Posted on 07/24/2017 8:42:16 AM PDT by NRx
Yes they have done something...they were sired by people who in most cases have higher IQs and/or more motivation, innovation or creative genius to make a fortune in the first place. To equate them with the offspring of a Muslim migrant with 3 wives and 15 siblings is preposterous.
Go on Reddit and Millennials are have a VERY different conversation. They EXPECT UBI (Universal Basic Income) to be implemented and become standard policy in their lifetimes. They think they DESERVE ghuaranteed income just to stay in their parents' basement and play videogames all day and never look for a job. They WANT UBI to "destigmatize being unemployed." It is MUCH worse than we imagine with the most brainwashed generation in history. It's BAD.
Don’t worry - leftist non-profits will still be tax-exempt. The destruction of private wealth is the goal here.
Very true.
In contemporary times, most people agree that tax should facilitate transfer of wealth from those who “have” to those who “need”.
Well, no we don't agree on any such thing. Tax facilitates transfer of wealth from those possessing it to the state. Period. Redistribution is not a legitimate function of the state, although statists such as the author take it as a given. It's very simple: it isn't the state's money. It's private property.
In the UK, official statistics suggest around £77bn is passed on in inheritance each year (tax avoidance means the real amount could be even higher). That’s money that no living being has a moral claim to, according to standard justifications of wealth inequality and private property.
And what "standard justifications" might those be? And whose standard? And why is "wealth inequality" a matter for the state all of a sudden, when the ruling class is one of the worst offenders in that regard? And there's the problem. It's money that the living human being who owned it does have the right to dispose of however that person wishes, and will do so prior to death if he or she is assured that the state will disallow inheritance. And so we will have "gift taxes" to take away that option. Which turn out to be unenforceable. We've been down this road before and the only winner is the state, not "the poor".
It can't be said often or loudly enough: it's not the state's money! The state has no intrinsic right to take it just because it is there and the state has no moral right to do something with it that is contrary to the desire of the owner.
Great idea, wish I’d thought of it!
John Kerry would be another great one, along with Obama.
Not "Most People" that I hang around with. A suggestion like that would facilitate a transfer of energy from my friend's fist to the suggester's jaw.
Perhaps the author of this piece should get out of the urban hipster enclave more often, and speak with real people.
Wealthy people will be sure to stick around and pay the tax before they die—not.
I “need” a trillion dollars to support my lifestyle—don’t know about any of your folks. :-)
If you can't visit Europe, I suggest this author be brave enough to call this Communism. Anytime you hear someone state, “as everyone agrees”, be careful: your pockets are about to get picked.
The government for sure hasn’t done anything to earn “that money”.
That would simply incentivize people to spend it all while they were alive.
I had been given to believe Florida had a heavy death tax to compensate for their lack of an income tax.
Is that not/no-longer correct?
If you have money and other assets, give them little by little to your deserving adult kids and relatives as well as friends. When you go out together for a meal, pay the tab. On other outings, buy them gifts. Pay for vacation costs. Plus a couple is allowed to gift up to $28,000 a year to another person ($14,000 from each giver or $28,000 from a married couple). Buy furniture for them.
There are lots of ways to spread your wealth to your relatives and friends while doing it legally. It will be appreciated far more than having it transferred after your death in inheritance, with the government taking a big bite out of it. Oh, something else. If the receiver is not appreciative, then you can be selective and not give to them - something you can't necessarily control after your death unless your trust is very specific. And of course, keep a nest egg for yourself to take care of your senior years if you need assisted living.
This whole matter was widely discussed in certain circles here in Massachusetts at that time.It was a particular favorite topic for Howie Carr,a well known Boston talk host and columnist.
I distinctly recall him having mentioned...more than a few times...that Florida didn't have such a tax while Massachusetts did (it's not hard to believe that Massachusetts has horrible taxes).I suppose he could have been wrong...and it's certainly possible that I mis-heard...or misunderstood...what he said.
Also,remember....we're talking about 20 years ago.It seems possible to me that Florida *didn't* have such a tax at that time but enacted one at some point after his mother's death.
“In contemporary times, most people agree that tax should facilitate transfer of wealth from those who “have” to those who “need”.
“Morally speaking, people who stand to inherit large sums haven’t done anything to earn that money.”
So is the standard “earn”, or is it “need”? Both? Either?
Are we going to start confiscating birthday gifts, if the recipients neither “earn” or “need” them?
Normal.
The beautiful and healthy tend to be bright and successful too.
Get over it. At least you’re alive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.