7 ms·

This is definitely more complicated than that. In the most basic sense, how much should I be allowed to do what I want with my own money? A step more complex;

This is definitely more complicated than that. In the most basic sense, how much should I be allowed to do what I want with my own money? A step more complex; giving to your kids is, AFAIK, one of the biggest drivers in why people try to make money during their lifetimes. A step more liberal: Inheritance (the accumulation of wealth by a family), again, AFAIK, is an important part of upwards mobility. The current setup is definitely sub-optimal. 100% would also be sub optimal, and, I'd argue, worse than what we've got here, because it's another thing that rich people could dodge that not-rich people couldn't.

morgante 10y ago
> In the most basic sense, how much should I be allowed to do what I want with my own money? It's not your money once you're dead. As far as I'm concerned, dead people don't have any rights. > A step more liberal: Inheritance (the accumulation of wealth by a family), again, AFAIK, is an important part of upwards mobility. On the contrary, I think it hurts economic mobility a lot more than it helps. If you're competing for opportunities with people who inherited millions of dollars (without doing anything themselves), it's a lot harder to advance yourself. Non-rich people don't generally leave enough of an estate for it to matter in the first case. We could easily exclude the first $100k for that matter.
- NhanH 10y ago
  If Mark Zuckerberg and his wife is hit by a truck tomorrow. Is the US government taking over FB? Cause I don't see the kid getting $50 billion to pay the tax bill.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Obviously, he can sell stock to pay the tax bill. Or the government could directly take ownership and sell the stock. We have an existing estate tax. It's not a novel concept.
    - NhanH 10y ago
      You're proposing that a) Selling $50 billion worth of stock in a company, b) Government takes ownership of Facebook, or some combination thereof of the two actions. Yes, it is novel to do that.
      - morgante 10y ago
        I didn't suggest that the government should own Facebook over the long term. It should simply impose a tax on the estate, which would require that stock be liquidated to meet that obligation. There's already a 40% inheritance tax. How do you think it works in the status quo?
        NhanH 10y ago
        The difference is in the number. 40% means that I can realistically leverage my own share of the stock to get money and pay the tax. 100% means that I walk away and the government can figure out what to deal with the ownership.
        morgante 10y ago
        I don't know why you think it would be so hard for the government to deal with the ownership. There are plenty of people who would be interested in buying Facebook stock. Plenty of estates have to be liquidated to settle debts and taxes today. It's hardly unprecedented.
        NhanH 10y ago
        No it isn't precedented. Ownership of a company is a lot different than real estates or other physical wealth. It would take years to sell off $50 billion of stocks without crashing the company. Even if they are patience and manage to do that, alot of people, myself included, would have trouble with the government being in de-facto control of the company. If you dismissed either of the two reasons above, I guess I don't see a point in continuing the discussion.
- stickfigure 10y ago
  As mentioned earlier, you're going to have to completely ban (ie tax 100%) gift-giving too. Or any sale of property that government auditors haven't determined is completely equitable. A trustee would have to be appointed immediately upon diagnosis of terminal disease - someone might "give away the farm" so to speak. I don't want to live in your world.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Yes, we would have to tax cumulative gifts aggressively as well. To deal with things like real estate gifts, we could force the recipient to pay taxes on the difference between the grand list price and the purchase price. I don't particularly like living in a world where my hard work is confiscated at a high rate while someone who just has the good fortune of wealthy parents can receive millions tax free.
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      And you would also get to tax charity just as heavily. Because charity is all about giving gifts. I have no interest in living in your dream world of justice. As it would have been a totalitarian nightmare where everybody would be worse off.
      - morgante 10y ago
        Ideally charities should benefit people besides your progeny. I really don't understand why you're so vehemently protective of inherited wealth. Do you think it's abhorrent that Bill Gates is voluntarily donating most of his wealth to charity instead of leaving it to his children? Why do you think an inheritance tax is "totalitarian?" At least, why is it any worse than income taxes?
        JanezStupar 10y ago
        You are being disingenuous when comparing "willfully donating" and 100% inheritance tax. I don't care what people do with their property out of their own free will. I do care when people are trying to instate authoritarian totalitarian governments. I oppose inheritance tax - as that inheritance has already been taxed at least once. I have plenty of good solid arguments on my side. And I would advise you to put a bit more thinking into your ideas.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  > Non-rich... Right. Like I mean, it's more complicated than a straight 100%. For example: What if I transfer my wealth to my family BEFORE my death? What if I set up a trust to manage properties so that my descendants don't own it, but benefit from it? (What if those properties produce their own cash-flow, which goes to my descendants, but they still don't own the property?). Let's take another example. Let's take Cliff's Variety store in the Haight. Do you think it's worth more than $100k? Do you think they bought/built it for <$100? (hint: no, it's been around in one form or another since before WWII). It's been in that family for generations; it's still in that family. Should it stay in that family? If the current owners die suddenly, before they can transfer ownership, what should happen? What if my parent owns a company, and I work for that company adding substantial value - like, say, Dr Bronner's soap company? How much of that company's value do I deserve as inheritance, or by ownership, given my contribution? People live a long time now. I don't have to have the millions of dollars to make you compete for opportunities against my with the benefit of that. Parents (and grandparents, and reasonably, great-great-grand parents) can pay for my education. Or buy me houses. Or not buy me houses - buy themselves houses - and then let me stay there; and this problems is just going to get worse as longevity increases.
collyw 10y ago
Basically we need to make a choice between inheritance and meritocracy, as the two are at odds with each other. Personally I would choose meritocracy (even though I will likely end up above average through inheritance eventually).

morgante 10y ago

> In the most basic sense, how much should I be allowed to do what I want with my own money? It's not your money once you're dead. As far as I'm concerned, dead people don't have any rights. > A step more liberal: Inheritance (the accumulation of wealth by a family), again, AFAIK, is an important part of upwards mobility. On the contrary, I think it hurts economic mobility a lot more than it helps. If you're competing for opportunities with people who inherited millions of dollars (without doing anything themselves), it's a lot harder to advance yourself. Non-rich people don't generally leave enough of an estate for it to matter in the first case. We could easily exclude the first $100k for that matter.

NhanH 10y ago
If Mark Zuckerberg and his wife is hit by a truck tomorrow. Is the US government taking over FB? Cause I don't see the kid getting $50 billion to pay the tax bill.
- morgante 10y ago
  Obviously, he can sell stock to pay the tax bill. Or the government could directly take ownership and sell the stock. We have an existing estate tax. It's not a novel concept.
  - NhanH 10y ago
    You're proposing that a) Selling $50 billion worth of stock in a company, b) Government takes ownership of Facebook, or some combination thereof of the two actions. Yes, it is novel to do that.
    - morgante 10y ago
      I didn't suggest that the government should own Facebook over the long term. It should simply impose a tax on the estate, which would require that stock be liquidated to meet that obligation. There's already a 40% inheritance tax. How do you think it works in the status quo?
      - NhanH 10y ago
        The difference is in the number. 40% means that I can realistically leverage my own share of the stock to get money and pay the tax. 100% means that I walk away and the government can figure out what to deal with the ownership.
        morgante 10y ago
        I don't know why you think it would be so hard for the government to deal with the ownership. There are plenty of people who would be interested in buying Facebook stock. Plenty of estates have to be liquidated to settle debts and taxes today. It's hardly unprecedented.
        NhanH 10y ago
        No it isn't precedented. Ownership of a company is a lot different than real estates or other physical wealth. It would take years to sell off $50 billion of stocks without crashing the company. Even if they are patience and manage to do that, alot of people, myself included, would have trouble with the government being in de-facto control of the company. If you dismissed either of the two reasons above, I guess I don't see a point in continuing the discussion.
stickfigure 10y ago
As mentioned earlier, you're going to have to completely ban (ie tax 100%) gift-giving too. Or any sale of property that government auditors haven't determined is completely equitable. A trustee would have to be appointed immediately upon diagnosis of terminal disease - someone might "give away the farm" so to speak. I don't want to live in your world.
- morgante 10y ago
  Yes, we would have to tax cumulative gifts aggressively as well. To deal with things like real estate gifts, we could force the recipient to pay taxes on the difference between the grand list price and the purchase price. I don't particularly like living in a world where my hard work is confiscated at a high rate while someone who just has the good fortune of wealthy parents can receive millions tax free.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    And you would also get to tax charity just as heavily. Because charity is all about giving gifts. I have no interest in living in your dream world of justice. As it would have been a totalitarian nightmare where everybody would be worse off.
    - morgante 10y ago
      Ideally charities should benefit people besides your progeny. I really don't understand why you're so vehemently protective of inherited wealth. Do you think it's abhorrent that Bill Gates is voluntarily donating most of his wealth to charity instead of leaving it to his children? Why do you think an inheritance tax is "totalitarian?" At least, why is it any worse than income taxes?
      - JanezStupar 10y ago
        You are being disingenuous when comparing "willfully donating" and 100% inheritance tax. I don't care what people do with their property out of their own free will. I do care when people are trying to instate authoritarian totalitarian governments. I oppose inheritance tax - as that inheritance has already been taxed at least once. I have plenty of good solid arguments on my side. And I would advise you to put a bit more thinking into your ideas.
RangerScience 10y ago
> Non-rich... Right. Like I mean, it's more complicated than a straight 100%. For example: What if I transfer my wealth to my family BEFORE my death? What if I set up a trust to manage properties so that my descendants don't own it, but benefit from it? (What if those properties produce their own cash-flow, which goes to my descendants, but they still don't own the property?). Let's take another example. Let's take Cliff's Variety store in the Haight. Do you think it's worth more than $100k? Do you think they bought/built it for <$100? (hint: no, it's been around in one form or another since before WWII). It's been in that family for generations; it's still in that family. Should it stay in that family? If the current owners die suddenly, before they can transfer ownership, what should happen? What if my parent owns a company, and I work for that company adding substantial value - like, say, Dr Bronner's soap company? How much of that company's value do I deserve as inheritance, or by ownership, given my contribution? People live a long time now. I don't have to have the millions of dollars to make you compete for opportunities against my with the benefit of that. Parents (and grandparents, and reasonably, great-great-grand parents) can pay for my education. Or buy me houses. Or not buy me houses - buy themselves houses - and then let me stay there; and this problems is just going to get worse as longevity increases.

collyw 10y ago

Basically we need to make a choice between inheritance and meritocracy, as the two are at odds with each other. Personally I would choose meritocracy (even though I will likely end up above average through inheritance eventually).