I don't see any threads discussing what I think is an important difference between Capitalism and Socialism, namely Inheritance.
I don't see any moral reason why children deserve to Inherit the money that there parents made. Is there an economic reason I'm missing?
There are enough practical reasons, at least. It encourages people to work hard now to know that their children will be better off than them.
>>1
You and I are so different, it's like we are on from different solar systems. Seriously.
Stupid question, stupid thread. So if your parents would be rich (or at least doing well) you wouldn't want to inherit money from them?
>>5
And after I use thier money to buy my own island, I will beat you with a pipe and sodomize your children, because that is what I want to do.
>>5
I may want to, but why do I deserve to, any more than I deserve free money in general?
If the money doesn't go to family, then it goes to the state. Work hard, accumulate money, then give it to the state. Wonderful idea.
You aren't giving money to the state. You aren't giving money to anyone, because you are no more. You have ceased to be.
Also, "the state" doesn't take that money and put it in a big pile somewhere. They use it to make life better for everyone. This is the theory of taxes in most modern societies.
Also, >>1 asked for an economic reason why inhertance should be allowed. You gave the reason "but I wanna!", which isn't exactly economic. Can you give an answer to >>1's question?
>>1
There isn't much of a reason not to keep it as it is. No inheritance can be legislated but it's impossible to implement. How are you going to stop parents from giving things to their children without denying them the ability to raise them up as normal people?
I think Marx's idea of a 100% inheritence tax is a terrible idea for just the whole demotivational aspect, but some inheritence tax is necessary to prevent aristocracy since wealth is power. An inheritence tax is necessary to push us towards meritocracy where more wealth is generally only gotten for harder work and greater contribution.
If we ever do abolish the inheritance tax, we should call the bill "The Paris Hilton Empowerment Act."
Raising children and inheritence don't seem all that related to me. Please expand on this.
You can give your stuff to your kids before you die. Inheritance problem solved.
>>16
Limit how much stuff you can give to your kids before you die. Inheritance problem problem solved.
>>11
So what. His family is still alive. His family could be financiallyl dependant on him. If he doesn't write a will, in your world the government would just take all his money and land. Imagine this: a bunch of govt. officials telling someone that he has to leave his house because your father didn't write his will. The govt. is the owner of the house now. I guess, in your world, the govt. gets the house even if the father did write his will.
>>18
That’s not an argument against the elimination of inheritance; it’s an argument against taxes in general; and an incoherent one at that.
Hint: The government doesn't take your capital and burn it. Those leaving behind more assets than the mean average (therefore well under 50% of the population) would have the fraction of their estate beyond the average distributed among those estates that are below the average, such that each person received an equal inheritance.
How are you going to do that without turning over the social order and make everyone a communist?
>>21 again
I forgot to say what you described is still inheritance
I think >>14 has it, people will be motivated to work harder if their wealth goes to their children.
>>23
there are lots of things that motivate people, that doesn't mean they are a good idea.
The economic reason is that we don't want to be welfare or worse communists. This is a moral reason too; history shows how oppressive communism is.
> The economic reason is that we don't want to be welfare or worse communists.
This is a personal and emotional reason. Try again.
OK how about this.
Inheritance is income. No inheritance (or all assets go to government) is effectively 100% tax. You don't tax anything 100% and if I have to say why then you need to go study the basics.
> in·come (ĭn'kŭm')
> n.
>
> 1. The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.
Doesn't sound like inheritance to me.
Ok. I think all the money you pay to the government should be paid to me instead. That's income, but the government takes all of it, thus it is 100% tax, thus BAD!
There is no good moral reason, it's just a lot more convenient.
>>30
A liberal goes to college and gets B.S. in math or science.
A conservative goes to college and gets a B.F.A. in... Something else... I think it starts with an "E".
>>32
lol at you if you think there are so many liberals in math and science.
>>36
I'm guessing your from 4chan. Please don't make troll posts, or as it is said in your language, STFU.
Why do children inherit the money of their parents? First of all, those who make the money deserve to decide where it finally ends up. It was THEIRS in life, and their final wishes (if they had any) should be respected completely. Second of all, as mentioned, people want to inherit their money, and parents want to give it. It is only natural that laws reflect these desires.
Someone mentioned that a tax would help the people in general. To be frank, why should one give a fuck about some blood-sucking tick living on welfare, or even a legitimately poor person? One has a moral right to send what was theirs where they want to, to people whom they actually care for.
So what is a good reason for 100% inheritance tax that cannot be compared to 100% tax on income?
Because you did no direct work for the inheritance, unlike your normal income?
>>44
It could be considered income. Isn't income supposed to be just transfer of moneys, financial gain?
A 100% estate tax is not a 100% income tax. Its a 100% tax on a fraction of your income, a fraction that you don't deserve.
The government no more "deserves" the money than the dead person's family.
>>47
The government is of, for, and by the people. Troll harder.
Semantics. It should be pretty obvious that normal income and inheritance are very different things, and even if you stretch the meaning of the word "income" to contain both, that changes nothing.
If you want to go that way, nobody deserves anything. So we can't use that as an argument either way. That leaves other arguments, such as economic ones, which people are pretty much failing to produce.
50GET
damn
LOL 100% tax IS the economic reason. You just don't tax 100% cos the government will get nothing from the tax since people will just blow all the money before they die or find a loophole (ie they don't actually 'own' the stuff).
hey guys, do banks need to pay taxes when money is transferred from one person to another? serious question.
> people will just blow all the money before they die
That's a remarkably good way to get the money back in circulation.
The average man cares not one fuck for the government, nor the complete strangers it protects. The government did not earn the money in question, and thus has no right to determine where it should go upon its maker's death.
> nor the complete strangers it protects.
Not in my back yard, amirite? Somehow it's okay to benefit from shared wealth when it benefits you, but if it benefits others...
It seems to me that having all the money reenter the economy would do wonders. It would ensure that people work for wealth they desire, promote a more egalitarian society, and promote investment in the individual.
> The government did not earn the money in question,
What if the government represents the people? Someone wealthy is wealthy because of society, not despite it.
> and thus has no right to determine where it should go upon its maker's death.
Why not?
Also, see >>12.
I think parents should be allowed to provide a future for their children. Creating a legacy is a part of societal evolution. The strongest/smartest people will become successful, and the weakest members of society will starve and die. The supirior people should be able to pass on their success to their inherently supirior children.
People should be free to give people any money they want, whether it is economical or not.
Overpopulation is the largest benefactor to poverty in the world.
>>62
Eugenics does not have to be inhumane, institutions can be developped where people can go to have procedures done so their children will be healthy and intelligent. I don't see any problem with me not passing on my genes if it will cause unecessary sufferring, I am allergic to nickel. It is possible for scientists to take genes from embryos produced in a test tube from my future wife's egg and my sperm and choose an embryos which does not have the nickel allergy gene.
> People should be free to give people any money they want, whether it is economical or not.
Why?
Does this also include giving bribes, or funding illegal activities?
>>64
It's not the bribe that causes the damage, it's the action by the politician.
If I were a politician I'd accept all bribe, but make the proceedings public and give all the cash to cancer research and child protection funds. If people get arrested for accepting money then people will die of cancer and children will get raped. So in otherwords you support the raping of children by disagreeing with me.
> If I were a politician
You aren't. Factor this into your answer.
>So in otherwords you support the raping of children by disagreeing with me.
Ever heard of argumentum ad baculum?
Taking >>65's argument to its logical conclusion, every one of us supports the raping of children by failing to donate our entire income to child protection funds. (Unless, of course, these funds only accept donations of bribe-money from radical libertarian politicians.)
If they want to give their kids money when they croak is their choice....
But if i get to be successful god knows i wont leave my kids squat because i dont want them to turn out like paris hilton :P
The whole concept revolves around the government recognizing families. Can they regulate transactions between family members or something like that?
> The whole concept revolves around the government recognizing families.
Been married lately?
Interned at Kass, Shuler Law Firm for a year. Direct experience with scheduling litigations/court dates, file work (on and off the computer), and assitant work.
Specialties
Typing, blogging; Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Word, Excel, Powerpoint.