5 ms·

It wouldn't necessarily leave dependents destitute. Adult children generally can make their own living.

pc86 9y ago
Someone with Down Syndrome is (un)lucky enough in your scenario to have wealthy parents and they're forced to go from a comfortable life to state housing? Someone's estate is theirs to do with what they see fit, including after their death. It is, after all, their property. If they want to donate it to the state or fund a foundation/non-profit, or give it all to their children, that is their right. The state should not take ownership of my home, my bank accounts, and my assets simply because I die.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  The word 'necessairly' is not unimportant in what I wrote. Over the centuries many societies and cultures have formed various ideas about how to deal with inheritance. Presently in the U.S. inheritence is as you say it should be. It doesn't have to be this way and this way is not the only ethical or American way of dealing with inheritance. Indeed, Jefferson disagreed with what you wrote. Also, I presented no scenario and have given no indication on what my beliefs on the issue are. I just said that a 100% estate tax would not necessarily leave surviving family members destitute. This is not disputable.
  - pc86 9y ago
    I agree "necessarily" isn't unimportant in what you wrote. It's also a weasel word and can be used to make just about anything technically correct. It's not necessarily a bad idea to edit production live. It's not necessarily a bad idea to have JavaScript on the server. I agree that a 100% estate would not necessarily leave surviving family members destitute. However it absolute would leave some (another weasel word when you don't have data) family member completely without a means of support.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      The percentage of people who can not make a living for themselves is quite small. The number of people who can not make a living for themselves who have rich parents is quite small. My use of the word 'necessarily' was to highlight that we are talking about very small numbers. Indeed, it is disingenuous to bring up people with Down Syndrome who have wealthy parents into the conversation. It's such a small number of people. There are ways to help such people in a 100% estate tax society. There are ways to make legal exemptions based on extreme situations in a 100% estate tax society. To say people will necessarily be destitute in a 100% estate tax society is wrong. It is bad thinking and indicates a poor understanding of public policy and potential remedies. It is wrong to say that absolutely at least one person would be destitute in a 100% estate tax society. It could be the case that this is true but it doesn't have to be the case. One should strive to be accurate in how things are phrased.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- lovich 9y ago
  Ain't yours if you're dead
- EliRivers 9y ago
  "The state should not take ownership of my home, my bank accounts, and my assets simply because I die." This is your personal axiom; many others disagree, including myself. I think that if you want to give something to someone, you should have to actually give it to them. You should experience that loss. Holding onto everything until it is of absolutely no use whatsoever to you, and then insisting that the wishes of someone who doesn't exist anymore should continue to apply to those physical goods? I don't consider that the same as you choosing to give something to someone, and don't see why it should be indulged. "It is, after all, their property." No it isn't. Dead people don't have property. It was their property, and if they wanted to give it to someone, they should have done that while they were alive. There is a middle ground to be found here somewhere so that people don't give everything they own to their children, who promptly turn them out on the streets in an amusing but predictable turn of events, but the way estate taxes are going (i.e. ever more to the benefit of the very wealthy) is the wrong way.
  - icelancer 9y ago
    Say I'm 47, planning for retirement but haven't yet given my things to my relatively young kids. I am worth a few million. I am shot and killed in a random accident but I have not given my estate to my kids. I am a widow. Because I didn't "experience that loss," all of my wealth is now transferred to the state because I was randomly killed?
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      I think in a country as large and as complicated as modern societies one will encounter edge cases regardless of inheritance laws. If I walk down the road and find $1 million I owe tax. If I win the the lottery I owe tax. If I work for the $1 million I owe tax. But if someone dies and I'm their heir I don't owe tax. To me if you didn't do anything to earn the money you ought to pay more tax than someone who did earn the money. I don't advocate for a 100% estate tax but I be.ieve it should be much higher than it is in the U.S.
      - donretag 9y ago
groby_b 9y ago
A dependent is somebody who relies on somebody else for financial support[1]. So no, if the dependents aren't actually dependents, they won't be destitute. [1] Tax law specifies that as a gross annual income of $4,050. Which in itself is probably debatable, but is certainly well below "making your own living".
- yequalsx 9y ago
  i read dependent as child. Yes if they are true dependent you are correct. Remedies can be created in such cases and it isn't necessarily true that dependents in 100% estate tax societies have to be destitute. Policies and programs can be created put in place. Exemptions can be made too. Whatever the case, it is bad policy to base inheritance tax for everyone on the small possibility that we are discussing.

pc86 9y ago

Someone with Down Syndrome is (un)lucky enough in your scenario to have wealthy parents and they're forced to go from a comfortable life to state housing? Someone's estate is theirs to do with what they see fit, including after their death. It is, after all, their property. If they want to donate it to the state or fund a foundation/non-profit, or give it all to their children, that is their right. The state should not take ownership of my home, my bank accounts, and my assets simply because I die.

yequalsx 9y ago
The word 'necessairly' is not unimportant in what I wrote. Over the centuries many societies and cultures have formed various ideas about how to deal with inheritance. Presently in the U.S. inheritence is as you say it should be. It doesn't have to be this way and this way is not the only ethical or American way of dealing with inheritance. Indeed, Jefferson disagreed with what you wrote. Also, I presented no scenario and have given no indication on what my beliefs on the issue are. I just said that a 100% estate tax would not necessarily leave surviving family members destitute. This is not disputable.
- pc86 9y ago
  I agree "necessarily" isn't unimportant in what you wrote. It's also a weasel word and can be used to make just about anything technically correct. It's not necessarily a bad idea to edit production live. It's not necessarily a bad idea to have JavaScript on the server. I agree that a 100% estate would not necessarily leave surviving family members destitute. However it absolute would leave some (another weasel word when you don't have data) family member completely without a means of support.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    The percentage of people who can not make a living for themselves is quite small. The number of people who can not make a living for themselves who have rich parents is quite small. My use of the word 'necessarily' was to highlight that we are talking about very small numbers. Indeed, it is disingenuous to bring up people with Down Syndrome who have wealthy parents into the conversation. It's such a small number of people. There are ways to help such people in a 100% estate tax society. There are ways to make legal exemptions based on extreme situations in a 100% estate tax society. To say people will necessarily be destitute in a 100% estate tax society is wrong. It is bad thinking and indicates a poor understanding of public policy and potential remedies. It is wrong to say that absolutely at least one person would be destitute in a 100% estate tax society. It could be the case that this is true but it doesn't have to be the case. One should strive to be accurate in how things are phrased.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
lovich 9y ago
Ain't yours if you're dead
EliRivers 9y ago
"The state should not take ownership of my home, my bank accounts, and my assets simply because I die." This is your personal axiom; many others disagree, including myself. I think that if you want to give something to someone, you should have to actually give it to them. You should experience that loss. Holding onto everything until it is of absolutely no use whatsoever to you, and then insisting that the wishes of someone who doesn't exist anymore should continue to apply to those physical goods? I don't consider that the same as you choosing to give something to someone, and don't see why it should be indulged. "It is, after all, their property." No it isn't. Dead people don't have property. It was their property, and if they wanted to give it to someone, they should have done that while they were alive. There is a middle ground to be found here somewhere so that people don't give everything they own to their children, who promptly turn them out on the streets in an amusing but predictable turn of events, but the way estate taxes are going (i.e. ever more to the benefit of the very wealthy) is the wrong way.
- icelancer 9y ago
  Say I'm 47, planning for retirement but haven't yet given my things to my relatively young kids. I am worth a few million. I am shot and killed in a random accident but I have not given my estate to my kids. I am a widow. Because I didn't "experience that loss," all of my wealth is now transferred to the state because I was randomly killed?
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    I think in a country as large and as complicated as modern societies one will encounter edge cases regardless of inheritance laws. If I walk down the road and find $1 million I owe tax. If I win the the lottery I owe tax. If I work for the $1 million I owe tax. But if someone dies and I'm their heir I don't owe tax. To me if you didn't do anything to earn the money you ought to pay more tax than someone who did earn the money. I don't advocate for a 100% estate tax but I be.ieve it should be much higher than it is in the U.S.
    - donretag 9y ago

groby_b 9y ago

A dependent is somebody who relies on somebody else for financial support[1]. So no, if the dependents aren't actually dependents, they won't be destitute. [1] Tax law specifies that as a gross annual income of $4,050. Which in itself is probably debatable, but is certainly well below "making your own living".

yequalsx 9y ago
i read dependent as child. Yes if they are true dependent you are correct. Remedies can be created in such cases and it isn't necessarily true that dependents in 100% estate tax societies have to be destitute. Policies and programs can be created put in place. Exemptions can be made too. Whatever the case, it is bad policy to base inheritance tax for everyone on the small possibility that we are discussing.