Society, Holidays etc (split from Ossus tax thread)

[Knife]

First off, I don't particularly like her wealth cap either, however the flat tax schemes and sales tax does make sense. What she wants with the wealth cap could easily be done with her 90% inheritance tax so I'm not sure why she put redundancy in there.

How very generous of you. Socialist much? Its not your money and to have the arrogance to think you can tell other people how much they can own and take the rest is just pathetic.

Just saying 'socialist' isn't a rebuttal. I realize you post more below, but just wanted to point out that saying socialist isn't an argument to anything, and honestly considering you're talking to Marina, saying socialist to describe her is like saying 'human much'? at this point. And as far as arrogance to tell others about their money and assets; get real. That's what the government does, does it now, done it in the past and will continue to do so. How arrogant are you not to realize this, and how arrogant are you to not see that it is a matter of degrees.

Do tell. When someone is worth 500 million and their investments are doing well are you just going to skim every penny off the top of their value?

Yeah, I agree with you on this. Skim the money off at their death, instead of while they are accumulating it. If for anything else, the governments take would probably be larger at the end the incrementally.

How are you going to deal with non-citizens who own businesses in the USA?

Sales tax, I thought that was pretty obvious. As a business, they still have to buy stuff to maintain that business, and that is taxable. Buy paper, staples, office furniture, computers, and up to company junkets and you pay sales tax on them.

What if Bill Gates decides to move to Mexico and renounces his US citizenship to avoid your little commie routine? You going to still steal from him? You do that and you dry up billions and billions of dollars in foreign investment. Who would want to invest in the USA if there is a chance that any money over 500 million will get stolen by your wonderful little idea.

*sigh* you magically assume that the unfettered capitalism aspect that most assume is US policy is the only reason these ultra-rich stay in America. Why?

While I dont support their ideas people like you give lots of credance to the idea that people who have nothing should not be allowed to vote because it merely results in them stealing from those who do have.

YOu assume to much. Minus one caveat of her plan, I agree with her and I'm hardly a 'have nothing' person who believes that people HAVE TO and if not FORCED TO contribute to society. In fact, if I may be allowed to assume for a moment, I'd guess a lot of people on this board who would indeed agree with most of this proposal, would also not be a 'have nothing' person.

Socialism is not the generic political policy of 'have nothings' trying to stick it to the rich. For proof of that look at the political leanings of the poor in the US, especially in the rural areas. Socialism (not comunism, the 50's-80's were a long time ago) is for those who think our society can be better if we work at it, and by society, not the 40 people of my po-dunk village, rather MY SOCIETY that has ~300 milion people in it, if not a larger mind set.

People object because it is not your place or the governments place to tell people what they can and cannot have. Once you step down that path what is to say that after a while you change the max to 50 million? 10 million? 1 million? You create a slippery slope where you have completely placed the government over the people which in America at least is not what was intended. Government exists at the sufferance of the people, NOT the other way around which is what you are implying.

Again you fail, it is the governments place to tell people what they can and cannot have. Government does it all the time goof-ball. And slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. One generally doesn't point to a logical fallacy to back up their position in a debate.

And yes, Government exists at the sufferance of people, because the people need some services for a society to work. Why do you think government exists? Tradition?

[KrauserKrauser]

I have already stated my opinions on the Duchess Tax plan, and as I said the only majorly cookoo thing she had in there was the limit on personal wealth, which is simply a 100% tax at certain point on high income earners that generated and save money.

Should the creator of Napster, Facebook, Youtube, Oprah, basically everyone with 100+ million be held up at gun point after earning their money? How hard do you think they are going to work after that?

Duchess, I think you have just bitten off a bit too much off the Communist love stick, absolute caps on wealth creates absolute caps on how hard someone will be willing to work. Why would you limit the economy unless you believe that the accumulation of wealth is inherently a bad thing. Which, from your posts, I am beginning to believe.

Do you find the idea of wealth creation and accumulation to be inherently bad?

[Knife]

Should the creator of Napster, Facebook, Youtube, Oprah, basically everyone with 100+ million be held up at gun point after earning their money? How hard do you think they are going to work after that?

Again, I'm not a fan of this part either but...

What makes you think that after the government takes it's chunk but leaves both the innovator and the infrastructure they put into place originally to make the money, they will just give up and not continue with what ever scheme they had going to make the first couple hundred million? You seem to be saying that if a revenue stream is taxed, it is some how interrupted. Just because any accumulated wealth over X is confiscated, does not automatically mean the revenue itself is taken, rather the accumulation. Or am I missing something?

[KrauserKrauser]

I'm saying that if a revenue stream is being taxed, why is there ever justification for a 100% tax on thier efforts? You obviously have broken to the basic tenant that people work for incentives and at that point you have removed the incentive for the person creating the wealth.

Why must there be a rule saying no accumulation past a certain point, why is the accumulation of wealth an inherently bad thing? They aren't stealing it, they are creating wealth. Taxing at 99% and 100% is comepletely different, at least at 99% you are still working for yourself. Why not just nationalize the companies at that point?

[Big Phil]

What if we were to create a society where everyone with a net worth of less than $100K is enslaved, because OBVIOUSLY they're a net drain on society. Let's at least put their lazy asses to some use by enslaving them and have them pick cotton, build bridges and roads, or just do my laundry. Why slavery for those with less than $100K in net worth? Well, why not? It's no less arbitrary than taking away people's money over a certain amount. It seems to me that a prime requirement of Duchess' plan is to put complete faith and trust in government, because it'll be run by magical corruption-free people, or possibly robots, who will treat everyone the same regardless. After all, that's how it was in Soviet Russia...


My contempt for Duchess' "screw everyone with more money than me" approach to societal construction aside, I do have a few questions/comments:

1. Universal Healthcare - while a good basic idea, what is the quality of that healthcare? Where is the economic incentive for doctors to practice, or for companies to invent new money making and life saving drugs and immunizations? Anecdotally I've been told by Canadian and English friends that the best Cancuck and Limey doctors don't practice at home - they go where they can make money. I've also been told that if you have a serious, urgent medical condition you'd better find a private hospital to take you in, as if you wait for public healthcare, you're likely to die before you get seen. How do you address the potential issues of long lines or wait times?
2. Inheritance Taxes - why exactly is it a bad thing for parents to pass wealth along to their children? I've seen a few comments about preventing a "new inbred aristocratic overclass through un-earned wealth," but other than these sorts of "bash the rich" arguments, I'm not seeing why this is necessary or good?
3. Free Education - good idea, but remember that people tend to value much more highly those things for which they had to struggle and pay for themselves. If everyone gets a free education, how many people will finish college and get advanced degrees? Are there any examples in the real world of countries with free education systems you can point to?
4. Taxation & wealth redistribution - again, what's the justification for this, other than "I arbitrarily decided people don't need more money than X?"

Greed, jealousy, lust, etc., all of these emotions are key motivators in getting people to perform and produce economically. Take away these motivators and give society the very basics, and you're not likely to have a Star Trek-esq paradise, but a declining society where the poor constantly look for government handouts and the rich look for ways out of dodge. Kind of reminds me of late Imperial Rome actually; seems like Duchess might be arguing that we're already doomed, so we might as well be comfortable while we die our slow death.

[Bilbo]

I find it interesting, and speaking strongly to the propaganda of the capitalist system, that the point that people find most objectionable is the idea that there should be an absolute cap on wealth... Have you all really been convinced that you, too, can one day be a multi-billionaire? I don't find anything plausible about that.

I find your entire arguement to be morally bankrupt and you completely killed any credibility with this statement. You have quite clearly stated here that since you are not going to be a billionaire and since I am not going to be a billionaire neither of us should have any problem with screwing over billionaires.

That is so morally bankrupt it is repulsive. It is the worst aspect of being self-centered. You dont care how the system works since it wont effect you.

[Bilbo]

Should the creator of Napster, Facebook, Youtube, Oprah, basically everyone with 100+ million be held up at gun point after earning their money? How hard do you think they are going to work after that?

Again, I'm not a fan of this part either but...

What makes you think that after the government takes it's chunk but leaves both the innovator and the infrastructure they put into place originally to make the money, they will just give up and not continue with what ever scheme they had going to make the first couple hundred million? You seem to be saying that if a revenue stream is taxed, it is some how interrupted. Just because any accumulated wealth over X is confiscated, does not automatically mean the revenue itself is taken, rather the accumulation. Or am I missing something?

The big problem is that if no one can earn over a certain amount then how hard they work tapers off much faster. When you can only make $100 then when you hit around $80 you probably start working half days and relaxing. What is the point in pushing. Making that last $20 will come and beyond that its not worth it. The damage isnt so much to you its to the rest of the economy. Do you think Berkshire Hathoway would be the company it is today if Warren Buffet was told he had to donate every penny over 100 million that he made?

[Bilbo]

Again you fail, it is the governments place to tell people what they can and cannot have. Government does it all the time goof-ball. And slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. One generally doesn't point to a logical fallacy to back up their position in a debate.

And yes, Government exists at the sufferance of people, because the people need some services for a society to work. Why do you think government exists? Tradition?

Okay, list for me the number of non-dangerous things that the government limits your ownership or possession?

I cannot own other people, military hardware, illegal drugs. The government may limit my use of my car without a license. The government may limit my use of a plane I purchase if I do not have a pilots license. But never is the actual ownership limited. The government will force me to pay property tax which can limit how much I may purchase but if I can afford it I can buy it.

Yet now we want to let government limit your ownership of non-dangerous items. That is a radical departure form the way at least the American government works. So ye while the government does control what we can and cannot have it has never done it in any way that she is suggesting. This would be a basic change in the concept of government.

[KrauserKrauser]

You are basically limiting everyone's potential contribution to society, using that work should be paid and the most valuable work will be paid the most as a backbone theory, needlessly. Taxing income is one thing, but setting maximum total earning is simply assinine.

Maybe if Duchess took her head out of her ass when swinging between ideologies, she might realize that compromises are the reality of life and no, the proliteriat will not suddenly rise up if someone comes up with an idea that makes a shitload of money. Obviously tearing down the rich after they to an arbitrary amount of welath is the only option.

Also stop with this forced contribution to charity bullshit as a lame cop out of "We're not stealing it, for serial!" You are telling them on threat of criminal charges to give all of their money up to a certain point in a manner not of their choosing. Why not just admit that you want the money for the government, no need for intellectual dishonesty, you hate the rich, admit it, alot of other people do too, most sane people recognize that at worst as a required evil and want to tax their income, not stick them up with a gun for their wallets once it gets too big.

[Knife]

The big problem is that if no one can earn over a certain amount then how hard they work tapers off much faster. When you can only make $100 then when you hit around $80 you probably start working half days and relaxing. What is the point in pushing. Making that last $20 will come and beyond that its not worth it.

Sure, what's your point? By her own system, anything over that vanishes anyway, so yeah, plenty of people will structure their jobs as to be in the 90% range.

The damage isnt so much to you its to the rest of the economy. Do you think Berkshire Hathoway would be the company it is today if Warren Buffet was told he had to donate every penny over 100 million that he made?

So, only the big guys matter in the economy?

Anyway, I don't know why I'm arguing this, since I agree the cap is dumb. The death tax provision fits her intent better and isn't as abhorrent.

Okay, list for me the number of non-dangerous things that the government limits your ownership or possession?

I cannot own other people, military hardware, illegal drugs. The government may limit my use of my car without a license. The government may limit my use of a plane I purchase if I do not have a pilots license. But never is the actual ownership limited. The government will force me to pay property tax which can limit how much I may purchase but if I can afford it I can buy it.

Lol, why ask a question if you are just going to answer it for me.

And why we're at it, if the government tax on it makes it prohibitive for you to buy, the government is indeed limiting you on what you can buy. You seem to realize this and the general point I'm making on an intuitive level and yet rage against it in your argument. The government tells you what you can and cannot do, that is its job. Everything else is by degrees.

Yet now we want to let government limit your ownership of non-dangerous items. That is a radical departure form the way at least the American government works. So ye while the government does control what we can and cannot have it has never done it in any way that she is suggesting. This would be a basic change in the concept of government.

BTW, I did notice you setting the bar higher with your 'dangerous items' bit. That said, yes indeed this would be a massive change in the concept of government for Americans. That I agree with you 100%.

[Vendetta]

1. Universal Healthcare - while a good basic idea, what is the quality of that healthcare?

Better than in the US, by and large. Remember, the market based model of the US has produced what is the worst healthcare system in the first world for the vast majority of it's population.

Where is the economic incentive for doctors to practice,

They get paid. They get paid rather well, in fact.

4. Taxation & wealth redistribution - again, what's the justification for this, other than "I arbitrarily decided people don't need more money than X?"

The economy is fucked. It will take a great deal of unfucking, and that will cost a lot of money. That money has to come from somewhere.

It also improves the average quality of life for the population at large. Social democracies with higher taxation like those in Scandinavia tend to have not only a better average quality of life but more social mobility than the United States, where the concept of "making it" is little more than a myth, because the vastly overwhelming tendency is for people to remain at the same social level and income level as their parents.

[Knife]

1. Universal Healthcare - while a good basic idea, what is the quality of that healthcare?

Thats a good question actually. I'd go with basic coverage including preventative medicine, obviously emergency coverage, and LTC for chronic disease, personally. But I think that is a debate unto itself.

Where is the economic incentive for doctors to practice, or for companies to invent new money making and life saving drugs and immunizations? Anecdotally I've been told by Canadian and English friends that the best Cancuck and Limey doctors don't practice at home - they go where they can make money.

Yes, supposedly they all run to America to make high millions instead of low millions. Without that they may have to just take low millions.

I've also been told that if you have a serious, urgent medical condition you'd better find a private hospital to take you in, as if you wait for public healthcare, you're likely to die before you get seen. How do you address the potential issues of long lines or wait times?

You say that as if there isn't a problem with that in our own system. Unless you have a doctor friend or private practice willing to see you immeadiately, you do have to wait for triage in a hospital. Worst case first, so the simple fact that most people assume they, themselves, are the worst case they usually aren't and wait. You go to the ER, you're probably going to be there for at least 2-3 hours before a doctor see's you unless you have some actually serious shit going on with you.

If you have a chronic illness and need a specialist, outside of an emergency, depending on the specialist, you could have to wait months to get in and see the guy, unless you have some strings you can pull. So if there is a line anyways, does it matter which one you stand in? I'll take the free line over the 'go bankrupt in medical bills' line any day.

2. Inheritance Taxes - why exactly is it a bad thing for parents to pass wealth along to their children? I've seen a few comments about preventing a "new inbred aristocratic overclass through un-earned wealth," but other than these sorts of "bash the rich" arguments, I'm not seeing why this is necessary or good?

Yes, because medieval traditions about leaving your heir your lands and rights should continue because well its tradition.

3. Free Education - good idea, but remember that people tend to value much more highly those things for which they had to struggle and pay for themselves. If everyone gets a free education, how many people will finish college and get advanced degrees? Are there any examples in the real world of countries with free education systems you can point to?

Well, I'd balance the free university bit with corresponding free trade schools. Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or engineer, etc... however the point of free education, I think, is equal opportunity to try to be those things. Others have put out arguments about an educated (university) makes them better thinkers overall and thus a better society, but I disagree with that blanket assertion.

4. Taxation & wealth redistribution - again, what's the justification for this, other than "I arbitrarily decided people don't need more money than X?"

You say that as if it isn't a good argument. Well, perhaps the 'arbitrarily' bit.

[Bilbo]

The big problem is that if no one can earn over a certain amount then how hard they work tapers off much faster. When you can only make $100 then when you hit around $80 you probably start working half days and relaxing. What is the point in pushing. Making that last $20 will come and beyond that its not worth it.

Sure, what's your point? By her own system, anything over that vanishes anyway, so yeah, plenty of people will structure their jobs as to be in the 90% range.

The damage isnt so much to you its to the rest of the economy. Do you think Berkshire Hathoway would be the company it is today if Warren Buffet was told he had to donate every penny over 100 million that he made?

So, only the big guys matter in the economy?

Anyway, I don't know why I'm arguing this, since I agree the cap is dumb. The death tax provision fits her intent better and isn't as abhorrent.

Okay, list for me the number of non-dangerous things that the government limits your ownership or possession?

I cannot own other people, military hardware, illegal drugs. The government may limit my use of my car without a license. The government may limit my use of a plane I purchase if I do not have a pilots license. But never is the actual ownership limited. The government will force me to pay property tax which can limit how much I may purchase but if I can afford it I can buy it.

Lol, why ask a question if you are just going to answer it for me.

And why we're at it, if the government tax on it makes it prohibitive for you to buy, the government is indeed limiting you on what you can buy. You seem to realize this and the general point I'm making on an intuitive level and yet rage against it in your argument. The government tells you what you can and cannot do, that is its job. Everything else is by degrees.

Yet now we want to let government limit your ownership of non-dangerous items. That is a radical departure form the way at least the American government works. So ye while the government does control what we can and cannot have it has never done it in any way that she is suggesting. This would be a basic change in the concept of government.

BTW, I did notice you setting the bar higher with your 'dangerous items' bit. That said, yes indeed this would be a massive change in the concept of government for Americans. That I agree with you 100%.

I just figured you were having fun being a devils advocate. To me having to be able to afford the item and all its costs is not a true limiter.

No matter how rich I get I will never be able to purchase a M-1 tank or fully functional F-22 raptor. Even though he could afford to buy one and fully load it with planes Bill Gates could never purchase a Nimitz Class CVN. That is real limits. Not being able to buy more land because I cannot afford the property tax is different. Its no different then having to buy a Honda instead of a Bentley. I can afford one I cannot afford the other. If my income radically changes I may one day be able to afford either and the government isnt going to care.

But this arguement really is pointless. The maximum money (or is it money and property?) idea is just her spouting off and showing her anger at people who have more than her and damn it wont spend that money to make her life better.

[KrauserKrauser]

Well, I'd balance the free university bit with corresponding free trade schools. Not everyone is cut out to be a doctor or engineer, etc... however the point of free education, I think, is equal opportunity to try to be those things. Others have put out arguments about an educated (university) makes them better thinkers overall and thus a better society, but I disagree with that blanket assertion.

Agreed, I actually thought of this suggestion while driving home yesterday. Trade schools are essential to a working economy and not everyone fits for a university education. If nothing else, some people learn differently and trend towards the more mechanical sciences and applications that are taught in trade schools.

You say that as if it isn't a good argument. Well, perhaps the 'arbitrarily' bit.

So he has a good argument?

Duchess says that 100million is too much. I'm sure that in her mind that is a seriouslly huge amount of money, which it is. It is still an arbitrary level. What is the justification for an arbitrary maximum amount of wealth to be allowed for one person to gather? If the income is taxed heavily enough, why should someone be punished for managing their investments to the point of accumulating as much wealth as they want?

Historically, rich people naturally trend toward philanthropy once they have accumulated super mega wealth, do you really need to stick a gun in their face to get money they may have donated on their own?

[Knife]

So he has a good argument?

I'm actually against that part in her plan so don't get confused.

Duchess says that 100million is too much. I'm sure that in her mind that is a seriouslly huge amount of money, which it is. It is still an arbitrary level. What is the justification for an arbitrary maximum amount of wealth to be allowed for one person to gather? If the income is taxed heavily enough, why should someone be punished for managing their investments to the point of accumulating as much wealth as they want?

Purely on a discussion level, her death tax already covers what she wants this part to do, so I find it redundant along with my actual disagreement with it.

Historically, rich people naturally trend toward philanthropy once they have accumulated super mega wealth, do you really need to stick a gun in their face to get money they may have donated on their own?

Two things, 1) giving to charity is a good way to avoid taxes, so I'm not sure you can claim plain old philanthropy for that. 2) I hate the 'stick a gun in their face' bit, since it is just inflammatory. We're discussing laws here, yes if you follow the chain all the way up, there's guys with guns. However, paying your taxes is not some guy with a gun in your face and repeatedly referring it as such just fosters the notion that the poor are trying to steal from the rich.

To my knoweldge, guys with guns in France don't take the French wealthy's money, they pay their taxes just like everyone else.

[KrauserKrauser]

Yeah, it's inflammatory, it must be all the Capitalist brainwashing that Duchess is saying I have been exposed to.

Does France, or any other country in Europe in the EU have such ham-fisted limits to wealth? I'm still waiting on her justification for the limits.

[D.Turtle]

1. Universal Healthcare - while a good basic idea, what is the quality of that healthcare?

Well, lets see. Why don't you look up the life expectancy of people in Germany, the UK, and France?
Looking at the World Factbook, France is 9th with 80.87, Germany is 31st with 79.10, the United Kingdom is 36th with 78.85, while the United States is 46th with 78.14.
This ignores the problem of people not having any health insurance at all, and people being bankrupted because of healthcare costs - both of which are huge factors in the United States, while being almost non-existent in countries with Universal Healthcare. This also ignores the fact that with Universal Healthcare, people can immediately go visit a doctor if they have problems, while not having to worry about the costs of the same.

Where is the economic incentive for doctors to practice,

Doctors get paid? Quite a lot of money, to be exact.

or for companies to invent new money making and life saving drugs and immunizations?

Drugs cost money to buy - except I don't pay them - the insurance does.

Anecdotally I've been told by Canadian and English friends that the best Cancuck and Limey doctors don't practice at home - they go where they can make money.

Ah yes, ancedotes...
Some doctors can make more money in other countries - the key word being "more" - doctors still earn money.

I've also been told that if you have a serious, urgent medical condition you'd better find a private hospital to take you in, as if you wait for public healthcare, you're likely to die before you get seen.

"I've been told" - how trustworthy...

How do you address the potential issues of long lines or wait times?

Ah, yes long wait times do not exist in private hospitals. Where did that women die again while waiting for almost 24 hours to finally get some attention? It wasn't the US, was it?

2. Inheritance Taxes - why exactly is it a bad thing for parents to pass wealth along to their children? I've seen a few comments about preventing a "new inbred aristocratic overclass through un-earned wealth," but other than these sorts of "bash the rich" arguments, I'm not seeing why this is necessary or good?

The goal of such crass inheritance taxes would be to level the playing field. Why should people be punished for being born to poor(er) parents?

3. Free Education - good idea,

Exactly

but remember that people tend to value much more highly those things for which they had to struggle and pay for themselves.

Then you agree that huge inheritances are a bad thing?

If everyone gets a free education, how many people will finish college and get advanced degrees?

More than if they (and their parents) have to save money all their lives just to start to go to college, and then be in debt after finishing college, and paying off their college debt for the rest of their lives while trying to save money to pay for their children so that they can go to college?

Are there any examples in the real world of countries with free education systems you can point to?

Germany - though admittedly some states have introduced a set amount to be payed per semester (Up to about 500€ per semester). Did I mention that you are also able to get a interest free loan if you go to college, with the amount you have to pay back hard-capped at about 10k €, while you can receive up to about 25k € over the years in college?

4. Taxation & wealth redistribution - again, what's the justification for this, other than "I arbitrarily decided people don't need more money than X?"

Leveling the playing field.

Greed, jealousy, lust, etc., all of these emotions are key motivators in getting people to perform and produce economically. Take away these motivators and give society the very basics, and you're not likely to have a Star Trek-esq paradise, but a declining society where the poor constantly look for government handouts and the rich look for ways out of dodge. Kind of reminds me of late Imperial Rome actually; seems like Duchess might be arguing that we're already doomed, so we might as well be comfortable while we die our slow death.

Duchess is not talking about removing your "key motivators" - she is talking about limiting the effect (mainly the negative ones) of the results of the greed. Its interesting that you think that capping the wealth of people at $100 million is "taking away these motivators". How many people accumulate $100 million in their lifetimes? And no, this is not about introducing a slippery slope to make everyone have the same amount of money. It is about thinking what benefits society as a whole the most, and in this case how society benefits from the super-rich.

[Bilbo]

Yeah, it's inflammatory, it must be all the Capitalist brainwashing that Duchess is saying I have been exposed to.

Does France, or any other country in Europe in the EU have such ham-fisted limits to wealth? I'm still waiting on her justification for the limits.

She will never reach those limits. That is her justification. I am surprised she didnt set them lower say 10 million or 1 million since I doubt she will ever reach those either.

[Rogue 9]

The government does that now. We had a thread were we talked about how people couldn't keep base balls and prize cars because the taxes were too high.

Obviously under Duchess plan we will get some flavor of socialism:
-You are a counter-revolutionary profiter- die!
-Backbone of the working class- no tax
-Bribe the revolutionary cadre in your area to look the other way
-Do the smart thing and DON'T get the paintings appraised.

False comparison. The baseballs and prizes were presumably quite valuable when acquired. The example paintings are not relatively valuable when purchased, AND presumably the person in question payed any applicable sales tax at that time. What Duchess is talking about is outright forfeiture of property, not "I can't afford to pay the taxes on it." In this case, "the taxes on it" equal the value of the property itself.

I think it should be said that if property worth more than $100 million would be seized, no one would value a painting at $100 million. No one would pay that much for it, because then it would be seized from them; it pretty much automatically deflates the market.

[Coyote]

Inheritance laws should be of course strict and immediately crushing any attempts at creating a new inbred aristocratic overclass through un-earned wealth. The problem - such an approach will immediately generate antipathy from the rich person whose child is being denied his full assets ...

Heh, not just the rich. The rich have successfully managed to turn the inheritance taxes into something called "the death tax", and painted it up as an evil Democrat/Socialist plot to tax you for dying.

Now, this inheritance tax only hits people who inherit more than $300,000.00 from a deceased relative, which I think it's safe to say means that 95% of the working public will never be "taxed for dying". But by painting it up as some evil "taxing death" scheme, the largely ignorant voting public tries to shoot it down whenever they get the opportunity.

[Coyote]

Some of the arguments that favor the rich here seem to imply that the wealthy people all got their money honestly, and that the wealthy, by dint of their prescence, is somehow a great benefit to the society.

Wealthy people who become wealthy through predatory business practices that threaten, or lawsuit-to-death, potentially innovative competitors (Microsoft, perhaps?) are not necessarily saints in the community. It is hard to become a billionaire through good old honest sweat-o-the-brow work. Whether it's ignoring environmental regulations, offshore tax shelters, exploiting labor, shipping work overseas to child sweatshops or hiring illegals in one's own backyard, chances are there's something of the robber baron at work in the organizations they ride to the top.

Although that would be something for the courts to pursue, with the result being squeezing them for fines rather than taxes.

[Big Phil]

Some of the arguments that favor the rich here seem to imply that the wealthy people all got their money honestly, and that the wealthy, by dint of their prescence, is somehow a great benefit to the society.

Actually, Duchess and others seem to be implying the flip side of this, that most wealthy people got their money dishonestly (or through inheritance), and that their presence is a pox on society. If that isn't a black/white fallacy, I don't know what is. Regardless, punishing people for having money is a terrible idea. If Duchess wants her ideas to be taken seriously, then I insist that my idea of enslaving everyone with a net worth of less than $100K be taken seriously as well. It's no less arbitrary and no more idiotic than her idea.

Wealthy people who become wealthy through predatory business practices that threaten, or lawsuit-to-death, potentially innovative competitors (Microsoft, perhaps?) are not necessarily saints in the community. It is hard to become a billionaire through good old honest sweat-o-the-brow work. Whether it's ignoring environmental regulations, offshore tax shelters, exploiting labor, shipping work overseas to child sweatshops or hiring illegals in one's own backyard, chances are there's something of the robber baron at work in the organizations they ride to the top.

Although that would be something for the courts to pursue, with the result being squeezing them for fines rather than taxes.

No argument here. People who commit crimes should be punished.

[Terralthra]

Now, this inheritance tax only hits people who inherit more than $300,000.00 from a deceased relative, which I think it's safe to say means that 95% of the working public will never be "taxed for dying". But by painting it up as some evil "taxing death" scheme, the largely ignorant voting public tries to shoot it down whenever they get the opportunity.

If it were $300,000, then anyone who inherits a house or condo in California would be subject to it. The exemption right now is actually $1,000,000. It falls to $1,000,000 in 2011.

[Beowulf]

Now, this inheritance tax only hits people who inherit more than $300,000.00 from a deceased relative, which I think it's safe to say means that 95% of the working public will never be "taxed for dying". But by painting it up as some evil "taxing death" scheme, the largely ignorant voting public tries to shoot it down whenever they get the opportunity.

If it were $300,000, then anyone who inherits a house or condo in California would be subject to it. The exemption right now is actually $1,000,000. It falls to $1,000,000 in 2011.

Also, such enterprises as family farms are also subject to it. The actual value of the farm in terms of land value, etc. is fairly high, but the income from it isn't enough to be able to pay taxes on it and still be able to live. So it's not uncommon for them to get bought up by big corps when the original owner dies.

[Terralthra]

Hah. Just realized I typoed. It's $2,000,000 now. $1,000,000 in 2011.