Do you support an UBI?

[mrswdk]

Money should be engaged, and a smart family will engage it's members productively with the money

What do you mean 'engage its members productively with the money'?

[thegreekdog]

As I've indicated in these forums previously, I'm in favor of a 100% estate tax (with an exemption for the first $X of estate value).

[_sabotage_]

It's easy to give examples of families not doing this.

One of my friends is a major developer. His son is my age. His allowance is a nice middle class salary, while his insurance, clothes, house, car, travel, etc are additional and not even a consideration of his son.

He has a 20 year-old brother and 32 year-old lesbian sister.

The "family" has the high hundred millions to billion plus. My predictions:

My friend will die in the next ten years, he's pushing 80.
At least 60% of the estate will go to his wife, with a guaranteed allowance going to the kids from a sub-estate in their name, under her control. She will outlive him by 20 years.

The daughter will get into her estate through projects, personal social show pieces. No children , remaining estate will be left to partner and charity project of the month.

Older brother. This guy took 10 years to get a sociology degree. He will make the money last as long as he needs it, but not a second longer. Will die childless.

Younger brother, don't know very well.

I think all involved, from how much attention a father gives his kids, to society's view on class, would benefit from a use it or lose it policy. Under this a person is required to put up a percent of their capital (and time, if they have no occupation) towards engaging people in their own vicinity.

The problem we have is the societal,neighbourly and family isolation. And money and monetary policy perpetuates it on an individual level.

[Army of GOD]

I would like them to do some work instead of getting it just by existing.

Them? You get it too bucko.

well I mean "them" as in the futuristic population that would hypothetically receive this money. So future me is included.


Anyway, I would be interested in seeing what the numbers would look like. I would support a high estate tax but I don't think people with a lot of money die fast enough to account for the younger population growing.

[mrswdk]

ITT: communists (Mets, AoG, and tgd)

On another note:

My friend will die in the next ten years, he's pushing 80.
At least 60% of the estate will go to his wife, with a guaranteed allowance going to the kids from a sub-estate in their name, under her control. She will outlive him by 20 years.

The daughter will get into her estate through projects, personal social show pieces. No children , remaining estate will be left to partner and charity project of the month.

Older brother. This guy took 10 years to get a sociology degree. He will make the money last as long as he needs it, but not a second longer. Will die childless.

Younger brother, don't know very well.

What's the problem with this?

[nietzsche]

As I've indicated in these forums previously, I'm in favor of a 100% estate tax (with an exemption for the first $X of estate value).

You being a tax attorney know that there would be a million ways to circumvent this. You probably support this measure because it would give you more clients.

[_sabotage_]

What's not the problem with it?

[Metsfanmax]

Estates should be taxed at 100%, you have no need for the money after you're dead.

Maybe I worked hard to provide for my children's future security. I don't see what right you have to help yourself to that.

What right do your children have to it? They didn't work a moment to earn it. Set them up a trust fund for college or something -- enough to make sure that they'll have a decent life -- but when children are being left with many millions of dollars that they didn't earn, that's where the real problems start.

[mrswdk]

What right do you have to it? It's my money and I'll give it to whomever I choose.

[mrswdk]

What's not the problem with it?

They have money, they enjoy it, they die. It's a free world. Why do you care if that's how they live?

[betiko]

Estates should be taxed at 100%, you have no need for the money after you're dead.

Maybe I worked hard to provide for my children's future security. I don't see what right you have to help yourself to that.

What right do your children have to it? They didn't work a moment to earn it. Set them up a trust fund for college or something -- enough to make sure that they'll have a decent life -- but when children are being left with many millions of dollars that they didn't earn, that's where the real problems start.

Well say you have a family house with land since generations just to give an example. The type that has sentimental value in the family. Why would the state take it from you? What right do they have on this? People work to leave legacies too.
In this case, ALL housings would be government owned and people would be just renters. Hell, you wouldn t need to possess anything. Just rent everything.
And would you really trust politicians not to take advantage of the system?

[nietzsche]

In this case, ALL housings would be government owned and people would be just renters

That's how it actually is, why do you think you pay taxes on it?

[nietzsche]

Before regulating estates I'd prefer regulating corruption in government, some people are wealthy because of intelligence and hard work, while other people only because they had a job in government.

[saxitoxin]

I don't know what 'problems' you think are caused by inherited wealth ...

DID YOU NOT SEE THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY OR WHAT?

Matt Damon will try to have gay butt sex with you in a rowboat off the coast of Italy. Is that a "problem" enough for you???

[_sabotage_]

The same thing that's wrong with Mao's grandson being Chairman of China.

Why should I care about the poor but not the rich.

[betiko]

The same thing that's wrong with Mao's grandson being Chairman of China.

Why should I care about the poor but not the rich.

So i ve seen you bragging about some estate you bought near HK that took like 300% in no time (i don t remember the figures and that isn t the point anyways). I also know you have children. Wouldn t you be happy to give them the possibility to live in that place supposing they end up living in that area?

You guys crack me up anyways. Getting rich isn t only about working hard. If it was about working hard your nikes done by poor indonesian kids would cost several millions of dollars. Getting rich is about having the right idea at the right time with the right means to concretize it. 99% of entrepreneurs just seized an opportunity that 99% of the humanity will never have.
If we live in a world of increasing population, our children will not have the same housing condition opportunities as before. In our days, buying a property A costs way more than it did for our parents to buy that same property in their time in terms of % of income.
For example, i know that when i bought my appartment in 2006, i could see the last 2 transactions on it. The older one was from 1971 and the price had just multiplied by 35 between what that old lady bought and what I bought. So do you really think the cost of life has multiplied anywhere near that?
There are not the same opportunities from a generation to the next, and it s normal to work hard for your offspring and to expect them doing the same.

You guys can shovel up your fucking corny communist asses your stupid thoughts.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Estates should be taxed at 100%, you have no need for the money after you're dead.

Maybe I worked hard to provide for my children's future security. I don't see what right you have to help yourself to that.

What right do your children have to it? They didn't work a moment to earn it. Set them up a trust fund for college or something -- enough to make sure that they'll have a decent life -- but when children are being left with many millions of dollars that they didn't earn, that's where the real problems start.

Try to take my land and I'll shoot you dead.

What right do you have to it? It's my money and I'll give it to whomever I choose.

It takes the China(wo)man to lay down a nugget of truth...

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

What right do you have to it? It's my money and I'll give it to whomever I choose.

The vast majority of the wealth that you accumulate, in absolute terms, is due to the existence of a stable society that made it possible for you to prosper. If you want to go live in the woods and subsist on your own, then fine, give whatever you accumulate to your offspring. But you can't get rich (again, in absolute terms) by taking part in a society and then claim that all the wealth is rightfully yours.

[betiko]

What right do you have to it? It's my money and I'll give it to whomever I choose.

The vast majority of the wealth that you accumulate, in absolute terms, is due to the existence of a stable society that made it possible for you to prosper. If you want to go live in the woods and subsist on your own, then fine, give whatever you accumulate to your offspring. But you can't get rich (again, in absolute terms) by taking part in a society and then claim that all the wealth is rightfully yours.

I don t know if it s not something existing in your country, but here taxes can go up to 75% of your revenue while you re living, and you owe the state 30 to 60% of your wealth to the state when you die. So yeah, all your corny ideas sound like buttjuice to my ears.

[thegreekdog]

ITT: communists (Mets, AoG, and tgd)

ITT: plutocrats/oligarchs (mrswdk, Tailgunner, sabotage)

[_sabotage_]

Oligarch? Well we have the internet to make a public oligarchy, instead of a hegemony we have.

[Lootifer]

Estates should be taxed at 100%, you have no need for the money after you're dead.

Maybe I worked hard to provide for my children's future security. I don't see what right you have to help yourself to that.

Sup class system.

Say I dont have children (therefore have no vested interest): What right do your children, who have not contributed at all to the wealth you have created, have over any other child to the excess wealth you have created? From my pov they have none. I dont care what you do once you reach the age of responsibility (lets leave the debate when this is to the side please), but prior to that age every single individual is equal and should be treated as such.

Earning wealth for the benefit of your own children (and not all children) is the height of selfishness, and quite frankly you disgust me (a very moderate disgust of course, not like you're murdering people or anything like).

[_sabotage_]

The same thing that's wrong with Mao's grandson being Chairman of China.

Why should I care about the poor but not the rich.

So i ve seen you bragging about some estate you bought near HK that took like 300% in no time (i don t remember the figures and that isn t the point anyways). I also know you have children. Wouldn t you be happy to give them the possibility to live in that place supposing they end up living in that area?

You guys crack me up anyways. Getting rich isn t only about working hard. If it was about working hard your nikes done by poor indonesian kids would cost several millions of dollars. Getting rich is about having the right idea at the right time with the right means to concretize it. 99% of entrepreneurs just seized an opportunity that 99% of the humanity will never have.
If we live in a world of increasing population, our children will not have the same housing condition opportunities as before. In our days, buying a property A costs way more than it did for our parents to buy that same property in their time in terms of % of income.
For example, i know that when i bought my appartment in 2006, i could see the last 2 transactions on it. The older one was from 1971 and the price had just multiplied by 35 between what that old lady bought and what I bought. So do you really think the cost of life has multiplied anywhere near that?
There are not the same opportunities from a generation to the next, and it s normal to work hard for your offspring and to expect them doing the same.

You guys can shovel up your fucking corny communist asses your stupid thoughts.

Not really. I mean, I expect to die old. I expect my kid to be old when I die, not an 18 year-old starting out. I'm going to spend most of his "inheritance" on him before he is thirty.

[mrswdk]

The same thing that's wrong with Mao's grandson being Chairman of China.

Why should I care about the poor but not the rich.

Are you talking in riddles because if you spoke in a straightforward manner it would become apparent that you don't actually have a serious point to make?