor, then that person will retire earlier than they normally would have, or won't work as many hours, and won't save as many lives as they could have.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 1:17:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think it's far worse than what Laissez argues. What possible right or justification can anyone make that allows my final intentions to be taken from me? These are assets that i have worked for continue to work for, and managed to save, and would like to leave for those that i wish to take care of, or simply improve the life of (or even if i wish to have it thrown into the sea). I find it a moral outrage that my, or anyone's final wishes would be taken away simply because it's there, and no one is alive to stop it.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 1:18:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
not that i am for this at all but since LF forgot to mention pros...

PROS: reduction of envy amongst the public of the extremely rich... envy being an extremely divisive and destructive social emotion.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 1:45:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 12:31:05 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--What are some of the pros/cons of having a limit to the amount of wealth one could inherit? (example: $1,000,000)

Cons:
>from strata
Expanding on what belle said, the rich are not very liked. Restricting what people may inherit reduces the amount of wealthy people that exist. This, at first notice, looks likequite a weak argument (belle intentioned it as so), but the the resentment a social divide between 'working' and 'ruling', 'proletariat' and 'bourgeoisie' classes have been the cause of many a revolution. Many believe that social change can only happen this way. (conflict theory)

>from equality
Another argument comes form the belief in equality, by prioritising equality over freedom one can argue that estate tax lowers the social divide and puts people at a equal level, giving them equal opportunities at the expense of poverty but also enterprise and innovation. This only works if the "stolen" money is given to those laking it. *Communism*

>from Labour
Most people against an an inheritance/estate tax believe that inherited money is unearnt money. They think the wealth should largely come from labour, the sweat from one's prow, and not though nepotism or cronyism. You can, though I son't suggest it, appeal to glory children like Miley Cyrus or Paris Hilton.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 2:09:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sometimes I think you guys forget what money really is - it's your right to tell other people what to do. Inheriting that is pretty silly, not to mention extremely destructive to societal well-being (in case Ragnar butts in with the "no such thing as society argument, you can take that as "all the individuals within society").
no comment
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 2:15:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 2:09:11 PM, Caramel wrote:
Sometimes I think you guys forget what money really is - it's your right to tell other people what to do. Inheriting that is pretty silly, not to mention extremely destructive to societal well-being (in case Ragnar butts in with the "no such thing as society argument, you can take that as "all the individuals within society").

the only reason money even remotely appears to be "a right to tell other people what to do" is because those other people want it. and the reason they want it is because money is a means of gaining objects of value. if those objects don't just spring into being without cause, why should the ability to obtain them be granted without cause?

in any case, if i offer you 50 bucks to shoot someone, you don't have to do it. having money is not equivalent to being able to force people to do things against their will.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
alltopics
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 2:23:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They do Cap in a way - Most countries do tax you, up to 40percent - So what is everyone talking about it here, we ALREADY ARE GETTING SCREWED????
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 2:52:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 2:23:56 PM, alltopics wrote:
They do Cap in a way - Most countries do tax you, up to 40percent - So what is everyone talking about it here, we ALREADY ARE GETTING SCREWED????

Main reason libertarians on DDO rage. I'm a Christian and anti democracy, my world is getting screwed every passing second.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 3:39:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Follow up question. Is there a difference between a person who dies suddenly and is still supporting a family whose estate is taxed and a person who dies of old age and who stopped supporting his or her family decades earlier?
Noblesse Oblige
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 4:05:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 2:52:52 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 12/5/2010 2:23:56 PM, alltopics wrote:
They do Cap in a way - Most countries do tax you, up to 40percent - So what is everyone talking about it here, we ALREADY ARE GETTING SCREWED????

Main reason libertarians on DDO rage. I'm a Christian and anti democracy, my world is getting screwed every passing second.

We can only hope. Your world has complete disregard for the idea that the individual possesses inherent rights and dignity in the futile effort to create equality.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 4:07:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 3:39:59 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Follow up question. Is there a difference between a person who dies suddenly and is still supporting a family whose estate is taxed and a person who dies of old age and who stopped supporting his or her family decades earlier?

Nope. Both are still quite dead.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 4:24:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 4:07:48 PM, Puck wrote:
At 12/5/2010 3:39:59 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Follow up question. Is there a difference between a person who dies suddenly and is still supporting a family whose estate is taxed and a person who dies of old age and who stopped supporting his or her family decades earlier?

Nope. Both are still quite dead.

Lol.
Noblesse Oblige
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 4:38:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 12:48:15 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Cons:
This policy is nothing more than theft. Robbing people at gunpoint isn't morally different when the government does it. If someone acquired that money justly, they have the right to spend it as they see fit, whether they want to blow it all and die penniless or give it to their children. If they acquired that money criminally, then no inheritance cap is necessary--all of the stolen money can simply be given back to the people they stole it from through the justice system.

Mr. Bankrobber robs a bank and disappears in the sunset. he is never captured and lives out a happy life with a family, but one day falls of his horse and dies. The money he has was stolen, but in his community he now resides, no one knows it is stolen. Likewise he has a family who needs the support of his estate.

First, with the justice system being a body of the government, but government is corrupt and bad, who funds the justice department into omniscience to know if Mr. bankrobber's money is actually stolen.

Second, as the money that was stolen from the bank is insured by the government, so no money is actually lost for those individuals who were stolen from, isn't there some moral outcry that the money Mr. bankrobber's family needs to live on is suddenly being taken away from them when they were not a party nor did they have knowledge of the crime?

Economically, this would hurt growth, which hurts poor as well as rich. If the government takes money, it generally spends it right away--usually on something corrupt or immoral--but the key is that it spends it right away on something. That's all fine and good for whoever the money gets spent on at the time, but that money doesn't come from nowhere; it otherwise would have been saved. If the money is saved--when talking about large inheritances, most of it is--then it is invested in the economy, boosting long-term growth, helping everyone.

I'm not one to argue that the government is always the most efficient at spending the tax revenue it recieves, but what corrut and immoral spending are we talking about? Additionally, the government does not spend all of it's money right away. 8.5 trillion of the 9 trillion dollars currently projected to be spent between 2010 and 2016 were bills and provisions put into action by former President Bush. The last action was in 2008. So the idea that the government universally spends all money it receives is incorrect.

Saving money by itself in our fiat currency system provides little economic growth. The more money you put into an economy the more money you get out of it. Unless someone really wants to try and argue that economic theory trumps what can actually be seen in real-world economy.

In addition, this grave robbery has adverse effects on incentives to work. If you can only pass on X amount of money to your children, you won't bother working as much. People that make a lot of money do so by providing goods and services that people want--if they work less, then the world is deprived of the services those people otherwise would have provided. If they're an entrepreneur, then the products and jobs they otherwise would have created will not exist. If they're a doctor, then that person will retire earlier than they normally would have, or won't work as many hours, and won't save as many lives as they could have.

You've mentioned this before but have not once actually shown evidence that this is the real-world case. Have you come up with evidence this time to show your theory?
Noblesse Oblige
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 4:55:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
--Looks like I'm going to be pro on this one.

At 12/5/2010 12:48:15 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Cons:
This policy is nothing more than theft. Robbing people at gunpoint isn't morally different when the government does it. If someone acquired that money justly, they have the right to spend it as they see fit, whether they want to blow it all and die penniless or give it to their children. If they acquired that money criminally, then no inheritance cap is necessary--all of the stolen money can simply be given back to the people they stole it from through the justice system.

--This would make a very good 'anti-taxes' argument. But when directed at an inheritance cap(up to which would be unaffected), it does not prove your point. If an inheritance cap were instated, then income taxes could be lowered. The choice is between paying your taxes with money that you have earned directly with your own sweat, and money that is being handed to you. Perhaps I should have framed this in contrast to income taxes.

Economically, this would hurt growth, which hurts poor as well as rich. If the government takes money, it generally spends it right away--usually on something corrupt or immoral--but the key is that it spends it right away on something. That's all fine and good for whoever the money gets spent on at the time, but that money doesn't come from nowhere; it otherwise would have been saved. If the money is saved--when talking about large inheritances, most of it is--then it is invested in the economy, boosting long-term growth, helping everyone.

--Even if the government spends the money on a group, then that money will be going to the manufactuers of whatever goods were being provided to said group. The money stays in the economy as long as the government spends that money within the country and is actually stimulating to growth in the sectors which it is spent in.

In addition, this grave robbery has adverse effects on incentives to work. If you can only pass on X amount of money to your children, you won't bother working as much. People that make a lot of money do so by providing goods and services that people want--if they work less, then the world is deprived of the services those people otherwise would have provided. If they're an entrepreneur, then the products and jobs they otherwise would have created will not exist. If they're a doctor, then that person will retire earlier than they normally would have, or won't work as many hours, and won't save as many lives as they could have.

--A cap of say.. one million dollars, would have no affect on the vast majority of the population. Their incentives would be unchanged in the way you speak. I would argue that as an indirect result of an inheritance cap, incentives would be increased for everyone because of across-the-board income tax cuts.

--The added benefit, (ignoring the practical aspect) is that taxes would be 'fairer' since they would be coming mostly from the dead(which can't really use that money). Also, the children which do inherit this money didn't earn it *by definition*.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 5:14:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 4:55:13 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--Looks like I'm going to be pro on this one.

At 12/5/2010 12:48:15 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Cons:
This policy is nothing more than theft. Robbing people at gunpoint isn't morally different when the government does it. If someone acquired that money justly, they have the right to spend it as they see fit, whether they want to blow it all and die penniless or give it to their children. If they acquired that money criminally, then no inheritance cap is necessary--all of the stolen money can simply be given back to the people they stole it from through the justice system.

--This would make a very good 'anti-taxes' argument. But when directed at an inheritance cap(up to which would be unaffected), it does not prove your point. If an inheritance cap were instated, then income taxes could be lowered. The choice is between paying your taxes with money that you have earned directly with your own sweat, and money that is being handed to you. Perhaps I should have framed this in contrast to income taxes.

Economically, this would hurt growth, which hurts poor as well as rich. If the government takes money, it generally spends it right away--usually on something corrupt or immoral--but the key is that it spends it right away on something. That's all fine and good for whoever the money gets spent on at the time, but that money doesn't come from nowhere; it otherwise would have been saved. If the money is saved--when talking about large inheritances, most of it is--then it is invested in the economy, boosting long-term growth, helping everyone.

--Even if the government spends the money on a group, then that money will be going to the manufactuers of whatever goods were being provided to said group. The money stays in the economy as long as the government spends that money within the country and is actually stimulating to growth in the sectors which it is spent in.

In addition, this grave robbery has adverse effects on incentives to work. If you can only pass on X amount of money to your children, you won't bother working as much. People that make a lot of money do so by providing goods and services that people want--if they work less, then the world is deprived of the services those people otherwise would have provided. If they're an entrepreneur, then the products and jobs they otherwise would have created will not exist. If they're a doctor, then that person will retire earlier than they normally would have, or won't work as many hours, and won't save as many lives as they could have.

--A cap of say.. one million dollars, would have no affect on the vast majority of the population. Their incentives would be unchanged in the way you speak. I would argue that as an indirect result of an inheritance cap, incentives would be increased for everyone because of across-the-board income tax cuts.

--The added benefit, (ignoring the practical aspect) is that taxes would be 'fairer' since they would be coming mostly from the dead(which can't really use that money). Also, the children which do inherit this money didn't earn it *by definition*.

I guess I misunderstood you; I thought you meant adding an estate tax on top of the current tax system, and figured you meant an estate tax instead of an inheritance cap. Well, in that case, the main problem with your new tax is that it wouldn't raise any revenue, so there would be no reduction in the income tax. Everyone that got more than $1,000,000 at a time would spend or give away the extra money, and stop earning money. Why would anyone save up more than the cap if all of that money would just go to the government anyway?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 5:17:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 4:38:58 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
You've mentioned this before but have not once actually shown evidence that this is the real-world case. Have you come up with evidence this time to show your theory?

evidence? more money is more motivating than less money :P

if you look into it, the effective tax rate on the rich is nearly 50%... basically that means that something has to be roughly twice as lucrative as it otherwise would be for them to expend the same effort. not to say that the relationship is precisely linear, but the fact that it is proportional in some way is obvious from studies of human psychology.

At 12/5/2010 4:55:13 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--A cap of say.. one million dollars, would have no affect on the vast majority of the population. Their incentives would be unchanged in the way you speak. I would argue that as an indirect result of an inheritance cap, incentives would be increased for everyone because of across-the-board income tax cuts.

this is just as perverse as when the republicans claimed that tax cuts would actually increase government revenue because people would be that much more motivated to work harder if they were taxed less. currently, there is already a 55% tax on anyone who leaves over 1 million dollars in assets (unless they are lucky enough to die in 2010 b/c of bush's cuts. but anyways....). in 2007 that amounted to 22.5 billion. even if you were to switch to a 100% inheritance tax for those with assets over one million dollars, it would add up to less than 50 billion dollars, whereas the amount of income tax collected in 2006 amounted to over 1 trillion dollars. the impact would be negligible.

--The added benefit, (ignoring the practical aspect) is that taxes would be 'fairer' since they would be coming mostly from the dead(which can't really use that money). Also, the children which do inherit this money didn't earn it *by definition*.

neither did the people you are redistributing it to. :P

since when is it fair to legally violate someone's final wishes in pursuit of your vision for a better society?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 7:06:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 2:15:16 PM, belle wrote:
At 12/5/2010 2:09:11 PM, Caramel wrote:
Sometimes I think you guys forget what money really is - it's your right to tell other people what to do. Inheriting that is pretty silly, not to mention extremely destructive to societal well-being (in case Ragnar butts in with the "no such thing as society argument, you can take that as "all the individuals within society").

the only reason money even remotely appears to be "a right to tell other people what to do" is because those other people want it. and the reason they want it is because money is a means of gaining objects of value. if those objects don't just spring into being without cause, why should the ability to obtain them be granted without cause?

in any case, if i offer you 50 bucks to shoot someone, you don't have to do it. having money is not equivalent to being able to force people to do things against their will.

This argument works well with me personally, or in a world where everyone has middle-class purchasing power. Try offering that 50 dollars to someone in the Gaza Strip who works all day for a few dollars that barely buys a pale of potable water. Try offering it to someone who lives in the projects. The point is that a currency system allows people to coerce one another easily - from the top-down, of course. Like I said: money is simply the ability to manipulate others. Sure, being able to control people is a good way to create lots of stuff; but I see greater ends than creating stuff and I see greater means than manipulation.
no comment
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 7:49:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 7:06:08 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 12/5/2010 2:15:16 PM, belle wrote:
At 12/5/2010 2:09:11 PM, Caramel wrote:
Sometimes I think you guys forget what money really is - it's your right to tell other people what to do. Inheriting that is pretty silly, not to mention extremely destructive to societal well-being (in case Ragnar butts in with the "no such thing as society argument, you can take that as "all the individuals within society").

the only reason money even remotely appears to be "a right to tell other people what to do" is because those other people want it. and the reason they want it is because money is a means of gaining objects of value. if those objects don't just spring into being without cause, why should the ability to obtain them be granted without cause?

in any case, if i offer you 50 bucks to shoot someone, you don't have to do it. having money is not equivalent to being able to force people to do things against their will.

This argument works well with me personally, or in a world where everyone has middle-class purchasing power. Try offering that 50 dollars to someone in the Gaza Strip who works all day for a few dollars that barely buys a pale of potable water. Try offering it to someone who lives in the projects. The point is that a currency system allows people to coerce one another easily - from the top-down, of course. Like I said: money is simply the ability to manipulate others. Sure, being able to control people is a good way to create lots of stuff; but I see greater ends than creating stuff and I see greater means than manipulation.

again, its not the money that is the issue, but rather it is the stuff. more specifically, resources. some people have them, others want them to varying degrees. a starving person may well be willing to kill for that 50 and i can't say i could blame them assuming they had no other options.

but anyways, i'm getting off topic... rather than whether or not they have money, its a disparity in the amount of stuff they have that allows some people to "manipulate" others, not money itself. money is just a proxy for stuff. case in point: hyperinflations. no one wants money then because its been completely devalued. so how do you think you can improve things by decreasing the overall amount of stuff available to people? that will just cause them to fight all the more bitterly over what IS available.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 8:02:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Where would the rest of the money go?

Depending on that, it could potentially be a good thing. It would essentially reduce the entirely of the pool of money that comprises the United States economy. This could be either positive or negative. People can refuse to give up affluence and others can let them; this would effectively eliminate the middle class and separate everyone as either rich or impoverished. In other words, we would be a Third World Country. Otherwise, it would briefly make everyone much more rich, causing the economy to hyperaccelerate and, in essence, "refresh." It would also make everything very dope in a very short amount of time. However, unless it is immediately repealed and turned to normal and precisely the right time, the first scenario will inevitably result anyway.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2010 10:51:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 5:17:29 PM, belle wrote:
At 12/5/2010 4:38:58 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
You've mentioned this before but have not once actually shown evidence that this is the real-world case. Have you come up with evidence this time to show your theory?

evidence? more money is more motivating than less money :P

if you look into it, the effective tax rate on the rich is nearly 50%... basically that means that something has to be roughly twice as lucrative as it otherwise would be for them to expend the same effort. not to say that the relationship is precisely linear, but the fact that it is proportional in some way is obvious from studies of human psychology.

After you're already dead?
Noblesse Oblige
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 2:08:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 8:02:37 PM, Ren wrote:
Where would the rest of the money go?

Depending on that, it could potentially be a good thing. It would essentially reduce the entirely of the pool of money that comprises the United States economy. This could be either positive or negative. People can refuse to give up affluence and others can let them; this would effectively eliminate the middle class and separate everyone as either rich or impoverished. In other words, we would be a Third World Country. Otherwise, it would briefly make everyone much more rich, causing the economy to hyperaccelerate and, in essence, "refresh." It would also make everything very dope in a very short amount of time. However, unless it is immediately repealed and turned to normal and precisely the right time, the first scenario will inevitably result anyway.

Simply because it is there, does not mean there is any legitimate claim on that money. It is stealing and worse; it is a complete disregard for my final intentions. If i am aware of something like this, i would take precautions that would circumvent my assets from being stolen like this. I doubt that i would be alone in this either. The end result would be those who are aware and adept would find ways to accomplish their goals, while the poor schlub that scrimped and saved to provide for their family will have a family that remains bereft of any upward mobility.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 3:07:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2010 3:06:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you cap inheritance, you also need to cap income, business revenue, and all forms of spending (especially government spending, which tends to get rather expensive). You don't want too much money moving at once!

Also, you'll need to cap the amount of debt people, businesses, or other legal entities can legally go into.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 5:47:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2010 3:07:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/6/2010 3:06:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you cap inheritance, you also need to cap income, business revenue, and all forms of spending (especially government spending, which tends to get rather expensive). You don't want too much money moving at once!

Also, you'll need to cap the amount of debt people, businesses, or other legal entities can legally go into.

Since we are thinking of the good of the poor, there must be an age where the productivity return on the individual reverses and becomes an expense to society, so i think along these lines there must be an age cap on life. This would solve a myriad of problems really.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 9:20:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 10:51:58 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 12/5/2010 5:17:29 PM, belle wrote:
At 12/5/2010 4:38:58 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
You've mentioned this before but have not once actually shown evidence that this is the real-world case. Have you come up with evidence this time to show your theory?

evidence? more money is more motivating than less money :P

if you look into it, the effective tax rate on the rich is nearly 50%... basically that means that something has to be roughly twice as lucrative as it otherwise would be for them to expend the same effort. not to say that the relationship is precisely linear, but the fact that it is proportional in some way is obvious from studies of human psychology.

After you're already dead?

with a 100% inheritance tax it would be even worse, because you know when you're dead your assets will be seized by the government. it would actually motivate people to make just under whatever the cap is so they could leave it all to their kids rather than having it taken from them...

you asked for evidence that higher taxes are demotivating. even if the tax is *paid* after you're dead, you know what will happen while you're still alive...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 9:50:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Inheritances should not be taxed if the beneficiary of the estate is a registered charity but, otherwise, I think it is fair that inheritances are taxed just as any other capital gains are taxed.

I'm not in favour of a cap though – that would prove to be a real disincentive to invest and may drive wealth creators abroad to more tax-friendly shores.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 9:54:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/5/2010 12:31:05 PM, DevinKing wrote:
--What are some of the pros/cons of having a limit to the amount of wealth one could inherit? (example: $1,000,000)

If it applies to the government too, I'm all for it :)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 12:26:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2010 5:47:56 AM, innomen wrote:
At 12/6/2010 3:07:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/6/2010 3:06:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you cap inheritance, you also need to cap income, business revenue, and all forms of spending (especially government spending, which tends to get rather expensive). You don't want too much money moving at once!

Also, you'll need to cap the amount of debt people, businesses, or other legal entities can legally go into.

Since we are thinking of the good of the poor, there must be an age where the productivity return on the individual reverses and becomes an expense to society, so i think along these lines there must be an age cap on life. This would solve a myriad of problems really.

Well, here's the thing--most people will not be able to amass that amount of money in their lifetime. Therefore, it will be impossible for most people to ever attain affluence and it would further prevent familial affluence. That is, for the most part, a person's monetary earnings is limited to his or her own lifetime, rather than in addition to his or her family legacy. That sounds to me as though it would mostly affect the rich, since everyone else will not make enough to be affected by that limitation.

Therefore, as per my scenario, you have two options: a reduced rich or an overall reduction in money. As a third option, we could have a communistic country with capitalistic undertones. That is, a capitalistic economy, though a communistic society, since there's a limit to how much everyone can make, but a strong central government that keeps most of it.

Because, reducing everyone's monetary value to a mill and less means that there is an @ssload that goes straight to the government.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2010 12:41:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2010 12:26:00 PM, Ren wrote:
At 12/6/2010 5:47:56 AM, innomen wrote:
At 12/6/2010 3:07:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/6/2010 3:06:08 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
If you cap inheritance, you also need to cap income, business revenue, and all forms of spending (especially government spending, which tends to get rather expensive). You don't want too much money moving at once!

Also, you'll need to cap the amount of debt people, businesses, or other legal entities can legally go into.

Since we are thinking of the good of the poor, there must be an age where the productivity return on the individual reverses and becomes an expense to society, so i think along these lines there must be an age cap on life. This would solve a myriad of problems really.

Well, here's the thing--most people will not be able to amass that amount of money in their lifetime. Therefore, it will be impossible for most people to ever attain affluence and it would further prevent familial affluence. That is, for the most part, a person's monetary earnings is limited to his or her own lifetime, rather than in addition to his or her family legacy. That sounds to me as though it would mostly affect the rich, since everyone else will not make enough to be affected by that limitation.

Therefore, as per my scenario, you have two options: a reduced rich or an overall reduction in money. As a third option, we could have a communistic country with capitalistic undertones. That is, a capitalistic economy, though a communistic society, since there's a limit to how much everyone can make, but a strong central government that keeps most of it.

Because, reducing everyone's monetary value to a mill and less means that there is an @ssload that goes straight to the government.

So if there's a lot of money, then it's okay to disregard the final intentions and steal it, otherwise it's more noble when it's below a mill? Everyone has their price even in terms of morality i guess.