6 ms·
>How much should [bm]illionaires be allowed to leave to their children? As much as they fucking want. The rationale for taxation is the idea that you owe your
by x220 8y ago
>How much should [bm]illionaires be allowed to leave to their children?
As much as they fucking want. The rationale for taxation is the idea that you owe your government money by using up public resources (such as national defense, public works, emergency response, etc.). That's why you get taxed for activity such as buying stuff and earning a living. Dying doesn't use up the government's resources. You don't need the government's protection and assistance to die without interference.
Just lay your motives naked and talk about expropriating property from the rich without compensation. That's what estate taxes are, just with extra steps.
- magpi3 8y ago> The rationale for taxation is the idea that you owe your government money by using up public resources (such as national defense, public works, emergency response, etc.). If this were the case, then everyone would be taxed equally. People with more money have always been taxed more (at least in the U.S).
- x220 8y agoThat's because the rich use up infrastructure and protection (they have more stuff worth stealing) more than they would if they were poor. The poor also get a pass because they can't easily pay regular tax rates and we want to lift them out of poverty so we can tax them more once they are (hopefully) in the middle class.
- Simon_says 8y agoWhen you're a socialist, you don't believe people have any fundamental right to private property. It may be allowed in a socialist system as a means to an end in order to motivate people to work and create, but don't any funny ideas about owning it.
- ionised 8y ago> When you're a socialist, you don't believe people have any fundamental right to private property. Wrong. There is nothing in socialism that prohibits you from owning things.
- x220 8y ago>Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. I'm gonna need some help figuring out how "means of production, distribution, and exchange" can't be expanded to include almost all private property.
- ionised 8y agobecause, like most people on here, you talk about socialism without knowing the first thing about it, like an idealogue. If you're the product of the US education system then I can't really blame you. The the meanings of well-established political terms are completely warped into something else over there.
- Simon_says 8y agoIs there a managably-concise introduction to these concepts you would recommend?
- x220 8y agoWhen you can't attack the idea, just attack the person.
- pluma 8y agoIf you want to continue mocking socialism you should learn the difference between private property and personal property. The commies aren't going to deprivatise your toothbrush. EDIT: Since HN rate limits me again, I'll just reply here: The difference between private and personal property isn't about the thing so much as the use and intent. If you own a toothbrush for personal use, that's different from owning a toothbrush factory for producing toothbrushes you sell for money.
- Simon_says 8y agoWould knowing that distinction have changed my point?
- nootropicat 8y agoThe socialist definition is unsound. A toothbrush is a means of production - it produces clean teeth using human labor as input. The only difference compared to a big machine in a factory is scale, which is a completely arbitrary metric to define on and in many cases impossible to quantify. Only land and natural resources can be treated as something different in a sensible way, but that's explored in georgism, geolibertarianism and similar philosophies, not socialism.