6 ms·

> but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic. No, it's not idiotic. It's income to them they receive without

> but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic. No, it's not idiotic. It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. > I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their value?? Yes, and that's yours, not your children's. The only person you can give large sums of money to tax free is your spouse; to everyone else, that's new income and it should be taxed, and large sums should be taxed heavily because inherited wealth is anathema to democracy. You can't have a functioning democracy and allow capital accumulation to the elite in such large sums that their children become kings with the power to buy politicians and affect law without having the benefit of having worked for that money and really understanding what it means to not be wealthy. > On what basis and logical reason? To make my children "less lazy" by doing so?? No, to stop them from destroying society. > They can mind their own children - I will mind mine. You live in a community and it's not all about you and yours; try not thinking about yourself so much and look at the bigger picture. Inherited wealth is bad for society, earned wealth is good for society. You earned your money, keep it; your children should earn their own on their own.

gambiting 12y ago
>>It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. This literally does not make any sense. I paid tax on all those things. My children are using the benefits of my work, that is correct - but I paid my duties for the money I made. >> without having the benefit of having worked for that money and really understanding what it means to not be wealthy. So why don't we send everyone for a mandatory work in orphanages or homeless shelters for a couple months,if its about teaching people a lesson? Since when is it the governments job to make people " understand what it means to not be wealthy."? >>inherited wealth is anathema to democracy. So why don't we ban it altogether? Once you hit 18 years of age, you are given a government-built apartament, $1000 pocket money, and off you go, enjoy democracy. Meanwhile, if you die, all your possessions can go to the government who will make sure that your wealth is redistributed to the greatest benefit of the society. Sounds like the right kind of democracy to me.
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  Wow, talk about black-and-white thinking. Consider: There may be other alternatives that fall between the extremes of "My kids get all the free money I can give them!" and "The government should confiscate all possessions and give everyone a state-sponsored apartment."
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Anything in between doesn't make sense as it it completely arbitrary. Why 10%? Or 60%? Or 85%? If you support the notion that children should work for themselves, then don't let them inherit anything from their parents - in which case, the government has to provide at least a place to live in. If you don't support the notion of taxing inheritance(like I do) then you should support the idea of inheritance tax being 0. Again - no tax is being evaded here. A person who made that money/bought those things already paid the tax on them. The government got their share in this already.
    - ForHackernews 12y ago
      > Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax Ok, well, I think that's a ludicrous position to take, and your views on this topic are unreasonable. All taxes are "completely arbitrary" in some sense. They're the result of compromises, political and economic pressures, and expressions of the values of a society. I agree with the parent comment that estates in excess of some amount (maybe one or two million dollars, inflation-indexed) should be taxed at an extremely high rate to discourage the development of aristocratic dynasties.
    - gnaritas 12y ago
      > Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Then you need to mature your point of view because the world isn't so absurdly simple and black and white. No thinking person can look at this country (U.S.) today and say accumulated wealth isn't causing a whole host of problems. The wealth inequality in this country is bad and needs to be addressed. The rich are out of control.

gambiting 12y ago

>>It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. This literally does not make any sense. I paid tax on all those things. My children are using the benefits of my work, that is correct - but I paid my duties for the money I made. >> without having the benefit of having worked for that money and really understanding what it means to not be wealthy. So why don't we send everyone for a mandatory work in orphanages or homeless shelters for a couple months,if its about teaching people a lesson? Since when is it the governments job to make people " understand what it means to not be wealthy."? >>inherited wealth is anathema to democracy. So why don't we ban it altogether? Once you hit 18 years of age, you are given a government-built apartament, $1000 pocket money, and off you go, enjoy democracy. Meanwhile, if you die, all your possessions can go to the government who will make sure that your wealth is redistributed to the greatest benefit of the society. Sounds like the right kind of democracy to me.

ForHackernews 12y ago
Wow, talk about black-and-white thinking. Consider: There may be other alternatives that fall between the extremes of "My kids get all the free money I can give them!" and "The government should confiscate all possessions and give everyone a state-sponsored apartment."
- gambiting 12y ago
  Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Anything in between doesn't make sense as it it completely arbitrary. Why 10%? Or 60%? Or 85%? If you support the notion that children should work for themselves, then don't let them inherit anything from their parents - in which case, the government has to provide at least a place to live in. If you don't support the notion of taxing inheritance(like I do) then you should support the idea of inheritance tax being 0. Again - no tax is being evaded here. A person who made that money/bought those things already paid the tax on them. The government got their share in this already.
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    > Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax Ok, well, I think that's a ludicrous position to take, and your views on this topic are unreasonable. All taxes are "completely arbitrary" in some sense. They're the result of compromises, political and economic pressures, and expressions of the values of a society. I agree with the parent comment that estates in excess of some amount (maybe one or two million dollars, inflation-indexed) should be taxed at an extremely high rate to discourage the development of aristocratic dynasties.
  - gnaritas 12y ago
    > Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Then you need to mature your point of view because the world isn't so absurdly simple and black and white. No thinking person can look at this country (U.S.) today and say accumulated wealth isn't causing a whole host of problems. The wealth inequality in this country is bad and needs to be addressed. The rich are out of control.