The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of Coffee Addict
Coffee Addict @coffeeaddict

@kammamuri in my opinion, its not so important whether you earned it. It’s more that the person who did earn it chooses to give it to you, or choose to leave it to you. They earned it, it’s their property to do what they want with it. They can donate it to the city, to their family, or to a charity, they choose to do what they want with it.

Profile photo of Julia Wotten
Julia Wotten @juliaw

@kammamuri this is something I really don’t understand about Republicans. How can you be so angry that people are getting welfare, when people basically get welfare through their birth right all the time? If people are supposed to earn their livelihood, shouldn’t they have to earn it if their parents are rich too? You shouldn’t just be rich becuase you are born rich.

I do understand what @coffeeaddict is saying that sometimes people want to gift money to their children or to other people and I am fine with that. But the whole, next in line thing is ridiculous. If you die and you don’t have a will indicating exactly where your money goes, then your money should be given to the state.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@coffeeaddict
@kammamuri
@juliaw

You said, “If you die and you don’t have a will indicating exactly where your money goes, then your money should be given to the state. ”

Spoken like a true Socialist.

Profile photo of Emilio Salgari
Emilio Salgari @kammamuri

@jlriggs57aol-com

James, I think you could do better than that. Can you share your thoughts on the topic instead of speaking nonsense on socialism?
Is there a contradiction between the principles of meritocracy and inheritance? Paradoxically, in order to achieve a society in which people are truly rewarded according to their skills wouldn’t be better if everybody starts from zero, despite the success of their families?

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@coffeeaddict
@kammamuri
@juliaw
@kammamuri

Emilo, right now socialism is the 500 pound gorilla in the room. Wherever, I see socialist comments, I will, without fail, speak against it.

Only in socialist society would the concept of giving everything you have worked your whole life for, to the government. I don’t have much, but I want my children to have it when I go. There may be some places that have inheritance taxes which is more than should be given to the government. I am fortunate enough to live in a state that does not require such taxes.

You said, “Paradoxically, in order to achieve a society in which people are truly rewarded according to their skills wouldn’t be better if everybody starts from zero, despite the success of their families?”

Quit frankly, no.

As an example. If I started a business, I invested my life savings and maybe put a second mortgage on my home, basically risked everything I have to start this business, then put in countless hours, normally this runs into twice the hours anyone else working in this business puts in, and while I am stuck trying to get my business off the ground I get to spend almost no time with my family, so I am making that sacrifice too, then if and only if, the business does succeed after years of countless hours, worry, and stress, I finally start to show a profit and I can finally put some money in the bank, someone tells me my hard-earned money that not only I, but my family have sacrificed to attain, upon my death will be given to a government who not only did not help me in any of the process of building my business, who did not invest anything, who did not sacrifice anything, will get everything I worked for, in the event of my death.

That………is in it’s truest form….socialism.

This would not only cripple the desire for people to want to start a business, it would also create a world where children own businesses, because people would want their children to have it when they are gone, so they would just put the businesses in their children’s name so they automatically get it if something happens to the parent.

Equality in income is socialism. It breeds laziness. Why should a person work any harder than the laziest person, you’re not going to make any more money for working harder?

I literally, could have started a roofing company years ago. In fact, I was asked by several people to start one because I did quality work for a descent price. I was only doing it on occasion to earn extra money. When I looked into what it took to start a company and what was involved in having people work for me, taxes, paperwork, etc, I said no way. I would never have time to have a life.

I am in awe of the amount of time, money, and headaches a person is willing to go through for years in order to have a business and I don’t mind working for them on an hourly basis and have my life.

People with the opinion of “just give it to the government” have never tried to start a business and will probably never, ever, take the time to find out, because it just doesn’t fit into their socialist point of view.

Now, Emilio, I will ask you to take the time and I do mean some honest research, on what it takes to start a business. Actually ask someone who owns a business, and I don’t mean mowing the neighbors grass, but ask someone who started a legitimate business from the ground up, find out all it takes, then ask yourself, would you want to just give it to the government and leave your family out of the equation if you died?

Socialism is not now, nor will it ever be the answer to any question, except maybe, “What is one of the worst forms of government”, it would be an answer to that.

The other side of that coin, “What is the best form of government”. Of course, the answer here is “A free republic”.

If someone truly believes that a socialist government is better and they know of a country that is better than this one, they have a better way of life, a better economy, a better culture, a better standard of living, then why would they bother to try to change America into that? It already exists somewhere else. Use the freedom that this country has and move to the other country……….please.

Profile photo of jjvors
jjvors @jjvors

I can only speak regarding the US government and the Constitution. Property rights are assumed; that gives you the right to give your property to anyone, including on death. The government can and does tax inheritance. Usually there is an exclusion for the first $600,000. That’s a lot, but often mean that family properties are broken up: farms and businesses.

What is the right policy depends upon the effects of high inheritance versus low inheritance taxes. The effects of high inheritance taxes include the loss of family farms and businesses. Do we really want that? Another question to be answered is, who will spend the money better, the US government or the private individual?

This is the basis of my objection to inheritance taxes: the US government is demonstrably worse at wise, efficient spending than the individual. If they can’t handle their current income well (they can’t; they increase their indebtedness every year), don’t give them more.

The bottom line is that the people are in charge of the government, not the other way around. We can make it the way we want.

Profile photo of Coffee Addict
Coffee Addict @coffeeaddict

@jjvors you have a very good point about property being broken up in order to pay inheritance tax if it was higher. I think something that people who support an increased property tax fail to realize is that often your inheritance is not just a big sum of cash thats sitting in the bank.

Assets and property should be completely excluded from any taxation through inheritance. Like @jjvors mentioned its just ridiculous to want families to not be able to pass down land to their children or grandchildren when they pass.

To @jlriggs57aol-com point and the specific discussion with @kammamuri regarding socialism, I have to agree with James that its hard to avoid bringing up socialism in this discussion because essentially what no inheritance is, is a socialist policy. Trying to exclude the word socialism from this conversation is like trying to not use the word Internet when you’re talking about sending an email. Or not using the word phone when you’re describing how to call someone. Its impossible.

Consider the point just made by @jjvors, essentially if you increase the inheritance tax all people would start from a 100% clean slate. Some might think that sounds amazing, everyone would be equal. No one would have a greater chance than another through birth.

But let me ask you a question? Do you have children? And if you do, do you work solely for yourself? Or do you also work so that they can have a better chance at success?

It is my opinion that it usually takes time, generations even, to raise your economic class.

This used to be considered a good thing. People had the mindset of leaving your children a better life than you had. My grandmother worked night shifts in a factory so that her children could one day go to college and have a better life than her, my parents went to college and worked hard so that yes I would have a better chance at success. Its normal.

How could any family except to leave their children a better life if it is always known that it will be stripped away no matter what? Is the point of working only for yourself? Or is it also for your children and grand children?

Its not a bad thing that people are able to create better future for their children, somewhere along the line that was earned. It shouldn’t be taken away, ever. Unless they lose it themselves.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS