4 ms·

People can choose to work or not. I just don't want to be stuck with the consequences of it. The word parasite means that they are increasing their well-being b

People can choose to work or not. I just don't want to be stuck with the consequences of it. The word parasite means that they are increasing their well-being by reducing another individual's well-being. The number of children who are able to live off of their parents / grandparents money and don't work at all is so finite that it isn't really worth mentioning. Alongside that, they are a net gain for the economy. Think about it - you have vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases, and no impact to the labor force by them working. I may not agree with their decision to not work, but I really couldn't care less whether they do what I agree or not. Also, a 100% estate tax would do one of two things: 1) create a disincentive for wealth accumulation as their is nothing to do with it afterwards thereby reducing their overall output 2) force those people into different investment vehicles where they can pass their wealth to their children as a "gift" prior to their passing. That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though. For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down, or the funds that could have gone to their grandchildren's college is now funneled into the government, or other similar act of smallish amount of funds being siphoned off by the federal government.

ubernostrum 9y ago
So you've just advocated literal trickle-down economics here. You are aware of the historical/empirical problems with it, yes?
- garrettdc 9y ago
  Not trickle down, just that 1) there is a difference in economic impact between those who choose not to work and live off of inheritance vs. those who choose not to work and live off of government assistance, and 2) 100% estate tax has no relation to UBI.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    The stated objection was that if people don't have to work, they'll choose not to. If that's perceived as a problem, we already have that happening right now and aren't doing anything about it -- a complete confiscatory estate tax would solve it, though!
rbanffy 9y ago
> vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases Which feed people in remote countries minimum wage at best and keeps what looks like slavery at worst while it generates handsome profits for others who brought in very little value. > create a disincentive for wealth accumulation Which is actually a great thing: all that money will hit the economy much sooner. > force those people into different investment vehicles Like giving their offspring an education that'll allow them to pursue well paid positions. Gifts are also taxed and an exponential tax on their market value would be a smart thing. Also, they can be sure their children, no matter how deplorable, won't starve. > That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though So these people who make insane amounts of money while pressuring down compensation for the rest of society will bear most of the burden. Seems only fair. Also, keep in mind these people are far too powerful now to freely give up their advantages. These ideas have the potential of getting very, very ugly.
filoeleven 9y ago
> For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down Regular people won't be affected, only a fraction of the richest 1%: > a maximum amount, varying year by year, can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes:[2] $5,340,000 for estates of persons dying in 2014[3] and 2015,[4] $5,450,000 (effectively $10.90 million per married couple) for estates of persons dying in 2016.[5] Because of these exemptions, only the largest 0.2% of estates in the U.S. will pay the tax.[6]

ubernostrum 9y ago

So you've just advocated literal trickle-down economics here. You are aware of the historical/empirical problems with it, yes?

garrettdc 9y ago
Not trickle down, just that 1) there is a difference in economic impact between those who choose not to work and live off of inheritance vs. those who choose not to work and live off of government assistance, and 2) 100% estate tax has no relation to UBI.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The stated objection was that if people don't have to work, they'll choose not to. If that's perceived as a problem, we already have that happening right now and aren't doing anything about it -- a complete confiscatory estate tax would solve it, though!

rbanffy 9y ago

> vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases Which feed people in remote countries minimum wage at best and keeps what looks like slavery at worst while it generates handsome profits for others who brought in very little value. > create a disincentive for wealth accumulation Which is actually a great thing: all that money will hit the economy much sooner. > force those people into different investment vehicles Like giving their offspring an education that'll allow them to pursue well paid positions. Gifts are also taxed and an exponential tax on their market value would be a smart thing. Also, they can be sure their children, no matter how deplorable, won't starve. > That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though So these people who make insane amounts of money while pressuring down compensation for the rest of society will bear most of the burden. Seems only fair. Also, keep in mind these people are far too powerful now to freely give up their advantages. These ideas have the potential of getting very, very ugly.

filoeleven 9y ago

> For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down Regular people won't be affected, only a fraction of the richest 1%: > a maximum amount, varying year by year, can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes:[2] $5,340,000 for estates of persons dying in 2014[3] and 2015,[4] $5,450,000 (effectively $10.90 million per married couple) for estates of persons dying in 2016.[5] Because of these exemptions, only the largest 0.2% of estates in the U.S. will pay the tax.[6]