I'm so glad this insane take will die on the internet where it belongs.
Imagine telling a grown adult they can't give their kids things.
give all the things you want. multiple BILLIONS of dollars? nah man.
imagine telling a grown adult one person shouldn't horder 30% of the money. IMAGINE!
imagine telling a grown adult one person shouldn’t horder 30% of the money. IMAGINE!
Two things.
1: You can just tax rich people without crazy-ass plans like this
2: this isn't how money works
Yeah they're definitely getting billions in cash??
When they own a company where does it go when they die? Does the government just get it?
What makes you think this opinion will die on the Internet?
Because it's truly insane and will never get any support in real life.
Absolutely no one will vote in favor of the government confiscating all of your property when you die. Tankie shit isn't popular outside of a handful of message boards.
Capping the amount of wealth anyone can inherit seems sane to me. In fact it seems healthy for the whole economy, so not just sane but prudent. If you let all the wealth be collected by a few the system breaks down and all the money becomes worthless. Preventing that is entirely sane.
I'm against preventing the transfer all all property. That seems like a recipe for corruption but I'd vote for limiting it to a trust of like $50-$100 million maximum plus an occupied home, a vacation home, and some reasonable amount of small property like boats and cars. Honestly that amount seems excessive to me but I think the majority would be in favor of such a law.
If you let all the wealth be collected by a few the system breaks down and all the money becomes worthless.
This is not how wealth works
An economy only works when a majority participates. An ideal economy has everyone participating.
You can do a basic thought experiment to figure this out.
Imagine 10 people control $100 trillion. Everyone else controls $0. What do you think you'll be able to get for $1?
You might then say, "money isn't wealth." True. But if 10 people control all the wealth and everyone else has starved to death that's even worse.
I'm sure you have lots of fanciful imaginings of how economies work
Because it’s truly insane and will never get any support in real life.
It's got lots of support IRL already. I support it, therefore your assertion of 'never get support in real life' is specious and incorrect.
Absolutely no one
bzzzt wrong again, I'd vote for estate tax reform in a heartbeat.
no one will vote in favor of the government confiscating all of your property when you die.
if this is what you think the estate tax is you're incredibly stupid. yet another misrepresentation of reality to fit into your premise, but it's so fucking dumb from the outset it doesn't even warrant a reply. Yet here we are.
Tankie shit isn’t popular outside of a handful of message boards.
Taxing the ultra wealthy isn't 'tankie shit' you fucking dirtbag. Cute attempt to associate 'people who don't think a few should horde all the wealth' with 'tankies'.
Your entire argument is lies and garbage. Please, just stop whatever weird piece of performance art this utter shitshow is.
It’s got lots of support IRL already. I support it, therefore your assertion of ‘never get support in real life’ is specious and incorrect.
Lol
that's all you got huh?
weaksauce. no refutation, no thesis just... lol.
god what a waste of time your entire existence must be.
Bro do you even understand why what I quoted is funny?
Estate tax is a tax, not a confiscation. If the tax were two high it would require manu inheritors to sell shares to shares to pay it, which would dump the share price of a company.
I am in favor of capping the generational transfer of wealth
Can you read?
What do you think wealth is? It's assets usually, very rarely cash.
The key word here is "capping". People are assuming for some reason that an estate tax means the repo man comes and takes all your earthly possessions after you die or something, but no one's suggesting that. They're suggesting putting a cap on how much you can pass down in an inheritance, as a way to prevent the hoarding of wealth by a single person/family.
What happens to the wealth beyond the cap?
It's taxed.
How is the tax realized in assets? Are they sold?
If necessary for the inheritor to meet their tax obligations, sure. I'm sure there's a dozen different estate tax systems in place that tax professionals would know more about, but yes, liquidating assets would be one way for an interior to meet their tax obligations.
What would another way be? Say I inherited my parents company they built, entirely privately owned.
You would be charged a tax proportional to the value of that business. How you pay it is up to you. This is how estate tax is currently done in the US at the Federal level. Again, I'm not a tax professional, so if you want to know more I'd suggest looking into it yourself.
That would essentially mean family businesses, at least past a certain size, would be impossible. Or more realistically, they would just obfuscate the ownership structure.
I'm so glad this insane take will die on the internet where it belongs.
Imagine telling a grown adult they can't give their kids things.
give all the things you want. multiple BILLIONS of dollars? nah man.
imagine telling a grown adult one person shouldn't horder 30% of the money. IMAGINE!
Two things.
1: You can just tax rich people without crazy-ass plans like this
2: this isn't how money works
Yeah they're definitely getting billions in cash??
When they own a company where does it go when they die? Does the government just get it?
What makes you think this opinion will die on the Internet?
Because it's truly insane and will never get any support in real life.
Absolutely no one will vote in favor of the government confiscating all of your property when you die. Tankie shit isn't popular outside of a handful of message boards.
Capping the amount of wealth anyone can inherit seems sane to me. In fact it seems healthy for the whole economy, so not just sane but prudent. If you let all the wealth be collected by a few the system breaks down and all the money becomes worthless. Preventing that is entirely sane.
I'm against preventing the transfer all all property. That seems like a recipe for corruption but I'd vote for limiting it to a trust of like $50-$100 million maximum plus an occupied home, a vacation home, and some reasonable amount of small property like boats and cars. Honestly that amount seems excessive to me but I think the majority would be in favor of such a law.
This is not how wealth works
An economy only works when a majority participates. An ideal economy has everyone participating.
You can do a basic thought experiment to figure this out. Imagine 10 people control $100 trillion. Everyone else controls $0. What do you think you'll be able to get for $1?
You might then say, "money isn't wealth." True. But if 10 people control all the wealth and everyone else has starved to death that's even worse.
I'm sure you have lots of fanciful imaginings of how economies work
My kid believes in Santa.
#1 Are you not familiar with thought experiments?
#2 cool story bro.
Holy multi Strawman attack batman LOL.
It's got lots of support IRL already. I support it, therefore your assertion of 'never get support in real life' is specious and incorrect.
bzzzt wrong again, I'd vote for estate tax reform in a heartbeat.
if this is what you think the estate tax is you're incredibly stupid. yet another misrepresentation of reality to fit into your premise, but it's so fucking dumb from the outset it doesn't even warrant a reply. Yet here we are.
Taxing the ultra wealthy isn't 'tankie shit' you fucking dirtbag. Cute attempt to associate 'people who don't think a few should horde all the wealth' with 'tankies'.
Your entire argument is lies and garbage. Please, just stop whatever weird piece of performance art this utter shitshow is.
Lol
that's all you got huh?
weaksauce. no refutation, no thesis just... lol.
god what a waste of time your entire existence must be.
Bro do you even understand why what I quoted is funny?
Estate tax is a tax, not a confiscation. If the tax were two high it would require manu inheritors to sell shares to shares to pay it, which would dump the share price of a company.
Can you read?
What do you think wealth is? It's assets usually, very rarely cash.
The key word here is "capping". People are assuming for some reason that an estate tax means the repo man comes and takes all your earthly possessions after you die or something, but no one's suggesting that. They're suggesting putting a cap on how much you can pass down in an inheritance, as a way to prevent the hoarding of wealth by a single person/family.
What happens to the wealth beyond the cap?
It's taxed.
How is the tax realized in assets? Are they sold?
If necessary for the inheritor to meet their tax obligations, sure. I'm sure there's a dozen different estate tax systems in place that tax professionals would know more about, but yes, liquidating assets would be one way for an interior to meet their tax obligations.
What would another way be? Say I inherited my parents company they built, entirely privately owned.
You would be charged a tax proportional to the value of that business. How you pay it is up to you. This is how estate tax is currently done in the US at the Federal level. Again, I'm not a tax professional, so if you want to know more I'd suggest looking into it yourself.
That would essentially mean family businesses, at least past a certain size, would be impossible. Or more realistically, they would just obfuscate the ownership structure.
Yes, clearly
Oh so you're intentionally being intellectually dishonest, got it 👍
You're so weird man