The moral imperative for a 100% estate tax...

I grew up in a white, suburban neighborhood in the 80s, sheltered from a lot of harsh realities. I went to public schools where I excelled academically, graduating valedictorian and securing an academic scholarship to a good school. When I heard about social inequalities in society, I did not believe it, as I thought that anyone could do what I did. Every youth could go to public school, excel academically, and proceed to college despite any financial hardships.

That was before I learned how the public schools that I went to were not the same as the public schools in poor neighborhoods, because of the widespread system of funding public schools largely from local property taxes, such that a public school in a wealthy neighborhood has much greater money per student than a public school in a ghetto.

See, I had avoided "white guilt" by believing that, in our capitalistic society, I was on a pretty even playing field with all of my peers of any race or social station. This belief allowed me to feel pride in my accomplishments. I'm a competitive guy, and I like to win games that are played fairly. I don't want to win because I start off the game with extra points. So, when I learned the truth about the disparity of opportunities afforded to me compared to kids in poor neighborhoods, I was very frustrated. I felt robbed of my pride. No longer could I feel my success -- going on to excel in college and law school and get a job at a large firm -- was due to my skills or hard work. No, I had to face that it was also due to me starting off with economic advantages given to me by my parents.

I was highly annoyed by this. I would have PREFERRED if all public schools had equal per-student funding, equal quality of education, so that I could truly feel I had reached my success on an even playing field. I would have gladly surrendered my "advantages" because I wanted the game to be fair. As I thought about this notion, I realized it extends further than just quality of schools, but to any sort of financial help given to one person but not another. This started me reflecting on inheritance, and I frankly could see no good reason for it.

What if, I thought, we simply did away with this? All of a person's property would escheat to the government on death (or, for community property, on death of the longer-living member of the community). All of this money would then go to a pool, and the annual "take" would be divided up and perhaps, paid out as a one-time governmental "bequeath" to everyone turning 18 that year. So everyone gets an equal "starting out" fund to help them make it in the world, and the size of the fund is equal for all, so we all start out even.

I realized, too, that it made me sick to hear people in America talk about immigration, about how we needed to keep illegals out because "we" had earned the prosperity of this nation, dammit, not them! But how did we "earn" it? As near I could see, we simply were born in the right place, winners of a genetic lottery. That's not a merit-based success. That's not anything "earned." No American living today "earned" the bounty that is America, we were all born into it. Perhaps, if you trace back far enough, you think you'd find an ancestor who fought the "good fight," overcoming obstacles and odds, cutting down trees, turning wilderness into urbanity? I have heard people defend their right to America's bounty by referring to the accomplishments of their ancestors. Yet, all I can think is, so what? What did YOU personally do? Or is it morally acceptable to simply ride on the coat-tails of our ancestors forever?

How do we, as a society, view rich kids who have it easy, who never have to work, and who fritter away their lives ala Paris Hilton? Do we think they are successful? A model to be emulated? No, the basic "American" sensibility is that rich kids often end up spoiled, and this is a sad and depressing thing, to be avoided. We applaud the self-made wealthy who are tough on their kids, forcing them to make their own way in the world without looking to Daddy or Mommy their whole lives. My proposal simply embraces the values we all feel deep down, of what kind of society we want to live in, with an even playing field, equal opportunity for all. And it would surely create much more movement between the classes, and such class movement would do a great deal to end many social ills and class tension and strife that plagues modern society.

What would be the downside? A few rich brats have to work harder than they thought, do not get to live their whole lives in the lap of luxury? We disappoint the wealthy elite who hoped to establish dynasties that would survive despite the ineptitude of subsequent generations? No big loss.

ken2esq

 

The downside is a few jealous and envious people using the power of the government to confiscate the private property of the people of whom you are jealous and envious.

Not the kind of society I want to live in. And BTW my kids went to the very same schools as the poorer people and BILLIONS of money is transferred from wealthy tax bases to poorer tax bases. And you would be hard pressed to find many school districts that have not had their funding increased above inflation and where we are spending less now than before.

 

Why should the advantages of one be forcibly taken from him and given to another?

If it were scientifically possible, would you support the removal of athletic abilities from one individual and giving them to some small, wimpy guy who wanted to get involved in sports. but couldn't because he was not born with with proper body build?

 

If you were a valedictorian of your high school and you didn't know about economic inequality in our society in the 1980s then your school must have really sucked.

After that I can't take anything you said seriously.

 

If you have earned the esq part of your username, you know what the downside is. putting assetts into revocable living trusts during the person's life time that become irrevocable at death avoids estate taxes and potentially locks the money up in perpetuity. There is no better example of what goes wrong with trusts than the Hershey Trust. 70% or so of a profitable company is owned by a trust that no longer really wants or needs the revenue and has no interest in making the company more profitable.

 

I'm for a 100% estate tax and as low other taxes as possible. I believe that we should have a culture where everybody earns things themselves, not get handed anything from mommy and daddy. Everybody should be entitled to a free education, but after that you're on your own. It'll be a true meritocracy. Survival of the fittest.

 

And here is a good example of Tush Limbaugh's the guilty rich, if the OP is not a fake.

There are problems with this.

Are you willing to pay the tax yourself? Are you willing to give up your money in the same amount as everybody else?

You know that this kind of thing will only hurt the little people and will keep them from owning houses, right?

 

arrogant, condescending, white guilt leftists speak as if not one member of their myriad coddled victim groups has ever managed to build an estate in America...

(and thusly, must presumptively believe the multitudes who have (which apparently don't exist in their minds) would gleefully jump on board with their 100% estate tax proposal)

 

Our society is built on the premise that you work hard and better yourself AND have a family to which you leave your built up wealth so they are better off than you were and help insure they will not only not be on government assistance or in poverty but do better than you and leave more to your families future generations. Wealth IS generational. It should certainly not be built on greed and envy. We have property rights guarantied in the Constitution and that includes how you bequeath your wealth on your demise, it's called probate. The idea that a family works to build up it's wealth only to have the government confiscate it for some greedy and jealous people and that families next generation has to start from zero is patently absurd and ridiculous on it's face. Certainly NOT the American Dream.

 

Same here.

 

I don't particularly care for those rights or the "American Dream" and if I were dictator the whole system would change. I don't believe in either the left or right's vision of America. I continue to stand by my pro-meritocracy stance.

 

If you really believed this, you'd move to a third world country and give someone else a chance to live in the privilege you were born into that you feel so guilty about. Go live somewhere where you don't have running water or indoor plumbing or air conditioning or the internet to complain about this stuff on. Shouldn't that give you the satisfaction of knowing that you have to work for everything you have to survive? If you can't build your own toilet from scratch, why do you deserve to have one? That's privilege! How long are you going to ride on the coattails of Sir John Harington?

 

You pretty much have explained the difference between reality and feelings based belief. "Everybody should be entitled'. The problem is you decide who should be entitled.

 

Yeah I do, because it's the ideal world in my mind. I don't believe that anybody is truly entitled anything to be honest, but I do believe that this is what's best. You have your own vision of America. Most people on this forum either want Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians to control America. I don't want any of them to control it. I can play the game where I think the GOP or Dems are better here, but I generally like to come up with my home ideas, because I think their's are significantly flawed. My ideal form of government is a meritocracy which is something that's never been practiced anywhere to the best of my knowledge.

 

INDEED!. Best keep the name of this school out of the public eye... they would lose their finding... I'd hate to see what happened to the person last in this class... probably in congress by now.

 

You believe that others are entitled to what people own so yes, you do believe that some are entitled.

 

If you're born poor, you'll almost certainly die poor.

Once people realize this -- that they aren't going to win the lottery or that hard work only gets you so far -- they may be more receptive to higher estate taxes. Warren Buffet isn't leaving any of his children a penny when he dies. He wants them to earn their wealth.

 

and the "solution" to poverty is to have your ******ned government force everyone start out equally poor?

 

Massive overreach. I'll be more than glad to support an estate tax which prohibits an American Aristocracy, but even in the age multi millionaire hedge fund managers confiscation of entire estates cannot be sanctioned. The result is inevitable collectivism.

 

I fail to see why your lack of understanding of society outside of your closed envelope justifies negating the accomplishments of the successful to give to the entitlement class who don't want to work for a living. After reading this I have to wonder what the requirements were for becoming valedictorian in your school system.

I think you might achieve better results if you became a teacher in one of the 'poor' schools and motivated them, as opposed to writing this OP which achieves nothing.

 

Entitled in the sense that yes I think that's what should happen.

 

I am with you. I don't think what one man earned, what he created, should be passed on to an heir, who didn't do anything for the assets. For when you can pass on such wealth, you create an entitled class of wealthy elites, who inherit money, which means power, and they didn't earn it.

A new study by an economist showed that our upward mobility is no better than that in medieval Europe, from data from the last hundred years. If you were born into poverty most stayed there, if wealthy, most stayed there with a few exceptions.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/11/26/uc-davis-economics-professor-there-is-no-american-dream/

When anyone dies, his money is no longer his, for he is dead. It should go back to a fund that is used to promote equal opportunity as much as possible.

 

Which is the right thing to do. I greatly respect John D. Rockefeller, but not the Waltons. On the other side I don't respect welfare queens either. I respect people based on merit.

 

So if I'm down on my luck (relatively speaking) and need a few hundred bucks from one of my parents to get my electric bill paid on time or face a cold, dark apartment, how are they supposed to help me. Granted there's a difference between $400, which can easily be done in cash and not raise an eyebrow from anyone, and $400,000,000 (which would be one hell of an electric bill), but it's only a matter of degree. What if they want to buy me a house? What if I'm an NFL player and I want to buy them a house?

I understand the motive behind your idea, the logistics are a different story.

 

I don't mind passing up, but I have a problem with passing down. There could also be annual limits, but not enough for them to buy you a house, maybe a doll house.