6 ms·

- Trust fund babies are far more rare than people making ~$50k - Trust fund babies will not qualify for much government assistance It is a net good for the ec

- Trust fund babies are far more rare than people making ~$50k - Trust fund babies will not qualify for much government assistance It is a net good for the economy and the individual if a person who is capable of making ~$50k does so within the workforce, rather than avoid improving their own life in order to qualify for assistance. This is not a moralization of the use of government assistance, it is a criticism of the incentive structures within those assistance programs.

rhelz 3y ago
> It is a net good for the economy [for individuals to improve their lives] I agree. If you've just inherited $25 million, it would still be better for you and for society for you to get a job--even a job paying $50k a year if that is all you could get. But...are you going to be incentivized to do so? If you care about somebody not wanting to make $50k because they'd lose a $10k subsidy, how much MORE should you care about a $25 million subsidy disincentivizing somebody to improve themselves and contribute to society as a productive citizen. > Trust fund babies are far more rare than people making ~$50k That just means that imposing enough inheritance tax to incentivize them to work wouldn't effect enough people to have a negative effect on the economy. And lets not forget, the person being taxed is dead. They will feel absolutely no ill effects from the tax. Its all upside. Not Trolling here. I advocate a 100% inheritance tax, the proceeds of which should be dedicated to education, nutrition, and housing for the next generation, to achieve the following goal: Equal ability should be given equal opportunity to succeed. And just giving free money to one kid and nothing to another is the absolute diametrical opposite of that.
- jbboehr 3y ago
  > I advocate a 100% inheritance tax What sort of nonsense half-measure is this? I propose a 100% tax on parent-child resource transfers starting from the moment of birth! Although, you might just cut out the middleman, seize the children, and raise them in a state-run "Nurturing Center."
  - _carbyau_ 3y ago
    I enjoy a gaming science fiction universe with such "Clanners". Fun stories do not necessarily make for fun real life experiences I imagine.
  - klyrs 3y ago
    > seize the children, and raise them in a state-run "Nurturing Center." I don't know a parent who hasn't fantasized about this. I hadn't considered the inheritance angle; my kid's young yet.
    - jbboehr 3y ago
      Don't worry, we will send them a bill.
- temphypercube 3y ago
  Why would anyone with above-median ability to acquire resources stay in such a country
  - rhelz 3y ago
    Why would anybody with above-median ability to acquire resources NOT want to live in a society where equal ability always means equal opportunity??
- philomath_mn 3y ago
  - The government created an incentive structure keeping people on government benefits from being productive members of the economy. It should fix that. - There is still a question of scale: the trust-fund-baby population is several orders of magnitude smaller than the makes-50k population > I advocate a 100% inheritance tax Well then I don't think there is much common ground between us :) A 100% inheritance tax severely dis-incentivizes savings and investment, cutting off capital to the businesses that have created so much value over the last century.
  - rhelz 3y ago
    > A 100% inheritance tax severely dis-incentivizes savings Sure, but how much value have we lost because talented kids didn't get the education they needed? How much are we being harmed right now because a mediocre, but wealthy person is holding an office which could be better done by somebody who was excluded through no fault of their own//
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      The people with that kind of money don't have borders restricting them. Anyway you're wasting your time because these people are lawmakers.
      - rhelz 3y ago
        > The people with that kind of money don't have borders restricting them. Anybody who would leave a country which gave them so much--just so they could take EVEN MORE from it--is somebody I don't want voting in my elections anyways. Good Riddance. Either grab an oar and start rowing with the rest of us, or get off the boat. > Anyway you're wasting your time No doubt I am. But when people come on here and complain about somebody making $40k a year getting a subsidy for their health care, it's fair to hold them to their own standard. You are against handouts, I get it. Well what about that handout you got from your parents when they kicked off, on set up that trust fund? You want people to be incentivized to contribute to society, I get it. Well, if giving somebody $10k to subsidize their health care is a bad incentive, what about giving somebody $25 million? If it's bad for people to just be arbitrarily handed free money, so be it. Let everybody start from exactly the same starting line, and let them go as fast and as far as their talents can take them. But they don't get to just give free money to people, even their kids, because apparently, that's bad.

rhelz 3y ago

> It is a net good for the economy [for individuals to improve their lives] I agree. If you've just inherited $25 million, it would still be better for you and for society for you to get a job--even a job paying $50k a year if that is all you could get. But...are you going to be incentivized to do so? If you care about somebody not wanting to make $50k because they'd lose a $10k subsidy, how much MORE should you care about a $25 million subsidy disincentivizing somebody to improve themselves and contribute to society as a productive citizen. > Trust fund babies are far more rare than people making ~$50k That just means that imposing enough inheritance tax to incentivize them to work wouldn't effect enough people to have a negative effect on the economy. And lets not forget, the person being taxed is dead. They will feel absolutely no ill effects from the tax. Its all upside. Not Trolling here. I advocate a 100% inheritance tax, the proceeds of which should be dedicated to education, nutrition, and housing for the next generation, to achieve the following goal: Equal ability should be given equal opportunity to succeed. And just giving free money to one kid and nothing to another is the absolute diametrical opposite of that.

jbboehr 3y ago
> I advocate a 100% inheritance tax What sort of nonsense half-measure is this? I propose a 100% tax on parent-child resource transfers starting from the moment of birth! Although, you might just cut out the middleman, seize the children, and raise them in a state-run "Nurturing Center."
- _carbyau_ 3y ago
  I enjoy a gaming science fiction universe with such "Clanners". Fun stories do not necessarily make for fun real life experiences I imagine.
- klyrs 3y ago
  > seize the children, and raise them in a state-run "Nurturing Center." I don't know a parent who hasn't fantasized about this. I hadn't considered the inheritance angle; my kid's young yet.
  - jbboehr 3y ago
    Don't worry, we will send them a bill.
temphypercube 3y ago
Why would anyone with above-median ability to acquire resources stay in such a country
- rhelz 3y ago
  Why would anybody with above-median ability to acquire resources NOT want to live in a society where equal ability always means equal opportunity??
philomath_mn 3y ago
- The government created an incentive structure keeping people on government benefits from being productive members of the economy. It should fix that. - There is still a question of scale: the trust-fund-baby population is several orders of magnitude smaller than the makes-50k population > I advocate a 100% inheritance tax Well then I don't think there is much common ground between us :) A 100% inheritance tax severely dis-incentivizes savings and investment, cutting off capital to the businesses that have created so much value over the last century.
- rhelz 3y ago
  > A 100% inheritance tax severely dis-incentivizes savings Sure, but how much value have we lost because talented kids didn't get the education they needed? How much are we being harmed right now because a mediocre, but wealthy person is holding an office which could be better done by somebody who was excluded through no fault of their own//
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    The people with that kind of money don't have borders restricting them. Anyway you're wasting your time because these people are lawmakers.
    - rhelz 3y ago
      > The people with that kind of money don't have borders restricting them. Anybody who would leave a country which gave them so much--just so they could take EVEN MORE from it--is somebody I don't want voting in my elections anyways. Good Riddance. Either grab an oar and start rowing with the rest of us, or get off the boat. > Anyway you're wasting your time No doubt I am. But when people come on here and complain about somebody making $40k a year getting a subsidy for their health care, it's fair to hold them to their own standard. You are against handouts, I get it. Well what about that handout you got from your parents when they kicked off, on set up that trust fund? You want people to be incentivized to contribute to society, I get it. Well, if giving somebody $10k to subsidize their health care is a bad incentive, what about giving somebody $25 million? If it's bad for people to just be arbitrarily handed free money, so be it. Let everybody start from exactly the same starting line, and let them go as fast and as far as their talents can take them. But they don't get to just give free money to people, even their kids, because apparently, that's bad.