3 ms·
To whom should rich people be able to leave their fortunes, if not to their children? Or should it just be seized by the government when they die?
by throwawayboise 5y ago
To whom should rich people be able to leave their fortunes, if not to their children? Or should it just be seized by the government when they die?
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago>Or should it just be seized by the government when they die? Yes, pretty much.
- fakedang 5y agoWe had a country that pretty much effectively ran on that principle. The Soviet Union.
- pstuart 5y agoWait, don't you mean the United States? Between 1941 and 1976 the estate tax was 77%. That period of history for many would be considered "the good old days."
- overgard 5y agoNot really, there's a difference between limiting inheritance (which is mostly unearned) vs limiting profiting on your own ingenuity.
- Analemma_ 5y agoThat is not even remotely the principle the Soviet Union ran on. Stop using the USSR to mean “thing I don’t like”.
- ZeroGravitas 5y agoOne serious suggestion is a limited amount of gifts to be given over a lifetime tax free. Once youve used up that amount, the person/corporation recieving the money gets taxed on it. This is in effect "the government taking all your money when you die" but in a form that might be less susceptible to propaganda. Im sure there would ve interesting wotkaroubds as usual.
- overgard 5y ago> Or should it just be seized by the government when they die? Probably. Use it to fund infrastructure and social programs. The person gets to enjoy the wealth they created in their lifetime, and then society gets to enjoy the wealth once they're gone.