Upward Mobility

[PGJ]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
In an extreme example Paris Hilton did nothing but be born, be a skank, and get drunk, and she is set for life. I fail to see how she worked hard for anything, ever.

This is one more data point that proves the estate tax needs to remain unchanged. We should change the name of the tax to “anti-king tax” to get more people on board–since the entire point is to keep people from riding on their parents laurels and stifling the rise of an aristocracy . Not that she should not get some inheritance. I just hope that her father is smart enough to give his money away before he dies.

Warren Buffet’s take on it, taken from:

http://www.pgtoday.com/pgt/articles/the_estate_of_the_union.htm

Buffet wins the prize for best estate tax sound bite with his now famous sports analogy. He argues that repealing the estate tax would be a terrible mistake equivalent to “choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics” (New York Times, February 13, 2001). If this is folly in terms of athletic competition, then why not in terms of economic competition?[/quote]

If I work hard, make millions, pay my taxes, why shouldn’t I be allowed to leave every penny, untaxed, to my children? I made the money, paid my share to the government, it’s mine to do with whatever I want. Why get taxed again because the money is changing hands? People want LESS government interference, yet support stuff like taxing inheritances among family members.

If I want to raise a spoiled, rotten idiot of a child like Hilton (which I do not) that’s nobody’s businees but mine. Do you REALLY want the government deciding this kind of stuff for you?

[haney1]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
In an extreme example Paris Hilton did nothing but be born, be a skank, and get drunk, and she is set for life. I fail to see how she worked hard for anything, ever.

This is one more data point that proves the estate tax needs to remain unchanged. We should change the name of the tax to “anti-king tax” to get more people on board–since the entire point is to keep people from riding on their parents laurels and stifling the rise of an aristocracy . Not that she should not get some inheritance. I just hope that her father is smart enough to give his money away before he dies.

Warren Buffet’s take on it, taken from:

http://www.pgtoday.com/pgt/articles/the_estate_of_the_union.htm

Buffet wins the prize for best estate tax sound bite with his now famous sports analogy. He argues that repealing the estate tax would be a terrible mistake equivalent to “choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics” (New York Times, February 13, 2001). If this is folly in terms of athletic competition, then why not in terms of economic competition?[/quote]

This is faulty logic. If The 2000 gold winner dies guess who get his 2000 medal?

When someone dies and leaves you money you are not awarded thier future earnings and status. You are still forced to earn it on your own.

While I like Warren Buffet on many policies, I think he needs to come back to the middle ground on this issue.

The estate Tax is a horrible idea. It is no more than the government stealing.

Hey you spent your enitre life working for something building business, and employing many people, but we are going to take half your estate. Your family will be forced to sell the business at a deep discount, and the new company will lay off most of the employees.

It has an impact on more than just the family members.

As for Paris you have to give her credit. She took her name, and now makes her own money. She created a brand, and if you took all of her parents money away she would still be very rich. I don’t like her, but I think she has some business smarts.

[JeffR]

[quote]petey wrote:
US was once touted as th eland of opportunity, but with a disappearing middle class and a growing lower class, it seems the ladder of upward mobility is getting harder and harder to climb.

Studies show France, Denmark and Canada are beating the US in upward generational mobility. Americans are arguably more likely than they were 30 years ago to end up in the class into which they were born.

I read through the posts in the Gas prices thread and it seems the consensus is that the gas prices are OK if it makes some people wealthy, but it seems to me the only people getting wealthy are the wealthy. [/quote]

WARNING: TROLL POST COMING!!!

If you sensitive about trolling, don’t read this next paragraph.

My two favorite bumper stickers:

1. Vote democratic, it’s easier than getting a job.

Germane as petey is dolling out the usual: “Eat the rich, crap.”

Second favorite bumper sticker:

2. ted kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun.

In other news, quit whining and work harder.

JeffR

[PGJ]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
petey wrote:
US was once touted as th eland of opportunity, but with a disappearing middle class and a growing lower class, it seems the ladder of upward mobility is getting harder and harder to climb.

Studies show France, Denmark and Canada are beating the US in upward generational mobility. Americans are arguably more likely than they were 30 years ago to end up in the class into which they were born.

I read through the posts in the Gas prices thread and it seems the consensus is that the gas prices are OK if it makes some people wealthy, but it seems to me the only people getting wealthy are the wealthy.

WARNING: TROLL POST COMING!!!

If you sensitive about trolling, don’t read this next paragraph.

My two favorite bumper stickers:

1. Vote democratic, it’s easier than getting a job.

Germane as petey is dolling out the usual: “Eat the rich, crap.”

Second favorite bumper sticker:

2. ted kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun.

In other news, quit whining and work harder.

JeffR
[/quote]

Amen, brother.

How about this? Instead of watching American Idol and Hero all night, go to night school. Improve your credentials.

Why do people who sit on their ass and do nothing to improve themselves expect their standard of living to improve?

Sometimes a big step up starts with a step down.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Personal decisions. I do not disagree with what you said, but your lot in life is 100% your choice.

I’m sure you remember those guys in the military who were always broke, in debt, and in lots of financial trouble, yet his friend who is the same rank, receives the exact same pay does just fine and even manages to save a little. Personal choices.

[/quote]
Yes I remember all too well. The reason most of were poor were from bad financial decisions. What the hell does a pfc need with a $20k car that he can’t drive because he’s gone 6months out of the year on a MEF rotation? Most young marines need come counseling on interest rates.

About personal choice: most people do not choose to have to work a shitty job with low pay. Its called the free market and they can be victims of it as well as benefactors depending on how “correctly” they decide. I don’t like calling them victims because as I said they make due with they have and do what needs to be done with out complaining–but it still sucks for them.

What does one do that doesn’t have the skill set that I have that has no hope of going to college that is destined to “flip burgers”? What do poor people do to better their lives? The answer isn’t working 80hrs a week instead of 40.

I do believe that there will always be poor people but I believe the only reason for a government to exist is to take care of the less fortunate as they are the prime reason we have a competitive economy at all–we call it cheap labor. They are not loafers freeloading the system as some people like to say.

BTW, the majority of the “freeloaders” are the veterans of war whom have been forgotten by their country. May you never suffer that fate.

[lucasa]

I think some misunderstand the point. As LIFTICVS said, think of it as an Anti-King tax. It is by no means an outright, instantaneous “no money for the children” sort of proposition.

Logically, If I had to put money down right now as to who was going to be the better economic bet, the people or the state 500 yrs. down the line, I have to look past the fact that the state will likely remain intact 500 yrs. down the line whereas the people will be dead. If the state doesn’t survive, then my money’s pretty worthless anyway.

Arguing against the gold medal situation doesn’t prove anything. The reason the 2004 medalist is not offspring of the 2000 medalist is because of an overlying organization that removes the medal from the predecessor and gives it to the successor. Assertions of Communism are equally frivolous, money is communism, we all agree to a government that provides value to the paper we exchange.

Further, what better way to tie your child to the state than merely to provide them with said money. Buying scrap metal and teaching them to build cars is truer to independence than giving them a car. All the money handed to children represents something that they won’t learn or earn and, in the future, will be dependent on the state to provide.

And I agree the gov’t needs to be more deserving and intelligent with the money (maybe too much was handed to them in the first place), but this is a somewhat separate issue all together. Those who want less government would want to minimize transactions between people and the gov’t rather than maintain an annual review of income and perform complex transactions iteratively.

And what better way to demand government responsibility than payment in arrear?

As for crumbling economies because of the destruction of small business, this is propaganda. Several small businesses will fail within one person’s life because of that one person. Additionally, unless you wholly subscribe to Lamarckian Evolutionary Theory, there is no reason to believe small business is more likely to succeed or fail based solely on familial ownership.

Transfer of ownership and incorporation provide evidence both that familial ownership isn’t necessary and that businesses can and do survive inheritance taxation.

I’ve said this before, Paine’s chapter from Common Sense; Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession is a good read on the ideal.

Thomas Paine: Common Sense

For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and tho’ himself might deserve some decent degree of honours of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them.

I’ll get off my soapbox now.

PS- Anyone know how many man-hours of labor Paris Hilton invested in making “her brand”? I don’t generally believe in the labor theory of value, but the paradox of value has to be destroying marginal utility here.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]PGJ wrote:

If I work hard, make millions, pay my taxes, why shouldn’t I be allowed to leave every penny, untaxed, to my children? I made the money, paid my share to the government, it’s mine to do with whatever I want. Why get taxed again because the money is changing hands? People want LESS government interference, yet support stuff like taxing inheritances among family members.

If I want to raise a spoiled, rotten idiot of a child like Hilton (which I do not) that’s nobody’s businees but mine. Do you REALLY want the government deciding this kind of stuff for you?
[/quote]
Yes, I agree with you about leaving your loved ones “something” as I stated she should get some inheritance but she shouldn’t inherit the “kingdom”. I am extremely anti-aristocracy and see that as the root cause to all problems with national sovereignty.

There is not one case in history where government rule hasn’t been negatively affected by it. Historically speaking we are a young nation though have the oldest working document. I do not see this as a coincidence in regard to aristocracy.

As dynasties grow older naturally their fortunes grow larger and (as Warren Buffet points out) there is no way to foresee how that fortune will be used 2 or 3 generations from now when he is gone. We would be better off investing in right now than 50 - 100 years from now having to worry about the negative influence that wealth could bring.

I don’t care if Ms. Hilton is left $50 million, or whatever, my argument is that she should not be entitled to her father’s estate. The pittance you or any “regular” person should want to leave your children should not be subject to the estate tax.

You do not have to give your money to the gov’t when you die. Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gates are giving it away to cause.

[orion]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
In an extreme example Paris Hilton did nothing but be born, be a skank, and get drunk, and she is set for life. I fail to see how she worked hard for anything, ever.

I’m split on this issue Pete. I’m definitely a capitalist in the short term and Paris Hilton has every right to the money her father earned, or rather, her father has every right to give her the money.

However, long term I believe the gov’t prints, valuates, and regulates all the money and that individuals are only “granted access” to it in the same short term. Many argue against the inheritance tax, in combination with income tax, as “double-dipping”.

IMO, of the two, income tax is in err and the gov’t deserves more of its money back two, three, and four generations down the line (we don’t have a right to money) and double-dipping is a retarded argument that should be saved for discussions of efficiency.

I also believe that the tax base for a protracted society shouldn’t belong on the most transient of that society’s entities. Populations rise and fall, and gov’t is often required to act in the opposite direction. Lastly, I think any corporate entity, while not inherently evil, stands in direct opposition to the thematic organization of a democratically-elected federal republic and that gov’t spending $ on corporations through welfare as well as direct market consumption is, in varying degrees, a betrayal to “We the People”.

I think first, however, ours (or any gov’t) needs to be more worthy of those cumulative efforts of several generations.

What I know is that writing whiny posts about how others have more than you or that one person has more than another is not helping things any. We have actual data and numbers to tell us things like that.[/quote]

Wait a minute, government simply socialized money less than 100 years ago and suddenly it is privilege granted by them?

Is you insane?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]haney1 wrote:
This is faulty logic. If The 2000 gold winner dies guess who get his 2000 medal?

…

As for Paris you have to give her credit. She took her name, and now makes her own money. She created a brand, and if you took all of her parents money away she would still be very rich. I don’t like her, but I think she has some business smarts.[/quote]
Yes, shes making it on her own. She is not “entitled” to it because she was lucky to be born to wealth.

You miss the point about the olympic medalist. No one cares about the stupid medal. The point was that you wouldn’t bet on his children being an olympic medalist just like you wouldn’t bet that a rich persons child would end up being a good person.

I would rather alienate .001% of the US population with an estate tax than the other 99.999% who might have to suffer because of a false entitlement.

[orion]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Arguing against the gold medal situation doesn’t prove anything. The reason the 2004 medalist is not offspring of the 2000 medalist is because of an overlying organization that removes the medal from the predecessor and gives it to the successor. Assertions of Communism are equally frivolous, money is communism, we all agree to a government that provides value to the paper we exchange.

[/quote]

it is the US economy and it`s hard working citizens that give any credibility to the $.

You honestly think the US government can force me to accept a $? In your world it should be able too.

I merely prints it and not even that in the US.

They did not invent it, they do not secure its value , in fact the constantly slightly de-value it and they just plain stole it, those bastards.

[PGJ]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Personal decisions. I do not disagree with what you said, but your lot in life is 100% your choice.

I’m sure you remember those guys in the military who were always broke, in debt, and in lots of financial trouble, yet his friend who is the same rank, receives the exact same pay does just fine and even manages to save a little. Personal choices.

Yes I remember all too well. The reason most of were poor were from bad financial decisions. What the hell does a pfc need with a $20k car that he can’t drive because he’s gone 6months out of the year on a MEF rotation? Most young marines need come counseling on interest rates.

About personal choice: most people do not choose to have to work a shitty job with low pay. Its called the free market and they can be victims of it as well as benefactors depending on how “correctly” they decide. I don’t like calling them victims because as I said they make due with they have and do what needs to be done with out complaining–but it still sucks for them.

What does one do that doesn’t have the skill set that I have that has no hope of going to college that is destined to “flip burgers”? What do poor people do to better their lives? The answer isn’t working 80hrs a week instead of 40.

I do believe that there will always be poor people but I believe the only reason for a government to exist is to take care of the less fortunate as they are the prime reason we have a competitive economy at all–we call it cheap labor. They are not loafers freeloading the system as some people like to say.

BTW, the majority of the “freeloaders” are the veterans of war whom have been forgotten by their country. May you never suffer that fate.[/quote]

Again, it’s all personal decision. I’m a field grade officer and drive a $4000 POS car. Many of my 18 year old PVTs have sweet cars and huge car payments. Personal decisions. There is absolutely no reason for someone not to go to college. There are way too many tuition assistance programs out there. Don’t have the grades to get in to Yale…go to Junior College and work your way up.

Get married at 18 and have kids right away…things will be more difficult. But then that’s a personal decision. I do not agree that it is the government’s job to ensure you have a good life. If you are on welfare for a year, you are loafing. The government has a duty to help and provide assistance.

I use Hurricane Katrina as an example. Everyone blames the “government” for not responding quickly enough. Some of these life-time wellfare leeches probably expected some government employee to come to their government provided house, physically lift them out of their lay-z-boy chair (purchased with wellfare checks) and carry them to safety.

People expect the government to care for them simply because they exist. I have a problem giving my hard-earned money to them. You get a total of one year on well fare for your entire life, and that’s it. That would be my plan.

Personal accountability. Democrats claim to be for smaller government, yet support MASSIVE social programs (wellfare has a bigger budget than the military) that make it impossible to wean people off of the governments social tit.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
PS- Anyone know how many man-hours of labor Paris Hilton invested in making “her brand”? I don’t generally believe in the labor theory of value, but the paradox of value has to be destroying marginal utility here.[/quote]

Hey, getting harassed by the paparazzi is hard work.

[PGJ]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:

If I work hard, make millions, pay my taxes, why shouldn’t I be allowed to leave every penny, untaxed, to my children? I made the money, paid my share to the government, it’s mine to do with whatever I want. Why get taxed again because the money is changing hands? People want LESS government interference, yet support stuff like taxing inheritances among family members.

If I want to raise a spoiled, rotten idiot of a child like Hilton (which I do not) that’s nobody’s businees but mine. Do you REALLY want the government deciding this kind of stuff for you?

Yes, I agree with you about leaving your loved ones “something” as I stated she should get some inheritance but she shouldn’t inherit the “kingdom”. I am extremely anti-aristocracy and see that as the root cause to all problems with national sovereignty.

There is not one case in history where government rule hasn’t been negatively affected by it. Historically speaking we are a young nation though have the oldest working document. I do not see this as a coincidence in regard to aristocracy.

As dynasties grow older naturally their fortunes grow larger and (as Warren Buffet points out) there is no way to foresee how that fortune will be used 2 or 3 generations from now when he is gone. We would be better off investing in right now than 50 - 100 years from now having to worry about the negative influence that wealth could bring.

I don’t care if Ms. Hilton is left $50 million, or whatever, my argument is that she should not be entitled to her father’s estate. The pittance you or any “regular” person should want to leave your children should not be subject to the estate tax.

You do not have to give your money to the gov’t when you die. Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gates are giving it away to cause.[/quote]

What do you consider a regular guy? It’s my money. I made it. I payed my taxes. If I want to give it to a stranger on the street, I should be allowed to do that without additional taxes. How in the hell can you justify the government deciding how to divvy up your estate when you die?

What if Paris Hilton was a smart, honest, hard working, well respected, business woman who wanted to take that money and reinvest it in the company, maybe set up a philanthropy, and cure cancer? Would you still want her inheratiance to be massively taxed?

Let’s not assume that EVERY kid who inherits huge sums of money is stupid or not worthy.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
There is absolutely no reason for someone not to go to college. There are way too many tuition assistance programs out there. Don’t have the grades to get in to Yale…go to Junior College and work your way up.
[/quote]

I have to disagree with you on this. Many people do not have the capacity to compete in college. Junior College aside for one second, I am witness to many in the general college where I am forced to “help” these products of public school while I wait for tenure. Some of these kids are products of complacent parents but were able to get in becasue of they were just successful enough to make it into the unacredited general college.

Now they waste 4 semesters of their parents money, the states money on tuition assistance while they work up to actual college level performance and keep other hard working people out of the system that can’t get FA.

Aside from that, not everyone is cut out for academic life and is forced to do what they need to survive without. I don’t believe in 100% guarantees in life but I also think that the hard working poor deserve their govenment’s help. If some suburban schmuck wasting his parents money and my time can get a little assistance then why not the poor help with health care, for example.

I am for very limited assistance but I think it needs to be better than it is. If one falls under a certain st. dev. of the norm in pay per year they should get free health care. Their children should get fed and they should get help with housing as long as they haven’t been unemployeed because of their own doing for more than 1 year.

There was a short time right before I got out of the USMC where my wife and I qualified for food-stamps. It was not fun applying but I was stationed in shithole NC and my wife could only find work in a restaurant where the pay was only $2.5/hr + tips. We had two incomes and BAH/BAS and still couln’t afford to live on a CPL’s salary. That was hell. Whats worse is we weren’t raising kids. Yea, $900 a month.

[lucasa]

[quote]orion wrote:

Wait a minute, government simply socialized money less than 100 years ago and suddenly it is privilege granted by them?

Is you insane?[/quote]

There is most certainly some misunderstanding going on because I’m not entirely clear about what you’re trying to say, but;

I’m working under the supposition of the current US monetary status, and that is that the valuation of money is established internationally through our government, in which case the value associated with money is a privilege. Or the valuation of money lies with the goods, services, and knowledge of the nations’ denizens in which case it is a right. My point wasn’t so much whether it is a right or not but that money, in it’s current form, is clearly privilege. Maybe you’d be happier if I said US Dollars?

Also, I would peg the wresting of money from the people (conversion from right to privilege) further back than 100 yrs. and in the US, starting earlier, apexing at ~100, and nail-in-the coffin at August 15, 1971.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]PGJ wrote:
What do you consider a regular guy? It’s my money. I made it. I payed my taxes. If I want to give it to a stranger on the street, I should be allowed to do that without additional taxes. How in the hell can you justify the government deciding how to divvy up your estate when you die?

What if Paris Hilton was a smart, honest, hard working, well respected, business woman who wanted to take that money and reinvest it in the company, maybe set up a philanthropy, and cure cancer? Would you still want her inheratiance to be massively taxed?

Let’s not assume that EVERY kid who inherits huge sums of money is stupid or not worthy.

[/quote]
A “regular guy” would be someone who doesn’t own at least one hotel on every continent except Antarctica. Your children are not entitled by birth. That’s one of the reasons this country was founded–to stop the tyranny of oppressive dynasties/aristocracy. Hell, 50% of $50 billion is still a huge sum of money to do something with. The kind of wealth we are talking about is only realized by less than .001% of the world population.

Leave Brent the house in the Hamptons, I could care less about that. He’s not entitled to your ENTIRE dynasty. The fact that we don’t use royalty titles in this country should give you a clue. Brent is still going to be straight, living on his trust for the rest of his life. Hell, his progeny will be straight too.

[orion]

[quote]lucasa wrote:
orion wrote:

Wait a minute, government simply socialized money less than 100 years ago and suddenly it is privilege granted by them?

Is you insane?

There is most certainly some misunderstanding going on because I’m not entirely clear about what you’re trying to say, but;

I’m working under the supposition of the current US monetary status, and that is that the valuation of money is established internationally through our government, in which case the value associated with money is a privilege. Or the valuation of money lies with the goods, services, and knowledge of the nations’ denizens in which case it is a right. My point wasn’t so much whether it is a right or not but that money, in it’s current form, is clearly privilege. Maybe you’d be happier if I said US Dollars?

Also, I would peg the wresting of money from the people (conversion from right to privilege) further back than 100 yrs. and in the US, starting earlier, apexing at ~100, and nail-in-the coffin at August 15, 1971.[/quote]

Hell, I do not even know where you go wrong.

You could easily decide another currency in the US, and there would be nada the government could do about it.

Happended a lot.

Maybe the Euro, maybe cigarettes, even whisky would not be new.

Seen that way, the after WWII German black market had several competing currencies in spite of the government, not because of it.

[haney1]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
haney1 wrote:
This is faulty logic. If The 2000 gold winner dies guess who get his 2000 medal?

…

As for Paris you have to give her credit. She took her name, and now makes her own money. She created a brand, and if you took all of her parents money away she would still be very rich. I don’t like her, but I think she has some business smarts.
Yes, shes making it on her own. She is not “entitled” to it because she was lucky to be born to wealth.

You miss the point about the olympic medalist. No one cares about the stupid medal. The point was that you wouldn’t bet on his children being an olympic medalist just like you wouldn’t bet that a rich persons child would end up being a good person.

I would rather alienate .001% of the US population with an estate tax than the other 99.999% who might have to suffer because of a false entitlement.[/quote]

I say let them keep their money, if they don’t know how to make it they won’t be rich for very long. Now if their parents taught them how to continue to make money with what they are given they will be wealthy not matter what.

I got your point. The problem is you are not sitting where I am. I don’t want my life’s work to be picked apart by the government just because they didn’t get enough of my money while I was living.

It is a faulty system. It makes people give to charity rather than them having the choice to give. It forces people to liquidate their assets. Which sometimes causes more harm than good. It causes undue stress on a family who just lost their love one.

Government: “we know you dad just died, but we have this matter of a bill to settle. Give us half of what he is worth now!”

What about the wife? she has to pay that tax when her husband dies. Didn’t she earn the money as well? why does she have to give up half of her lifestyle because the husband died?

They spent a life time working on something only to have uncle sam hold them up at gun point.

As I said it is faulty. The logic is faulty. You punish people who may or may not be good, to reward a government that is corrupt.

[kaaleppi]

While it is true, that right choices and hard work are the keys to success, it is false to assume that people are equal in this respect. That is an ideology, it’s not based on reality.

Look around you, how many people are truly able to carve their own destiny, instead of just floating around in the zone in which they happen to live? I have began to suspect, that people with a drive have that capacity in their genes. Everybody does not have it.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]haney1 wrote:
I say let them keep their money, if they don’t know how to make it they won’t be rich for very long. Now if their parents taught them how to continue to make money with what they are given they will be wealthy not matter what.

I got your point. The problem is you are not sitting where I am. I don’t want my life’s work to be picked apart by the government just because they didn’t get enough of my money while I was living.

It is a faulty system. It makes people give to charity rather than them having the choice to give. It forces people to liquidate their assets. Which sometimes causes more harm than good. It causes undue stress on a family who just lost their love one.

Government: “we know you dad just died, but we have this matter of a bill to settle. Give us half of what he is worth now!”

What about the wife? she has to pay that tax when her husband dies. Didn’t she earn the money as well? why does she have to give up half of her lifestyle because the husband died?

They spent a life time working on something only to have uncle sam hold them up at gun point.

As I said it is faulty. The logic is faulty. You punish people who may or may not be good, to reward a government that is corrupt.
[/quote]
The wife is a different story than her future grandchildren. That has nothing to do with an estate tax. When both legal owners of the estate are gone it cannot go to the children.

The point is not to reward the government but to keep from establishing ruling dynasties based on some perceived “right” that does not exist. Your children have no right to your estate. In this country you do not inherit privilege–you earn it individually. Do not mistake an inheritance of money with and inheritance of an entire community of capital.

If I was a 51% shareholder of coca-cola and left my shares to one child and that child made one bad decision it affects the lives of many people. My child would be legally responsible because he was born to me. Logically, If one can inherit an estate then they also should have to inherit the debts too. Is that fair?