The Son Also Rises.

[Seth]

My point is: Whaddayagonnadoo? Have some sort of Lottery where a certain percentage of the 1% has to go play the Hunger Games?

Like I've said before many times. Make inheritance tax 100%.
And spend the money on a high standard of education for all.

Any money left over comes off the income tax take.

Do that and there won't be any inheritance tax collected because people won't save up to provide for their children, they will just spend it all on themselves before they die, and nobody really benefits from that.

That's what I'm preparing for. I have no children and I'll be damned if I'm going to let the IRS take a dime from my estate, so I'm setting things up so I don't own anything when I die and the government gets jack and shit.

But if I did have kids, your plan would simply kick them to the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder for no better reason than that you're jealous and envious of what others have managed to acquire in their lives. But that's what Marxists do, isn't it? They use class warfare tactics to make sure that everyone else is always as miserable and oppressed as they feel, because that's "fair."

Fuck Marxism and fuck Marxists.

[mistermack]

Do that and there won't be any inheritance tax collected because people won't save up to provide for their children, they will just spend it all on themselves before they die, and nobody really benefits from that.

That's probably the biggest load of bollocks you're ever written. And that's really saying something.

Nobody knows when they will die, and spends every penny just before. That doesn't happen.
People might say it, but they don't do it. Even people with no kids. They don't spend it all, even when they are in their nineties. In fact, people spend less as they get older.

And if they do spend it all, ''nobody really benefits from that'' ?
How the fuck do you work that out? People benefit from every penny spent. And the government takes it's share in tax, as the money circulates.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, have you?

[pErvinalia]

He's demonstrated repeatedly in the past that he has no idea how economies work.

[laklak]

Economics works???

[Seth]

Do that and there won't be any inheritance tax collected because people won't save up to provide for their children, they will just spend it all on themselves before they die, and nobody really benefits from that.

That's probably the biggest load of bollocks you're ever written. And that's really saying something.

Nobody knows when they will die, and spends every penny just before. That doesn't happen.
People might say it, but they don't do it. Even people with no kids. They don't spend it all, even when they are in their nineties. In fact, people spend less as they get older.

And if they do spend it all, ''nobody really benefits from that'' ?
How the fuck do you work that out? People benefit from every penny spent. And the government takes it's share in tax, as the money circulates.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, have you?

There's a fucking shitload of estate planning lawyers out there who would roundly disagree with you. Ever hear of "living trusts?" How about "reverse mortgages?"

And by "nobody" I actually meant individual families. You are correct of course that consumptive spending does benefit the economy and the tax base. So since the money is going to be spent eventually, by the heirs if not the ancestor, why the rush to tax it again?

[mistermack]

Do that and there won't be any inheritance tax collected because people won't save up to provide for their children, they will just spend it all on themselves before they die, and nobody really benefits from that.

That's probably the biggest load of bollocks you're ever written. And that's really saying something.

Nobody knows when they will die, and spends every penny just before. That doesn't happen.
People might say it, but they don't do it. Even people with no kids. They don't spend it all, even when they are in their nineties. In fact, people spend less as they get older.

And if they do spend it all, ''nobody really benefits from that'' ?
How the fuck do you work that out? People benefit from every penny spent. And the government takes it's share in tax, as the money circulates.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, have you?

There's a fucking shitload of estate planning lawyers out there who would roundly disagree with you. Ever hear of "living trusts?" How about "reverse mortgages?"

And by "nobody" I actually meant individual families. You are correct of course that consumptive spending does benefit the economy and the tax base. So since the money is going to be spent eventually, by the heirs if not the ancestor, why the rush to tax it again?

The idea of the proposal is to give everyone an equal start in life.
Or as equal as is practical.

Some people being born rich means that others have to be born poor.
I don't want to create an equal world. But I would like to see every kid having an equal chance.
You do that by giving every kid a good education, with the inheritance tax money.
And using the rest to reduce income tax.

That way, people pay less tax while they are alive. The only people who lose out are the people who would have inherited a big lump of cash for doing fuck-all.
That doesn't put them at the bottom of the social pile, as you claimed. It puts them level with everyone else. Level-ish anyway.

And if accountants devised ways around it, that could be made a criminal offence. For both the accountant and the customer.

[Seth]

Do that and there won't be any inheritance tax collected because people won't save up to provide for their children, they will just spend it all on themselves before they die, and nobody really benefits from that.

That's probably the biggest load of bollocks you're ever written. And that's really saying something.

Nobody knows when they will die, and spends every penny just before. That doesn't happen.
People might say it, but they don't do it. Even people with no kids. They don't spend it all, even when they are in their nineties. In fact, people spend less as they get older.

And if they do spend it all, ''nobody really benefits from that'' ?
How the fuck do you work that out? People benefit from every penny spent. And the government takes it's share in tax, as the money circulates.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about, have you?

There's a fucking shitload of estate planning lawyers out there who would roundly disagree with you. Ever hear of "living trusts?" How about "reverse mortgages?"

And by "nobody" I actually meant individual families. You are correct of course that consumptive spending does benefit the economy and the tax base. So since the money is going to be spent eventually, by the heirs if not the ancestor, why the rush to tax it again?

The idea of the proposal is to give everyone an equal start in life.
Or as equal as is practical.

Why should everyone get an equal start in life?

Some people being born rich means that others have to be born poor.

Nonsense. That is a zero-sum fallacy.

I don't want to create an equal world. But I would like to see every kid having an equal chance.

And you want some other kids to have a worse chance than they otherwise would. You don't create "equal chances" by stripping wealth from someone to give to someone else. What happens when you do that is you disincentivize people from being successful.

You do that by giving every kid a good education, with the inheritance tax money.

The amount of inheritance tax collected is a drop in the bucket to the government, but it's a better future for their kids for the creators of the wealth. Like all socialists you want everyone to suffer in equal proletarian misery because you're jealous that you don't have a rich uncle somewhere.

And using the rest to reduce income tax.

...by about three cents each.

That way, people pay less tax while they are alive. The only people who lose out are the people who would have inherited a big lump of cash for doing fuck-all.

Whose parents worked their asses off to provide them with that "big lump," which in many cases isn't in cash, it's in property or businesses created with the wealth earned by the parents. If you spend a lifetime building a small company that is successful that you wish to give to your children so they can both live on the income and continue the business, your plan strips them of that right and it destroys the business as well, which is harmful to the economy.

And why should someone who worked to create their own wealth, on which they paid income taxes, be forced to pay taxes for somebody else's income?

That doesn't put them at the bottom of the social pile, as you claimed. It puts them level with everyone else. Level-ish anyway.

Why should they be put there? Because you're envious of their parents success?

And if accountants devised ways around it, that could be made a criminal offence. For both the accountant and the customer.

Typical Marxist class warfare bitching.

[mistermack]

Why why why?

Are you really that dumb? I've given my reasoning, and what I think would be desirable. It's my opinion. It's what I would do if I was in power.

I don't expect you to agree with it, but you must be fucking stupid, if you don't understand it.
It's not rocket science.

In fact, there are plenty of billionaires who think the same, and are giving away their children's inheritance. Which destroys your moronic jibe that it's motivated by jealousy. They have nothing to be jealous of, but they aren't just talking about it, they are doing it.

[laklak]

Good for them. I'll keep my money and give what I don't waste on blow and hookers to my kids. Let them live a few decades of fiscally irresponsible debauchery.

[mistermack]

Good for them. I'll keep my money and give what I don't waste on blow and hookers to my kids. Let them live a few decades of fiscally irresponsible debauchery.

What do you mean, waste?

Anyway, what will your kids pay for an education? They could be better off having a free education and no inheritance.

[laklak]

Tuition through 4 years of university already paid for, though it must be a Florida state university. Great program, Florida prepaid tuition. Cost 10Gs each, you can enroll them at birth and pay over time with no interest. They can use it at any state university, college, community college, or tech school, or they can take the cash value if you agree to allow it. Doesn't matter how much costs increase, they get 4 full years. Between that, grants, scholarships etc there's no financial reason not to go. Older one took it out as cash, stupid moron move but what you gonna do? She made her bed, now she gets to sleep in it. Younger one is in her second year, though she burned one semester worth when she was 18. She's responsible for her living expenses, though I help out by buying books and the occasional cash injection for shit like car repairs. Don't need tehGummint paying for it, because I take care of my own. That's what you do if you have kids, you take responsibility for them. If you can't do that then don't reproduce. Pretty simple, actually, I don't know why that's apparently so hard for so many people to comprehend.

Edit - actually they can use it at almost any school in the U.S., but they won't guarantee a full 4 years of tuition, but they'll pay up to the 10G face value.

[JimC]

In Oz, university fees are sorted via a type of student loan called a HEX fee, so that tuition is free, but students pay the loan back when they start employment. It's virtually automatic, and done via the tax system I think...

[laklak]

They could do something similar here, use student loans to pay for it. But it's helluva fucking expensive, so I figured I'd give them a leg up. If they use it, great. If they don't, it's on them. Bit tough, I know. Same thing my parents did for me, except I partied my ass off for a year and they cut off the dosh. When I finally went back I had to pay for it myself. It can be done, though I don't recommend it because it sucked rank donkey dick, but I learned a shitload of valuable lessons.

[Seth]

Why why why?

Are you really that dumb? I've given my reasoning, and what I think would be desirable. It's my opinion. It's what I would do if I was in power.

I don't expect you to agree with it, but you must be fucking stupid, if you don't understand it.
It's not rocket science.

In fact, there are plenty of billionaires who think the same, and are giving away their children's inheritance.

Which, of course, is entirely their right to do, and I laud them for doing so because it's their fucking money to do with as they please. But that's not what you're talking about at all. You're talking about sending out jackbooted thugs with machine guns to take the property of the heirs of a deceased person without the slightest bit of authority to do so just so that the government can give it to someone else that you think deserves it more. That's theft no matter how you slice it. And it's all the worse for your being too cowardly to try to go steal it yourself, where you might get shot dead for trying it. You have to commission jackbooted thugs with machine guns to do your theft for you. That's pretty fucking cowardly.

Which destroys your moronic jibe that it's motivated by jealousy. They have nothing to be jealous of, but they aren't just talking about it, they are doing it.

We aren't talking about them, we're talking about you and your ilk who don't want to give away their own stuff, they want to steal other people's stuff for no better reason than that other people have more stuff than they do. That's jealousy and envy and cupidity and criminality all rolled into one.

Thanks for confirming the "why" by the way, which is that you're a jealous Marxist dupe who thinks he's entitled to take other people's stuff away from them just because they have it and you don't. In civilized society we call such people "thieves" and we put them in prison, or worse.

[Seth]

In Oz, university fees are sorted via a type of student loan called a HEX fee, so that tuition is free, but students pay the loan back when they start employment. It's virtually automatic, and done via the tax system I think...

Then it ain't free, is it?

Why do dunces insist on thinking that there is such a thing as a free lunch? Oh, wait, because they are dunces. Never mind.