Do you support an UBI?

[mrswdk]

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.

Haha. People make their money within society and therefore that money belongs to society and society has the right to take it away from them? The last time I read shit like that it was prefaced with 'a spectre is haunting Europe'.

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).

You know I pay taxes that are used to provide services and security to everyone in the country, right? If we lived in the same country then your kids' education, healthcare etc. would already be being partially funded by me. Helping yourself to the rest of my wealth is pure theft. If you want to give more money to your children then earn some and give it to them.

I'm with TAILGUNNER: if thieves come to try and help themselves to my property then I will bring justice down on their heads so hard that they turn pancake-shaped.

[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.

Haha. People make their money within society and therefore that money belongs to society and society has the right to take it away from them?

Yes, it is called taxation. Based on your response to Lootifer you seem to be OK with the concept. We are merely quibbling over the amount.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

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.

Haha. People make their money within society and therefore that money belongs to society and society has the right to take it away from them?

Yes, it is called taxation. Based on your response to Lootifer you seem to be OK with the concept. We are merely quibbling over the amount.

So to the pro-estate tax crowd:

Once your child turns 18, can you no longer give them any part of your estate, i.e. you can't give your kid some gas money, can't buy 'em dinner, your old car, etc? After all, what difference does it make if they're giving it while alive or when they croak?

-TG

[TA1LGUNN3R]

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.

But that's a mutually beneficial system in the first place. Everybody involved in a stable society already gets something out of it.

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

Once your child turns 18, can you no longer give them any part of your estate, i.e. you can't give your kid some gas money, can't buy 'em dinner, your old car, etc? After all, what difference does it make if they're giving it while alive or when they croak?

I support being able to do whatever you want while you are still alive, which may include such things as giving some of your wealth to your children*. If however, you still have money left in your bank account when you are dead, I do not believe your children are entitled to that money. To account for the fact that death may be accidental or may occur at an unexpected time, and for the fact that your kids do likely need a little something to get by, I probably support TGD's approach of saying "100% estate tax after $X." X = 100,000 or something, continually adjusted for inflation.

*To prevent people from gaming the system, I would support heavily taxing (possibly fully taxing) monetary gifts that rise above a certain monetary threshold.

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.

But that's a mutually beneficial system in the first place. Everybody involved in a stable society already gets something out of it.

-TG

Sure, but the benefits do not accrue evenly. If I am homeless, I do get something out of "living" in a stable society, but I don't get all of the nice benefits that mrswdk got, and it is likely for reasons that are not under my control.

[mrswdk]

Clearly you feel that your healthcare, education, transport, police etc. funded by other people's taxes is not enough. Your sense of entitlement is staggering.

I don't mind paying tax on my earnings to help maintain the system I am part of, but what you are proposing is that I make such contributions the whole time I am working, and then whatever I am able to accrue post-tax just be taken from me and my family the second I die anyway, based on your abstract notion that I 'owe' my life's work to society and apparent belief that inequality is unfair. Compelling people to donate their whole lifetime's work to their society rather than being able to accrue benefits for themselves was already tried in the USSR and Maoist China and it failed. If you want to go back to the days when farmers starved in their collectivized fields then you are welcome to, but people here actually remember what that was like and want nothing to do with it.

Good luck with the revolution, Maofanmax

[Metsfanmax]

Clearly you feel that your healthcare, education, transport, police etc. funded by other people's taxes is not enough.

I don't want any of your money. I am not the one who needs it, and I do not want any money from an estate tax given to me.

I don't mind paying tax on my earnings to help maintain the system I am part of, but what you are proposing is that I make such contributions the whole time I am working, and then whatever I am able to accrue post-tax just be taken from me and my family the second I die anyway, based on your abstract notion that I 'owe' my life's work to society and apparent belief that inequality is unfair.

Inequality is unfair. Children being able to start their adult lives with millions of dollars without having done any real work to earn it is unfair. If you'd prefer, we can just take the money and burn it rather than give it to other people. The point of an estate tax isn't that you owe your money to society. The point is, your children don't need to start with millions of dollars to be successful in life, and it is the fact that they can that has allowed massive wealth empires to exist for generations, rather than wealth being more properly distributed among those who work to earn it. So we can burn the money if you like; I'd rather see it burned than see it passed on. But I think there's something useful we can do with it instead.

[nietzsche]

Have you guys considered that a person might be working more only to leave more for their kids?

I don't know if Lootifer has kids, but Mets and his are the position of a person that doesn't have them. Democracy is about representing all of us isn't it? I doubt parents will agree with this.

Tgd's position is less drastic, with X amount free of tax.

I'm in a different position that most of you, I hate taxes and I do all I can and know to avoid them. But In my country taxes are wasted and stolen, so I have no reason to want to pay taxes.

I also know how people that get some kind of welfare check every month live with it in their mind as if it was the most awesome shit. IMO that makes them comformist and dependant on the state. And the state loves it, he has them with the hands tied like idiots.

To me some wealth redistribution is ok in order to give opportunities to everyone, but it has to be done in a smart way.

[mrswdk]

Clearly you feel that your healthcare, education, transport, police etc. funded by other people's taxes is not enough.

I don't want any of your money. I am not the one who needs it, and I do not want any money from an estate tax given to me.

The principle is the same. Whoever you want to give the money to is already getting money from me and my family and I see no reason why they should get the rest of it as well.

I don't mind paying tax on my earnings to help maintain the system I am part of, but what you are proposing is that I make such contributions the whole time I am working, and then whatever I am able to accrue post-tax just be taken from me and my family the second I die anyway, based on your abstract notion that I 'owe' my life's work to society and apparent belief that inequality is unfair.

Inequality is unfair. Children being able to start their adult lives with millions of dollars without having done any real work to earn it is unfair. If you'd prefer, we can just take the money and burn it rather than give it to other people. The point of an estate tax isn't that you owe your money to society. The point is, a) your children don't need to start with millions of dollars to be successful in life, and it is the fact that they can that has allowed massive wealth empires to exist for generations, rather than wealth being more b) distributed among those who work to earn it. So we can burn the money if you like; I'd rather see it burned than see it passed on. But I think there's something useful we can do with it instead.

Re a): whether they have it or not is no one else's business.

Re b): what is 'proper' distribution of money and who are you to suggest that people in my family deserve to have their money taken from them?

[Metsfanmax]

Clearly you feel that your healthcare, education, transport, police etc. funded by other people's taxes is not enough.

I don't want any of your money. I am not the one who needs it, and I do not want any money from an estate tax given to me.

The principle is the same.

No it is not. You called me "entitled" and implied that I am as bad as Mao because I want to take your money. I don't think I deserved that.

Whoever you want to give the money to is already getting money from me and my family and I see no reason why they should get the rest of it as well.

Ok, if you don't like my level of taxation, what taxation level would you prefer instead? Surely you don't think the current amount you pay just happens to be perfect?

I don't mind paying tax on my earnings to help maintain the system I am part of, but what you are proposing is that I make such contributions the whole time I am working, and then whatever I am able to accrue post-tax just be taken from me and my family the second I die anyway, based on your abstract notion that I 'owe' my life's work to society and apparent belief that inequality is unfair.

Inequality is unfair. Children being able to start their adult lives with millions of dollars without having done any real work to earn it is unfair. If you'd prefer, we can just take the money and burn it rather than give it to other people. The point of an estate tax isn't that you owe your money to society. The point is, a) your children don't need to start with millions of dollars to be successful in life, and it is the fact that they can that has allowed massive wealth empires to exist for generations, rather than wealth being more b) distributed among those who work to earn it. So we can burn the money if you like; I'd rather see it burned than see it passed on. But I think there's something useful we can do with it instead.

Re a): whether they have it or not is no one else's business.

It is absolutely everyone else's business, because insanely wealthy people make society worse for the rest of us, by using their insane wealth to buy out politicians and do other corrupt things that make life worse for everyone else.

Re b): what is 'proper' distribution of money

I don't know. That is a hard question. I just think that after you have a certain basic income, any money made after that should be proportional to the work you actually do, and not be given to you as a free gift.

and who are you to suggest that people in my family deserve to have their money taken from them?

I am suggesting that it is not theirs to begin with. As for who I am? Just some guy on an internet forum. If you don't like my perspective, you can ignore me.

[mrswdk]

I don't want any of your money. I am not the one who needs it, and I do not want any money from an estate tax given to me.

The principle is the same.

No it is not. You called me "entitled" and implied that I am as bad as Mao because I want to take your money. I don't think I deserved that.

You think that someone else has the right to my property. That you are entitled, or feel that other people are entitled, is undeniable.

As I said, the idea is the same. Maoists thought that landlords and ‘capitalists’ did not deserve their wealth, that it was unfairly gained by exploiting peasants and should therefore be taken back. You are advocating the same thing.

Whoever you want to give the money to is already getting money from me and my family and I see no reason why they should get the rest of it as well.

Ok, if you don't like my level of taxation, what taxation level would you prefer instead? Surely you don't think the current amount you pay just happens to be perfect?

Current levels of income taxation work for me. A 100% estate tax, or any estate tax, does not.

Inequality is unfair. Children being able to start their adult lives with millions of dollars without having done any real work to earn it is unfair. If you'd prefer, we can just take the money and burn it rather than give it to other people. The point of an estate tax isn't that you owe your money to society. The point is, a) your children don't need to start with millions of dollars to be successful in life, and it is the fact that they can that has allowed massive wealth empires to exist for generations, rather than wealth being more b) properly distributed among those who work to earn it. So we can burn the money if you like; I'd rather see it burned than see it passed on. But I think there's something useful we can do with it instead.

Re a): whether they have it or not is no one else's business.

It is absolutely everyone else's business, because insanely wealthy people make society worse for the rest of us, by using their insane wealth to buy out politicians and do other corrupt things that make life worse for everyone else.

If your assumption that all people who have a significant amount of money are corrupt demons wreaking havoc on society is true then you would do better to strengthen mechanisms for preventing corruption and rent-seeking rather than straight up stealing people’s private property.

Re b): what is 'proper' distribution of money

I don't know. That is a hard question. I just think that after you have a certain basic income, any money made after that should be proportional to the work you actually do, and not be given to you as a free gift.

In other words, you have no better mechanism for allocating monetary reward for labour than the markets which have rewarded my family with the money they have worked hard for?

and who are you to suggest that people in my family deserve to have their money taken from them?

I am suggesting that it is not theirs to begin with

And as I said: Maofanmax.

[betiko]

Well in my country while we pay high taxes we have one of the best health systems in the world (as a patient.... Cause a lot of money is missing for the state). There are already tons of wellfare programs for large families, housing, 1300€ minimum salary, you get 500€ if you have no revenue at all, you are paid extra for anything worked above 35h a week, you get 5 weeks of paid holidays a year... And as I said, if you earn above a million yearly, you get 75% taxes on your revenue.
Taxes are pretty high no matter what and most of the people with a decent salary pay the equivalent of 2-3 month of net salary in taxes. 30-60% of your inheritance is already going back to the state in taxes. People with no descendance already have all their money going to the state when they die.
Why would it be fair that some kids hVe rich families, grow up in huge houses, get tons of allowances, but once daddy s dead those kids don t deserve anything else?

And you haven t answered my previous question: are all self made fortunes due to working harder than other??? No. Are all kids in rich families wanking pricks? No.

As much as some of you are disgusted like loot, i feel the same about you guys. We are genetically programmed to reproduce and take care of our offspring.

[Metsfanmax]

You think that someone else has the right to my property. That you are entitled, or feel that other people are entitled, is undeniable.

Again, this is a fallacious appeal to moral rigor. You say just below this that "current levels of income taxation work for me." That means you feel that someone else does have the right to your property. All we are now arguing about is how much of their property they have a right to. Your faux rage might be convenient but if you're going to be consistent you'd better start opposing taxes entirely.

If your assumption that all people who have a significant amount of money are corrupt demons wreaking havoc on society is true then you would do better to strengthen mechanisms for preventing corruption and rent-seeking rather than straight up stealing people’s private property.

If my assumption is correct, then my attempt to strengthen anti-corruption mechanisms will be unsuccessful, because the corrupt demons will be able to successfully block my legislative attempts.

In other words, you have no better mechanism for allocating monetary reward for labour than the markets which have rewarded my family with the money they have worked hard for?

No, I do not. I am not attempting to overthrow such a system. My point is that if you earn some money, the market isn't rewarding your family for that work, it is rewarding you for that work.

[saxitoxin]

I suspect the individually wealthy constitute a highly visible but relatively small percentage of political donations and the bulk is coming from corporations which are largely owned by institutional investors; pensions, mutual funds, and endowments. (I recall reading there's $10 trillion in retirement investments in the U.S. and I'd venture a guess those with second homes in Montauk are not dutifully making a $5500/year contribution to a Roth IRA ... maybe TGD can correct that if it's wrong.)

The problem of money in politics is inseparable from pluralism and trying to tweak this regulation or adjust that tax won't really have any meaningful impact. If this is really a concern you need to break with the entire notion of the financial democratic system and its two bookends, capitalism and communism. The only serious attempt to do that so far has had some branding issues.

[_sabotage_]

Mrs, my point is that nepotism is not a good thing and nepotism can happen with capital rather than just position.

Henry Ford produces a car company and profits. His capital increases in respect to his social utility. The capital increases, according to economists, for greater social utility. That is, this guy's got the skills to pay the bills. He includes his kids in his business, they learn some of his skills and the business moves on, the capital is still being put to a productive use.

If the kid's are useless (or like one of Mao's grandsons, insane) then the social utility of the capital in their hands is unlikely to exist.

Two things here:

1. People seem to be implying that somehow we are going to take care of our kids post-life. This seems absurd. If you haven't managed to take care of them until middle-age or late middle-age (the age we can expect our kids to be when we die) then trying to take care of them in old age is a bit late.

When my son is 30, he will have a university degree, or a solid career training, paid for; a house without a mortgage; a lump sum of capital; and understand finance enough to keep him in at least as good a position as he started. In the West, this is not how it is done, usually. We have a King Lear mentality of we better keep a tight reign on our dollars until the day we die.

A friend of mine is in his 50s and his parents in their late seventies. He is an orderly and sells weed to cover his expenses. His parents are multi-millionaires and recently had a health scare. So, they gave their son $50k which he put against his mortgage, saving himself a few thousand a year, the same amount he was making off selling weed.

Well, my friend's been selling weed a long time and is planning on retiring next year and moving to Cuba where he can afford to live.

The parents could easily have advanced him some of his future inheritance, 100k and saved him $9600 a year in mortgage payments (a third of his pre-tax annual salary). But they have the King Lear complex.

My point is that we end up doing shit ass backwards. A parents greatest input will be made early. Providing a work ethic, stability, incentivizing acquiring skills, cushioning the period of low earnings to prevent high costs in early life. Providing these things post-life is almost a slap in the face to the child and to logic.

Now you're at your highest earning capacity, adjusted to living within your means and too old to make much use of it, here's some capital.

2. The capital is unlikely to provide any social utility. I am not suggesting a estate tax, I'm suggesting a capital forfeiture tax. The difference is quite simple, a capital forfeiture takes account of the expected social utility of capital. If the social utility isn't realized, then it's taxed into more productive uses.

Society has deified wealth, placing it as the indicator of success. If the population sees that success is meritless, then we have both demoralized the under classes and codified the stagnation of progress.

I'm not speaking about getting the family heirlooms, I'm talking about excessive capital wealth that is stagnating. If they use it, they don't lose it. If they don't use it, they lose a percent of it.

[Metsfanmax]

I suspect the individually wealthy constitute a highly visible but relatively small percentage of political donations and the bulk is coming from corporations which are largely owned by institutional investors; pensions, mutual funds, and endowments. (I recall reading there's $10 trillion in retirement investments in the U.S. and I'd venture a guess those with second homes in Montauk are not dutifully making a $5500/year contribution to a Roth IRA ... maybe TGD can correct that if it's wrong.)

The problem of money in politics is inseparable from pluralism and trying to tweak this regulation or adjust that tax won't really have any meaningful impact. If this is really a concern you need to break with the entire notion of the financial democratic system and its two bookends, capitalism and communism. The only serious attempt to do that so far has had some branding issues.

These points are all true, but I am not concerned about money in politics per se. If I donate $100 to Hillary Clinton's campaign (lol), you can be sure that there's someone else out there donating $100 to Jeb Bush's campaign. Donations from typical individuals tend to wash out. On the other hand, there are individual wealthy investors who represent specific interests, and who want specific pieces of legislation (e.g. agriculture subsidies) to be passed. Those things don't have 'opposites;' possibly no one is donating to a Congressman to say "I don't like that agriculture subsidy."

I agree that an estate tax won't actually solve this problem, but it might make some progress.

[mrswdk]

You say just below this that "current levels of income taxation work for me." That means you feel that someone else does have the right to your property

I accept paying to be part of a system as and when I am a part of that system. That system is providing something for me so I will pay for that. I do not accept the system using my death as an opportunity to help itself to an even larger share of my wealth; in death the system is providing me with nothing, and so it gets nothing. Rest assured, my estate will not be taken by any government when I die.

My point is that if you earn some money, the market isn't rewarding your family for that work, it is rewarding you for that work.

Yes, and it is up to me what I do with those rewards. Maybe I want to give it to my family. That is none of your business.

[Metsfanmax]

You say just below this that "current levels of income taxation work for me." That means you feel that someone else does have the right to your property

I accept paying to be part of a system as and when I am a part of that system. That system is providing something for me so I will pay for that. I do not accept the system using my death as an opportunity to help itself to an even larger share of my wealth; in death the system is providing me with nothing, and so it gets nothing. Rest assured, my estate will not be taken by any government when I die.

Yes, I am sure that the dead version of you will be fighting back really hard when that happens.

My point is that if you earn some money, the market isn't rewarding your family for that work, it is rewarding you for that work.

Yes, and it is up to me what I do with those rewards. Maybe I want to give it to my family. That is none of your business.

At least in the USA, monetary gifts to family members are taxable above a certain annual amount. I am completely fine with people giving money to their wife or kids, up to a certain reasonable amount. After that, people should follow the rules of taxation. The estate tax is there to encourage you to actually do something with your money before you die, not just leave it sitting there doing nothing. If you want to give it to your children, that is completely okay with me, as long as you abide the laws that exist governing such monetary gifts.

[saxitoxin]

I suspect the individually wealthy constitute a highly visible but relatively small percentage of political donations and the bulk is coming from corporations which are largely owned by institutional investors; pensions, mutual funds, and endowments. (I recall reading there's $10 trillion in retirement investments in the U.S. and I'd venture a guess those with second homes in Montauk are not dutifully making a $5500/year contribution to a Roth IRA ... maybe TGD can correct that if it's wrong.)

The problem of money in politics is inseparable from pluralism and trying to tweak this regulation or adjust that tax won't really have any meaningful impact. If this is really a concern you need to break with the entire notion of the financial democratic system and its two bookends, capitalism and communism. The only serious attempt to do that so far has had some branding issues.

These points are all true, but I am not concerned about money in politics per se. If I donate $100 to Hillary Clinton's campaign (lol), you can be sure that there's someone else out there donating $100 to Jeb Bush's campaign. Donations from typical individuals tend to wash out. On the other hand, there are individual wealthy investors who represent specific interests, and who want specific pieces of legislation (e.g. agriculture subsidies) to be passed. Those things don't have 'opposites;' possibly no one is donating to a Congressman to say "I don't like that agriculture subsidy."

I agree that an estate tax won't actually solve this problem, but it might make some progress.

That's not really what I mean. Person "A" adds $5K a year to a IRA by buying a Vanguard fund. The fund, in turn, is split among a wide variety of investment vehicles; 1% goes to Boeing, 1% goes to Aetna, 1% goes to Archer Daniels Midland, etc. ADM attempts to influence agricultural policy to maximize its profitability so that Vanguard will keep buying its stock and, in turn, Person "A" and a million people like him will keep buying Vanguard. (For the record, Vanguard owns 38 million shares of ADM while there's not a single non-employee "individual wealthy investor" who owns more than 100,000.)

The more highly diffused nature of wealth in the U.S. versus the Gilded Age means the evils of political influence are being indirectly imposed by the same working and middle class citizens who bemoan them. This is the nature of pluralism. You can engage in a variety of symbolic tinkering and feel good about yourself, which is fine as self-esteem improves quality of life, but you can't make "progress" as the system either functions or doesn't, it doesn't operate on a sliding scale of goodness. There are some alternative systems, but the only one that's been seriously tried was ended by Dino Grandi in '43.

[/]

Hmm, so to summarize, several people in this thread are talking about a system where everyone alive is increasingly rewarded whenever people; particularly wealthy people die... Well, that seems legit!

[mrswdk]

You say just below this that "current levels of income taxation work for me." That means you feel that someone else does have the right to your property

I accept paying to be part of a system as and when I am a part of that system. That system is providing something for me so I will pay for that. I do not accept the system using my death as an opportunity to help itself to an even larger share of my wealth; in death the system is providing me with nothing, and so it gets nothing. Rest assured, my estate will not be taken by any government when I die.

Yes, I am sure that the dead version of you will be fighting back really hard when that happens.

My point is that if you earn some money, the market isn't rewarding your family for that work, it is rewarding you for that work.

Yes, and it is up to me what I do with those rewards. Maybe I want to give it to my family. That is none of your business.

At least in the USA, monetary gifts to family members are taxable above a certain annual amount. I am completely fine with people giving money to their wife or kids, up to a certain reasonable amount. After that, people should follow the rules of taxation. The estate tax is there to encourage you to actually do something with your money before you die, not just leave it sitting there doing nothing. If you want to give it to your children, that is completely okay with me, as long as you abide the laws that exist governing such monetary gifts.

I wouldn't be leaving it doing nothing. I would be passing it on to my children.

I see no reason to abide by any law which says I must surrender an enormous chunk of wealth as punishment for dying.

[Metsfanmax]

I see no reason to abide by any law which says I must surrender an enormous chunk of wealth as punishment for dying.

The great thing about an estate tax is that by the time it applies to you, you have no choice regarding whether to abide it

[Endgame422]

Ok so this is a business i am actually involved in.
I work in an estate liquidation and consignment shop. We handle every part of closing an estate except the capital part.
That is to say we break down and sell off a recently deceased persons estate from the house and cars to the furniture and silverware and even handle the clean up and taxable donation of all the junk left over.
Sometimes these peoples assets can value in the millions.
So to the pro 100percent crowd what do you propose happens with this money?
Currently the only tax anyone pays is the sales tax when the items were purchased by the original owner and another round of sales tax when we resell it.
The inheritees of these items and therefore the inheritee of the money does not pay any income tax on anything valued under 5 grand. After that its some percentage near half of the value that becomes income tax(capital gains perhaps?)
So for the extra wealthy(who ive worked for) will have use part this stuff out into smaller packages strictly to avoid this income tax.
Or they will have things that have alot of value from an appraisal point of view ie:a tiffanys glass lamp from the 1960s that appraises around 30 Gs but could really only sell for around 20 Gs will be donated and used as a 30 thousand dollar write off. Which in turn reduces the taxes they pay the following year on the rest of their income.
Ok sorry bit of a tangent there but if the tax were increased to 100(on capital) it would force old rich fuckers to spend that capital on things to pass on.
I guess my point here if you dont tax an estates solid assets(which is damn near impossible) this idea of raising the estate tax would not make a major improvement in the redistribution of wealth. Except perhaps by pumping money into the high end real estate and luxury market..you know they need it

[mrswdk]

I see no reason to abide by any law which says I must surrender an enormous chunk of wealth as punishment for dying.

The great thing about an estate tax is that by the time it applies to you, you have no choice regarding whether to abide it

Maybe you like to leave your future entirely up to chance, but I tend to do a little more forward planning than that.

[Metsfanmax]

I see no reason to abide by any law which says I must surrender an enormous chunk of wealth as punishment for dying.

The great thing about an estate tax is that by the time it applies to you, you have no choice regarding whether to abide it

Maybe you like to leave your future entirely up to chance, but I tend to do a little more forward planning than that.

*shrug* Unless you're a lot richer than I think you are, the estate tax I have in mind probably would not affect you at all, so I'm not sure why you are so up in arms about it anyway.