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

To be fair, logistics of scale is a real concern that often plagues implementation of various programs. Not sure how it would change the outcome in this case, but I often bristle at the automatic assumption that "X work for country a so it must work for country b" assumptions. There are a lot of variables to consider, even placing logistics of scale aside.

 

Don't look now champ, but if you make over $100 grand and are not a tax cheat, you already pay over 50% in taxes. The difference between places like Finland and here is that there, the 50% really goes back to the people. Here the thieving whore politicians and the tax dodging, war profiteering scum that own both parties end up with most of the confiscated wealth.

 

Did you mean "[We're] not in LibWorld where the liberals are free to ignore the laws. In a real world the dead can have a great deal of effect." ? If not feel free to ignore the below as I have no idea what you're trying to say.

If so I agree, but when looking at the difference between influence when alive and influence when dead one quickly deduces that a persons influence is typically diminished significantly after their demise.

What I was trying to get at is that the dead have very little to no "god given" rights, and if one were to infringe on any of them, there is little the dead person can do outside of setting up protections while still living.

Ergo though there are temporal laws in place for ensuring impact beyond the grave, they can be changed without violating any living person's rights. When couched in talks of "entitlement" and "Equality of Opportunity" they become ripe candidates for validity assessment.

 

No, death takes a person's wealth away permanently, and at that point it does not matter to that person where the wealth goes next.

ken2esq

 

So you're basically just a grave-robber. That's really becoming of your esquire wannabe persona.

 

By that reasoning, all inheritance is grave-robbing.

ken2esq

 

Fair enough, but 5 + 5 = 10 in any language under any political affiliation, no matter what country you reside in. Or it should any way.

 

No, because the person who dies gets to choose who to give his possessions and wealth to. You're advocating for the Government to come in and take them regardless of the person's choice.

In other words, there's a difference between giving somebody something and having them steal it from you. Do you really not see a difference?

Amazing how the progressive mind works when it's trying to justify wealth confiscation to build a bigger welfare state.

 

That kind of ignores the fact that its the government who enforces that will in the first place. Put succinctly, there is nothing BUT the government to protect you and your stuff that you haven't given away in life. Since it is the government apparatus that also post humorous influence adjusting it effectively adjusts what the dead can do.

In otherwords, its not theft because its not really yours to control. Your dead.

 

^_- Really? You think it's sensible to allow transfer of ownership before death, but to penalize anyone who dies before they give everything away? There is zero sense behind that, you're only basis is a copout that the individuals are dead. They have wills. It is families and lawyers that carry out wills, we don't require the fallen to remain in order to do so.

Your approach would bring into question any life insurance. If I had a life insurance policy on myself, set to payout to my kids on my death, my death would immediately make me unable to "much effect anything." So why should this approach of yours, this 'principle', not apply to life insurance. Single soldiers who die in combat (US soldiers) have $100,000 of life insurance complimentarily covered by the government, and a $400,000 life insurance policy (which they all get) through the SGLI coverage for low rates. And you want the government to just thumb their noses at the families of fallen soldiers?

 

So what gives you and the Government the right to lay claim to that money and assets, which was designated by the owner to go to someone else?

 

Sorry that you can't see the sense in that. I see a lot of sense in that. Using valuable and limited government resources to protect the rights of a dead man seems to me to be a waste, after a certain point.

I don't think %100 estate tax is sensible, if that helps, afterall you may have some debts and such upon death, and of course you should leave something behind to pay for your way out so to speak, but after that, a man should be measured by what he's done not what he has to cough up upon his demise. That doesn't make sense to me.


And of course they have wills, and with those wills as structured today you have no way of knowing who made it because of the sweat and talent and who made it because they're 'entitled' to have made it by virtue of a rich family member who thought that he could take it with him. Otherwise you have the detrimental impact on society due to calcification of the social strata that we have today. A calcification that runs counter to the notion of an even playing field and directly into the hands of ensuring a "landed elite" as opposed to a true meritocracy.

That they're dead is no copout- or at least you haven't established why dead folk should have as much rights as they do now. I'm all ears if you care to explain what rights, if any, a dead man has in the land of the living and why he has them.

Not really no it wouldn't. If you had a life insurance placed on yourself you, or someone was paying someone/ an organization to pay your survivors in the event of the inevitable. They as living people are (or could be) contacted and informed of a claim to said life insurance when you are still living and thus upon your end seek said claim.

Completely different situations (ae false analogy).

the rest is kept as a courtesy, but its all based on the (false IMO) idea that life insurance=inheritance.

 

It isn't always linear, or doesn't always apply the same. Disparate variable are involves such as geography, culture and thousands of other unknown variables.

 

Taxes are not a moral issue, and equal outcomes are not a noble goal.

 

Even if it is a word problem, 5 + 5 = 10. The concept is there no matter the variables, or applications. You don't suddenly have 12 fingers and 8 toes because the problem is more complex.

 

Since when do progressives care about wasting "limited Government resources?"

Here's the Marxist conflict theory operating behind the veil of "progressivism". Most millionaires get there by hard work, not by inheritance. Some get lucky enough to be born into wealth, but even amongst this group, most do go on to good schools and obtain good jobs. They work harder than the many millions of people in the country soaking up taxpayer benefits by gaming the system, popping out as many kids as their loins can handle, often for citizenship and bigger welfare stipends (something progressives never complain about, since these people vote the right way).

You're not really interested in a meritocracy, anyway. Those who achieve are typically demonized (the 1%) and their success marginalized. They are even told they didn't build their own businesses or achieve their own success. They're viewed with envy, in your quest to seize more of their wealth to give to Democrat voting blocs who haven't earned their success, all in exchange for votes.

What rights does the Government have to take everything a man has worked for his entire life?

 

Me? I don't have the right to anything- and that owner gave up all rights to his or her stuff upon his/her termination. In a perfect world they would just wait to be picked up and parceled out to whomever gets there first. But rather then letting a free-for-all break out its the governments job to ensure that order is maintained. Thus it it incumbent upon the government by virtue of its role as order enforcer. And so it will raise funds and auction things off as it goes.

If he or she was responsible, he or she would have insured his or her belongings got to where he or she (god that gets old) want them to go before punching out.

 

Again, so reward financial irresponsibility by allowing any remaining wealth to be used to finance a dying man's debt, but punish financial responsibility by taking away all wealth from a man who dies with no debts.

Really, I'm curious, what makes you think that a man has no right to transfer his wealth on his death to his heirs, and yet makes you think that debt collectors should still have every right to collect a debt from those who did not accrue it? Or do you think that a man who dies with only debts and no assets should have his debts assumed by the government?

He wasn't a dead man when he wrote a will - just as he wasn't a dead man when he got life insurance.

Now please, stop it with the quickly moving goal posts and attempts to shift the burden of proof. You've challenged a worldwide tradition - the onus is on you to defend the challenge. If you have no basis of questioning the worldwide tradition, then that's that.

Oh really? So when I hire a lawyer to see to it that my will, a transfer of wealth triggered by my death, is carried out, that is COMPLETELY different from hiring an insurance company to payout to my heir, a transfer of wealth triggered only by my death,

 

No, you inferred it. My post is saying I like Finland, but wouldn't like the amount of taxes taken to get all those things Finland offers its people.

Anything else you feel about what I wrote is purely injected by you.

Again, I like Finland and what it offers. The taxes are just a killer.

 

Holy moly! Someone whose beliefs and ideas don't fit into simple a left right bracket! Who is this Marcotic? WHY is this Marcotic! From what stash of ready made talking points will I be able to defeat this threat!

Marxist conflict... what? I'm no marxist, and any similarities between his theory's and my political messages are purely coincidental. Protecting dead men's rights is a waste, and I have yet to see anyone refute it. You want to impact your kid's life? Teach them stuff, pay for their college, spend time with them.

To your second talking point- NON SEQUITUR- I have no doubt in my mind that a person who is wealthy < a wealthy person who works hard. That hard work impacts overall financial success isn't what I'm talking about though. What I'm talking about is wealth's ability to ensure financial stability in someones life regardless of how hard they work post-humorously, and whether that is a valid use of government resources.

Were you planning on playing the "avoid what you said so I can attack the ideology you came from" game? Where we put up straw men just to knock them down and make thinly veiled assertions disparaging each others character? Where we make gross generalizations that just so conveniently deflect from the matter at hand? Cause' I don't want to play that game. I want to play the "I read consider and respond to another persons ideas in an informal forum" game.

I don't pretend that what you want is any more then what you say you want. Its called common courtesy. If you fail to extend that same courtesy it diminishes the impact of what ever you say, whether its true or not. Its beneath you. Hence the overall snark.

While living? Very limited, as it should be. Once dead?
Dead man have no rights save for the ones government provides them. I would rather eliminate the government use of resources protecting rights that I don't think even exist.

What right does a man have when he's dead? Where did he get them and how does that make sense in modern practice?

 

I don't make that much. And I agree, they do good things. But damn, 50% income tax plus a 20% sales tax is a lot more than I pay now. A lot more.

 

why should I let you have one danged DIME of my money, at my death? i'll see to it that it doesn't happen, count on that. I'll give it all to the NRA prior to my death,and that's what everyone should do, give it away, to ANYBODY that they care about, instead of letting the state grab it (and give it to pos's that you HATE).

 

It was my idea that debtors have a bid in that man's wealth by virtue of taking the risk to loan that their money. Sort of like how when a corporation goes belly up the investors have first bid on the corpse in seeking recompense.

Well, if that's how a will works, that the bank takes its property and gives it to the heirs then yes, it is like a life insurance policy in that regard. If a will just moves stuff that belonged to you in life to other people then I don't see it at all as the same, though they do both have death as a trigger

Oh I'm sorry let me repeat myself / clarify. I assert that the tradition of wills and estate impedes the development of a true meritocracy because it allows wealthy families to out compete those less fortunate. It minimizes the impact of hard work and talent and creates a new elite that impedes overall social mobility.

As this isn't a formal debate I don't actually NEED to take on the burden of proof- your appeals to tradition hold no water with me.

- - - Updated - - -

AZZA! he (she?) gets it!

 

Actually, the investors have the last bid on the corpse and frequently get nothing after the debtors are paid.

 

Thank you generalismo dictator Obama.