4 ms·

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 inhe

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]

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]