6 ms·

You haven't quite thought this out. Young parents die too, and children need to be provided for.

RodericDay 12y ago
If you believe in equality of opportunity, parents should not be the main source of provision for children. Every time someone mentions "who will provide for your children if you don't leave an inheritance behind?" I immediately have to ask, "what about all the children whose parents are not able to leave them an inheritance (ie: most of them)?" It seems that it is you who have not really thought it out. Here's Adam Smith on the topic btw: > "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." http://budiansky.blogspot.ca/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jefferson-and-other.html http://budiansky.blogspot.ca/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jeffe...
- totalrobe 12y ago
  Equality of Opportunity as defined legally has nothing to do with taking care of the children. 1) n. a right supposedly guaranteed by both federal and many state laws against any discrimination in employment, education, housing or credit rights due to a person's race, color, sex (or sometimes sexual orientation), religion, national origin, age or handicap. Most human cultures are built on the nuclear family.. especially when it comes to raising children. I'm not sure what system you propose to replace that.. Adam Smith lived in the clouds. We live in a civilization where we have to consider actual use cases, transitions, exceptions, etc.
  - RodericDay 12y ago
    >> Most human cultures are built on the nuclear family >> Adam Smith lived in the clouds >> Family structures of one married couple and their children were present in Western Europe and New England in the 17th century, influenced by church and theocratic governments.[5] With the emergence of proto-industrialization and early capitalism, the nuclear family became a financially viable social unit.[6] The term nuclear family first appeared in the early twentieth century. [...] The concept that a narrowly defined nuclear family is central to stability in modern society has been promoted by familialists who are social conservatives in the United States, and has been challenged as historically and sociologically inadequate to describe the complexity of actual family relations.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family Is this some kind of joke?
    - totalrobe 12y ago
      What are you getting at? If you have some amazing Utopian plan where everyone has the same opportunities and equal chance to succeed at life regardless of which backwater hellhole they grow up in, please share.
pdkl95 12y ago
I seriously doubt that there are a lot of young parents that are leaving more than $5,430,000[1]. Below that amount, it usually isn't necessary[2] to even file an estate tax return. The idea that the estate tax ever applies to most people has been very successful propaganda for a long time. The estate tax should absolutely be very high, because the people leaving large amounts of wealth are generally the only people the tax would affect. [1] for parents dying in 2015; future years will probably have a higher limit ( http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Estate-Tax http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ... ) [2] for actual legal advice, see a proper tax lawyer
rhino369 12y ago
It is trivial to create exceptions to fix this. An up to 1-2 million dollar trust that reverts to the state after the minor turns 22 for example.

If you believe in equality of opportunity, parents should not be the main source of provision for children. Every time someone mentions "who will provide for your children if you don't leave an inheritance behind?" I immediately have to ask, "what about all the children whose parents are not able to leave them an inheritance (ie: most of them)?" It seems that it is you who have not really thought it out. Here's Adam Smith on the topic btw: > "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." http://budiansky.blogspot.ca/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jefferson-and-other.html http://budiansky.blogspot.ca/2010/10/adam-smith-thomas-jeffe...

totalrobe 12y ago
Equality of Opportunity as defined legally has nothing to do with taking care of the children. 1) n. a right supposedly guaranteed by both federal and many state laws against any discrimination in employment, education, housing or credit rights due to a person's race, color, sex (or sometimes sexual orientation), religion, national origin, age or handicap. Most human cultures are built on the nuclear family.. especially when it comes to raising children. I'm not sure what system you propose to replace that.. Adam Smith lived in the clouds. We live in a civilization where we have to consider actual use cases, transitions, exceptions, etc.
- RodericDay 12y ago
  >> Most human cultures are built on the nuclear family >> Adam Smith lived in the clouds >> Family structures of one married couple and their children were present in Western Europe and New England in the 17th century, influenced by church and theocratic governments.[5] With the emergence of proto-industrialization and early capitalism, the nuclear family became a financially viable social unit.[6] The term nuclear family first appeared in the early twentieth century. [...] The concept that a narrowly defined nuclear family is central to stability in modern society has been promoted by familialists who are social conservatives in the United States, and has been challenged as historically and sociologically inadequate to describe the complexity of actual family relations.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family Is this some kind of joke?
  - totalrobe 12y ago
    What are you getting at? If you have some amazing Utopian plan where everyone has the same opportunities and equal chance to succeed at life regardless of which backwater hellhole they grow up in, please share.

pdkl95 12y ago

I seriously doubt that there are a lot of young parents that are leaving more than $5,430,000[1]. Below that amount, it usually isn't necessary[2] to even file an estate tax return. The idea that the estate tax ever applies to most people has been very successful propaganda for a long time. The estate tax should absolutely be very high, because the people leaving large amounts of wealth are generally the only people the tax would affect. [1] for parents dying in 2015; future years will probably have a higher limit ( http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Estate-Tax http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ... ) [2] for actual legal advice, see a proper tax lawyer

rhino369 12y ago

It is trivial to create exceptions to fix this. An up to 1-2 million dollar trust that reverts to the state after the minor turns 22 for example.