Resentment towards inherited wealth

[iceaura]

So how would you do it exactly? Would the middle and upper middle class also not be allowed to pass on their wealth?

If we think about the problem really, really hard and long, some genius among us can figure out something reasonable. I'm pretty sure of that.

What about the tidy sum that the grandparents acquired to help their grandchild go to law school?

The rich currently establish trust funds for that purpose. There are also scholarships, gifts, etc.

To ban inheritance for one would ban it for everyone.

Sounds like simply banning all inheritance for everyone might not be the way to go. Your point?

Also do you think you can do this and still consider yourself living in a free society , since you would not be free to do what you want with what you worked for?

I don't plan on being able to do anything at all after I am dead, and do not regard curbs on my post-mortem activities as of much import in the freedom department.

On the other hand, people who live in societies dominated by generations of accumulated wealth in a small number of families do seem to face certain common restrictions and difficulties in exercising various freedoms, civil liberties, etc. And we see the trend in the US, toward that misfortunate situation.

I worked for a government agency for many, many years, and geeze there is nobody in America who contributes less to the economy than the civil "service" sector.

Oh bullshit. The average hedge fund, check cashing "service", casino, or medical insurance firm is of negative benefit, and the average public school or post office or fire department pulls far more than its weight.

You want an entire sector of suspect contribution? Try "C students from Yale".

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Sounds like simply banning all inheritance for everyone might not be the way to go. Your point?

I didn't have a point. I was wondering how you would go about limiting inheritance. If you ban it it would be banned for everyone which comes across as too authoritarian by the state. On the other hand if you target the wealthy to such a degree that they feel their funds being controlled by outside forces they have the means to remove themselves and their wealth from that society who would have benefitted from a reasonable tax measure they would not have shirked because they wouldn't feel gouged.

 

[chimpkin]

if you target the wealthy to such a degree that they feel their funds being controlled by outside forces they have the means to remove themselves and their wealth from that society who would have benefitted from a reasonable tax measure they would not have shirked because they wouldn't feel gouged.

The thing is I get the feeling that these days the wealthy think their fair share is as little as they can possibly get away with without going to jail for. So I'm not buying this argument.
Not that I favor confiscation, either...I favor reasonable taxation. I just think you can make it as reasonable as you want and if there's a way to dodge it, they will dodge it.

Sociopathy is mistaken for social virtue these days among the power elite. Them's the breaks.

I think trying to shut down tax cheating via tax havens is probably a better bet. Also going after international corporate crime.

 

[joepistole]

How many here have inherited wealth?

 

[iceaura]

On the other hand if you target the wealthy to such a degree that they feel their funds being controlled by outside forces they have the means to remove themselves and their wealth from that society who would have benefitted from a reasonable tax measure they would not have shirked because they wouldn't feel gouged.

Good riddance. As Holland and many others have discovered.

There is no tax level the wealthy will not shirk if they can. You may as well set the levels at what is best for society overall - in the case of inherited wealth, both economic theory and historical example suggest essential confiscation by the community.

 

[keith1]

Wealth, inherited or otherwise purloined, perpetuates a state of deserved authority, and a right to the highest level of dominance of the direction of society, and civilization for that matter. After all, who has more proven their certification to a godly state of authority, then one who sees themselves with the most power?
From this vantage point, no government can rightfully control such supreme beings, even though the the totality of the collective wealth controlled by that government may exceed the amounts of any one wealthy individual god.

Those same ultra-rich would then despise all forms of government as a "lesser power" unfairly dictating to "them", who would , in their eyes only, be the rightful "supreme dictator". Their natural hatred of government would thereby leave no waking hour that was not devoted to the destruction of government entirely. By any means available, that would not directly weaken their own position permanently.

Pitting flags, peoples, their governments, their government bodies, and political machines against each other is one such means of subtle and strategic wearing down of their opponents. Their enemy.

The hatred and jealousy displayed by the highest earners far outstrips that of any other lesser profit-producing entity, or lowly pauper.
Their ultimate game is for collecting ALL the marbles and for KEEPS.

Unfortunately, from this ultimate hatred does not emerge a noble King Arthur. Nay, this hatred only spawns the corrupt creatures of despotism, slavery, and greed.

 

[quadraphonics]

I was wondering how you would go about limiting inheritance. If you ban it it would be banned for everyone which comes across as too authoritarian by the state. On the other hand if you target the wealthy to such a degree that they feel their funds being controlled by outside forces they have the means to remove themselves and their wealth from that society who would have benefitted from a reasonable tax measure they would not have shirked because they wouldn't feel gouged.

So you tax it at a reasonable, progressive rate. Is that such a mystery? It's pretty common practice most places, and has been for a long, long time.

As for what's fair - last time I checked, "economic fairness" in American culture had something to do with hard work being rewarded, and the lack thereof being punished. Since heirs get their inheritance without any work, it's a pretty easy case to make that inheritence is fundamentally unfair as such. And you'll notice that all of the arguments to the contrary depend on the silly trick of presenting inheritance tax as being applied to somebody that's already dead. It isn't - had that person not died, the government wouldn't be applying said tax, and he'd be continuing to enjoy the fruits of his labor. It's a tax on the windfall of unearned income that the heirs are receiving.

Also, it's generally the case that accumulations of wealth that are genuinely beneficial to the society as a whole can't really be uprooted and moved elsewhere. I.e., such would have to be so well-integrated into the larger society that such is indispensible from said accumulation's continued existence. For example, Bill Gates can't just up and relocate MicroSoft to some Carribbean tax haven if he doesn't like the inheritance tax he'll be faced with. Maybe he could move his personal fortune around to some extent, but that's not particularly important. It's not Bill Gates' net worth that benefits our society as such, but the presence of the associated machinery for generating it in the first place. I'm hard-pressed to think of any example of a concentration of wealth that is easily separable from society (and so relocatable), and also an obvious net benefit to said society, as a whole. Perhaps you can come up with on?

 

[elte]

I dislike inherited wealth. I don't think I or anyone should get it. It all should go into a government-run pool.

My dad was very focused on accumulating a lot of wealth while sacrificing the family's well-being. If our needs would have been provided for by the state, I might not have suffered developmental disabilities, because my dad could have focused on our upbringing rather than on money.

A person having too much money leaves the person in danger of using it poorly for the benefit of society.

A study was done where people who were offered a bigger reward for a job well-done performed more poorly than the ones getting more modest rewards.