> It is a net good for the economy [for individuals to improve their lives]
I agree. If you've just inherited $25 million, it would still be better for you and for society for you to get a job--even a job paying $50k a year if that is all you could get.
But...are you going to be incentivized to do so?
If you care about somebody not wanting to make $50k because they'd lose a $10k subsidy, how much MORE should you care about a $25 million subsidy disincentivizing somebody to improve themselves and contribute to society as a productive citizen.
> Trust fund babies are far more rare than people making ~$50k
That just means that imposing enough inheritance tax to incentivize them to work wouldn't effect enough people to have a negative effect on the economy. And lets not forget, the person being taxed is dead. They will feel absolutely no ill effects from the tax. Its all upside.
Not Trolling here. I advocate a 100% inheritance tax, the proceeds of which should be dedicated to education, nutrition, and housing for the next generation, to achieve the following goal: Equal ability should be given equal opportunity to succeed.
And just giving free money to one kid and nothing to another is the absolute diametrical opposite of that.
- The government created an incentive structure keeping people on government benefits from being productive members of the economy. It should fix that.
- There is still a question of scale: the trust-fund-baby population is several orders of magnitude smaller than the makes-50k population
> I advocate a 100% inheritance tax
Well then I don't think there is much common ground between us :) A 100% inheritance tax severely dis-incentivizes savings and investment, cutting off capital to the businesses that have created so much value over the last century.
> A 100% inheritance tax severely dis-incentivizes savings
Sure, but how much value have we lost because talented kids didn't get the education they needed? How much are we being harmed right now because a mediocre, but wealthy person is holding an office which could be better done by somebody who was excluded through no fault of their own//
> The people with that kind of money don't have borders restricting them.
Anybody who would leave a country which gave them so much--just so they could take EVEN MORE from it--is somebody I don't want voting in my elections anyways.
Good Riddance. Either grab an oar and start rowing with the rest of us, or get off the boat.
> Anyway you're wasting your time
No doubt I am. But when people come on here and complain about somebody making $40k a year getting a subsidy for their health care, it's fair to hold them to their own standard. You are against handouts, I get it. Well what about that handout you got from your parents when they kicked off, on set up that trust fund?
You want people to be incentivized to contribute to society, I get it. Well, if giving somebody $10k to subsidize their health care is a bad incentive, what about giving somebody $25 million?
If it's bad for people to just be arbitrarily handed free money, so be it. Let everybody start from exactly the same starting line, and let them go as fast and as far as their talents can take them. But they don't get to just give free money to people, even their kids, because apparently, that's bad.
People and organizations that understand what's important to keeping the American Empire strong and gas prices low and offer to deliver.
They aren't going anywhere. They pay for the laws.
Good luck thinking the Clinton's and MTG's would choose you over mere millionaires especially when you don't vote and don't contribute to elections. When last did you contribute money for a table at a fundraiser so someone can speak for you?
You give me the "Genocide Joe I'd rather have Trump vibe"
I and we aren't going anywhere. It's cheaper to get you out to that fake Utopia you think exists in Europe.
They have stricter immigration rules than the US and you don't qualify? Hmm. How about New Zealand and Australia? I really wonder
The US already spends more on health per capita even excluding the costs of drugs. It's not because some random put money into Bitcoin in 2006 and is now a a near billionaire. Or because they won the lottery. There's an entire system eating away at the money and even Amazon couldn't fight it. You'll have better luck getting rid of the TSA
Slurs will get you banned here. No more of this please.
You broke other site guidelines in this thread too, such as "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like." Not cool.
I agree. If you've just inherited $25 million, it would still be better for you and for society for you to get a job--even a job paying $50k a year if that is all you could get.
But...are you going to be incentivized to do so?
If you care about somebody not wanting to make $50k because they'd lose a $10k subsidy, how much MORE should you care about a $25 million subsidy disincentivizing somebody to improve themselves and contribute to society as a productive citizen.
> Trust fund babies are far more rare than people making ~$50k
That just means that imposing enough inheritance tax to incentivize them to work wouldn't effect enough people to have a negative effect on the economy. And lets not forget, the person being taxed is dead. They will feel absolutely no ill effects from the tax. Its all upside.
Not Trolling here. I advocate a 100% inheritance tax, the proceeds of which should be dedicated to education, nutrition, and housing for the next generation, to achieve the following goal: Equal ability should be given equal opportunity to succeed.
And just giving free money to one kid and nothing to another is the absolute diametrical opposite of that.