4 ms·

That's cool, but unless we're talking about some sort of progressive inheritance tax, it's not just about filthy rich people, but all of us. For example, if I

by ttt0 5y ago

That's cool, but unless we're talking about some sort of progressive inheritance tax, it's not just about filthy rich people, but all of us. For example, if I die, why shouldn't I be able to pass my house onto my children? Real estate is really goddamn expensive, so do you expect me to force my children into debt slavery just so they can afford a decent place to live?

alok-g 5y ago
>> unless we're talking about some sort of progressive inheritance tax, it's not just about filthy rich people, but all of us. Agreed. It cannot be abrupt. There needs to be gradations and caveats*. >> why shouldn't I be able to pass my house onto my children That should be reduced for equalizing opportunity for those children who are born without such a previledge. Yes, I agree we love our own children more, naturally. That's a result of biological evolution. However, social policies are inherently by nature aimed at balancing the good of individuals with the good of the society overall. (For sake of example, lairs lie as they reap some advantages out of doing so. However, we consider lying bad as it takes the society farther away from the optimal point of operation.) We can't also take away what nature built, so self-interest or the love for children cannot be taken off completely. And that's how "progressive inheritance tax" would come back into the picture. * Sample caveat: If a child develops some illness, a parent should be able to spend more on her/him. There are again different means to handle this too -- the two extremes being all children being treated equal irrespective of who the parents are, children of God, one may say :-), and then insurance or government funds handle such caveats. The other extreme is where parents solely help the children. The answer I believe lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
- ttt0 5y ago
  > That should be reduced for equalizing opportunity for those children who are born without such a previledge. So should I be able to pass my house to my children or should it be taken away from them simply because they have a "privilege"? Because there would be zero fairness in doing that. > However, social policies are inherently by nature aimed at balancing the good of individuals with the good of the society overall. I understand that. The problem is that I don't see how this particular social policy would be a positive to society. As GP pointed out, "you're effectively telling people to spend all their money on frivolous luxury items because they can't pass it on to their children anyway." I guess as long as you don't take my stuff away I shouldn't have any reason to be against it, but as this policy fails miserably and you realize that it didn't solve all of our problems, you're going to come after me as well, so my final answer is no, I'm against it.
  - alok-g 5y ago
    I understand the difficulty already. This is tricky, will involve caveats, and unless well-thought though, it would have easy means for people to evade. This certainly isn't something that I could frame by myself. :-) However, I feel that this is often rejected too soon. :-) Help devise what could be a better policy that tries to equalizes the opportunity to all newborns. I think such a policy could have exponential impacts on the society.
    - ttt0 5y ago
      It's rejected, partly because it's frankly offensive for a lot of people. You have no idea how much work, sweat and blood it took and how many sacrifices were made by my ancestors, a poor farmer family, so we can have this so-called privilege of being in the middle class. Taking it away and keeping everyone down is like a spit in their face. I guess it's not so bad if it's a progressive tax, but still.
      - alok-g 5y ago
        I understand that. Such a proposal cannot be introduced on a given day and applied to all. It can only be a slow implementation done over say two generations. People would need to see it coming, take that into their understanding and calculations as they move towards it. In other words, grandfather clause would need to be there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

by ttt0 5y ago

alok-g 5y ago

>> unless we're talking about some sort of progressive inheritance tax, it's not just about filthy rich people, but all of us. Agreed. It cannot be abrupt. There needs to be gradations and caveats*. >> why shouldn't I be able to pass my house onto my children That should be reduced for equalizing opportunity for those children who are born without such a previledge. Yes, I agree we love our own children more, naturally. That's a result of biological evolution. However, social policies are inherently by nature aimed at balancing the good of individuals with the good of the society overall. (For sake of example, lairs lie as they reap some advantages out of doing so. However, we consider lying bad as it takes the society farther away from the optimal point of operation.) We can't also take away what nature built, so self-interest or the love for children cannot be taken off completely. And that's how "progressive inheritance tax" would come back into the picture. * Sample caveat: If a child develops some illness, a parent should be able to spend more on her/him. There are again different means to handle this too -- the two extremes being all children being treated equal irrespective of who the parents are, children of God, one may say :-), and then insurance or government funds handle such caveats. The other extreme is where parents solely help the children. The answer I believe lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

ttt0 5y ago
> That should be reduced for equalizing opportunity for those children who are born without such a previledge. So should I be able to pass my house to my children or should it be taken away from them simply because they have a "privilege"? Because there would be zero fairness in doing that. > However, social policies are inherently by nature aimed at balancing the good of individuals with the good of the society overall. I understand that. The problem is that I don't see how this particular social policy would be a positive to society. As GP pointed out, "you're effectively telling people to spend all their money on frivolous luxury items because they can't pass it on to their children anyway." I guess as long as you don't take my stuff away I shouldn't have any reason to be against it, but as this policy fails miserably and you realize that it didn't solve all of our problems, you're going to come after me as well, so my final answer is no, I'm against it.
- alok-g 5y ago
  I understand the difficulty already. This is tricky, will involve caveats, and unless well-thought though, it would have easy means for people to evade. This certainly isn't something that I could frame by myself. :-) However, I feel that this is often rejected too soon. :-) Help devise what could be a better policy that tries to equalizes the opportunity to all newborns. I think such a policy could have exponential impacts on the society.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    It's rejected, partly because it's frankly offensive for a lot of people. You have no idea how much work, sweat and blood it took and how many sacrifices were made by my ancestors, a poor farmer family, so we can have this so-called privilege of being in the middle class. Taking it away and keeping everyone down is like a spit in their face. I guess it's not so bad if it's a progressive tax, but still.
    - alok-g 5y ago
      I understand that. Such a proposal cannot be introduced on a given day and applied to all. It can only be a slow implementation done over say two generations. People would need to see it coming, take that into their understanding and calculations as they move towards it. In other words, grandfather clause would need to be there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause