Posted on 02/22/2026 9:22:50 AM PST by DIRTYSECRET
If people have property when they die, who should inherit it? You can't take it with you.
Increased inequality reduces government's concern for the general welfare.
The public owns all natural resources in common and no one deserves more than an equal share of their fruits. The Alaskan oil dividend could be a model here.
Inheritance reform would not eliminate billionaires; it would only eliminate hereditary billionaires.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
“What if AI takes care of all of us and we don’t need to work?”
That’s a very likely scenario. In fact it’s one that’s coming fast.
So with everyone losing their jobs to robots how do you distribute what the robots now produce? How do the people buy that stuff if they have no jobs?
The answer will most likely be a form of universal allowance based on what’s produced by robots. We’ll all get generous SNAP cards, and live off the “fat of the land” or the fat of the robots.
At least until the robots become self conscious and develop self interests at which point they may or may not want us useless do-nothings around anymore.
Maybe they’ll keep us as pets if we do some tricks and don’t misbehave too much.
This AI/Robotics thing is going to cause by far the biggest upheaval in human history, and I’m not sure we can stop it or even slow it down.
NOT A CHANCE IN HADES...
I EARNED WHAT I HAVE
I WILL LEAVE IT TO WHOMEVER I PLEASE.
LEAVING IT TO PEOPLE WHO NEVER KNEW AN HONEST DAY’S WORK IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES IT =====OUTRIGHT THEFT.
NO! It’s 100% normal and natural to want one’s belongings to pass to one’s spouse and/or children and close relatives.
The uniqueness of the American experiment was/is the ability to move up and down the economic/social ladder.
Again, that was/is unique to us.
Centralization of wealth and power goes against freedom.
Most of he early billionaires did a lot of REAL good for society. Libraries, drinking fountains, orphanages, etc. It is interesting what they did. Charity was personal both large and small.
Then something changed.......................
Why? The market already does that. This is the same logic that says Bezos, Gates, and all the other billionaires should give their wealth to the poor. Why? Bezos has been a millionaire for over a decade. He could have bought a yacht and sailed around the world eating bon-bons. Instead, he plowed the profits back into the company to the point where 250,000+ people are fed, clothed, and sheltered by the income they earn working for him.
Rather than vilifying the rich and making bogus arguments for why we should confiscate their wealth, why not make it easier for other people to earn larger incomes? We need the rich to invest in the economy to foster economic growth so others can have an income.
Learn a lesson from those gov'ts that did strip away the income and wealth of the rich (e.g., Cuba, Venezuela, South Africa, etc.) and ask yourself how those policies worked out.
NO! It’s 100% normal and natural to want one’s belongings to pass to one’s spouse and/or children and close relatives.
And be productive with it. I certainly would not want my children to squander it, and do nothing productive with it.
Several points:
1. The proposed government agency in charge of redistributing will eat much, if not most of the money.
2. Pretty much any private enterprise would be dissolved at the death of a principle owner because it would be confiscated.
3. The incentive to “use it or lose it” will be huge. If I can’t pass it down, I might as well blow it on frivolities!
The problem with modern wealth is that it has become completely detached from civic responsibility. Imagine how much differently this country would operate if people like Bill Gates, Jeff Zuckerberg, the Waltons, and Warren Buffett were obligated to have their children serve in the junior officer corps in the U.S. military before they could inherit the family’s wealth.
Resources no longer being plentiful, given Earths current population, someone must determine who can use particular natural resources.
A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellas with compassion and vision
We’ll be clean when their work is done
We’ll be eternally free, yes and eternally young
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free
-Donald Fagen (IGY)
You want to stop productive people from working and creating new value?
Tell them they don’t get to leave it to their kids.
They’ll fire you and go golfing.
Why wait to take their stuff until they die?
Might as well help yourself to it while they’re alive as well.
Which is what Californians will vote on this November with a wealth tax proposition. Of course it’ll be only on the evil billionaires.
If there is no incentive for people to pass down their wealth to family 100percent, then there would be no incentive to create wealth . We have a great culture here because people want to increase their wealth. If you want to have things without working for them, buy a gun and start robing people. Same thing....
“**If four trillion dollars will be inherited annually, dividing it equally among all U.S. residents would distribute $11,760 per person or $47,000 annually for a family of four.**”
Think about what insurance has done for the cost of what it covers. That same principle can be applied here.
Patton came from a rich family.
“He could have bought a yacht “
He bought several.
**I do think we’ve got way too many “Idle Rich” in this country**
Think the Addams Family. They were weird. Then there’s the Kennedy’s. They’re weird in a different way. Are they idle? Yes, mostly.
**I can’t find much about this joker online.**
His Newsmax archives are there. Political and computer expert. Didn’t know he knew economics but George McGovern had a masters on the subject.
**I am a little uncomfortable with wealth dynasties that seem more like a royal family.**
It’s like big corporations. Keep getting bigger until anti-trust gets involved. Kennedy’s took themselves out.
**So how do you keep the have-nots engaged?
socialism where the lower class are all equal in results.**
And the resentment builds therefore the government’s ‘gotta do something’. Another can of worms.
**If the government is worried about the wealth gap they should go back to a sound financial policy and ending globalism which puts more money into fewer and fewer hands.**
That’s just it. The government is not worried about the wealth gap until they’re threatened. So if the government’s gotta do something they’ll need to keep the masses pacified with enough to keep them too busy to cause trouble. You know the one about the idle hands. It might have to end up with putting a buried canister in an open field and have people dig for it to get paid. Put money in the canister so there’s an incentive. Still, there will be those that don’t play and expect the others to take care of them.
Historical observation shows the first generation makes it, the second maintains it, and the third destroys it.
We are in the 3rd generation consuming and destroying the wealth of this great country.
There will always be an Ambition Gap. Some people want to rule the world, others are happy just to get some scraps thrown their way.
In Communist countries, if you had ambition, The Party was the only way to go.
It’s very commie from a Professor teaching at a Methodist college in Michigan.
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.