3 ms·

Why not a death tax? Give a flat amount to the family (capped at say 5 million), then a flat 100% tax after that No living person pays more taxes Children ca

Why not a death tax? Give a flat amount to the family (capped at say 5 million), then a flat 100% tax after that No living person pays more taxes Children can get an incredible windfall, but not eye-popping. Tax revenue goes through the roof.

knughit 11y ago
[estate tax] Bing it.
puredemo 11y ago
First, it would be trivial to reroute inheritance funds through trusts or protected business assets, so very few wealthy families would fall victim to this sort of tax in reality. Governments have been trying to steal from the rich for a very long time, and the rich are fairly skilled at protective countermeasures. Beyond that, your policy comes off as just the most base form of theft. Generational wealth is important, it's core to our survival instincts to look after our offspring when we die -- beyond just their basic needs, we want them to thrive. We want our grandchildren to thrive as well. Also, generally speaking, I trust the children and grandchildren to spend money in more interesting / authentic ways than our government, who has, for example, the yearly defense budget we carry. And the yearly prison budget we maintain. What if a child whose rich parents died would have started the largest cancer research center in the US with his billion dollars, but instead that money is seized by your "tax plan" and simply goes toward the defense industry coffers? Is that a net gain? Taking from the rich and giving to Halliburton and Blackwater?
marvin 11y ago
While this might look like a superficially good idea, this means that the government gets 100% ownership of all businesses after 50 years or so. There are multiple reasons why this would be very bad, for example politicians would not have the specialized knowledge required to make the owner decisions of every business. It would also give politicians an unprecedented amount of power.

knughit 11y ago

[estate tax] Bing it.

puredemo 11y ago

First, it would be trivial to reroute inheritance funds through trusts or protected business assets, so very few wealthy families would fall victim to this sort of tax in reality. Governments have been trying to steal from the rich for a very long time, and the rich are fairly skilled at protective countermeasures. Beyond that, your policy comes off as just the most base form of theft. Generational wealth is important, it's core to our survival instincts to look after our offspring when we die -- beyond just their basic needs, we want them to thrive. We want our grandchildren to thrive as well. Also, generally speaking, I trust the children and grandchildren to spend money in more interesting / authentic ways than our government, who has, for example, the yearly defense budget we carry. And the yearly prison budget we maintain. What if a child whose rich parents died would have started the largest cancer research center in the US with his billion dollars, but instead that money is seized by your "tax plan" and simply goes toward the defense industry coffers? Is that a net gain? Taking from the rich and giving to Halliburton and Blackwater?

marvin 11y ago

While this might look like a superficially good idea, this means that the government gets 100% ownership of all businesses after 50 years or so. There are multiple reasons why this would be very bad, for example politicians would not have the specialized knowledge required to make the owner decisions of every business. It would also give politicians an unprecedented amount of power.