Inheritance Taxes Discourage Oligarchy. Hence libertarian types hate inheritance taxes

If IBM didn't like his operating system at any point in the process they could have shuttered it and either gone with someone or developed their own in-house.

 

SF, you are vastly overestimating the amount of time I'm willing to put into this question. As I stated before, in the end, this is just going on a basketball forum. Even as a man of science, I'm comfortable taking the short-cut here and admitting so.

I'll go one further and just say, regardless of what the numbers show, I don't support an inheritance tax, and I will never support one that does not apply equally to estates of all sizes.

 

People should pay their taxes preferably a flat rate. That said a man should be able to leave his money to whomever he chooses without the govt. taking half of what he has earned.

 

Glynch is such a troll. We've had inheritance taxes, in one form or another, for decades, and there's still an oligarchy. What I don't understand about Glynch's stubborn disdain for "libertarian types" is how he'd insist that the Koch's are controlling public policy in favor of the 0.01% (or whatever he's spouting off these days), but yet "libertarian types" get around 1% of the vote on average. So, either the two parties in control are closet libertarians, or Glynch is full of ****. I'm leaning toward the latter. "Libertarian types" have no power in politics. The reason Glynch harps on about them is because they're the only real philosophical alternative to his beliefs, which also lie far outside of the mainstream, and on this forum its much easier to build up a strawman against your opponents than to explain the merits of your political ideology -- especially when that ideology is so far outside of the mainstream. Why don't you tell us some specifics on how you'd want society to function, Glynch? Why not let the merit of your ideas speak for you?

 

No need for the qualifier between those two ideas, they're politically intertwined and both fiscally and economically impossible.

 

Beats me. "Bill Gates" is apparently an all purpose rejoinder by wingers rather than having to deal with facts/reality regarding the reality of the current era's increasing stratification/calcification of income, opportunity and such.

 

Inheritance tax and estate tax are the dumbest ****ing things on the face of the Earth.

 

guess we know who is waiting on that inheriteeeennnce

 

lol. But seriously, it makes no sense. It's just a money-grab.

 

Supporting dynastic wealth makes no sense. Seriously, it's just hoarding with the very persuasive justification of "cause I want to." Lol.

I believe it was actually Gates mother that got him his first meeting with IBM (btw, since it IS Mother's Day).

I think there is a reasonable argument to exempt smaller estates from the tax, even multimillion dollar estates. I'm in favor of the tax, but think it should be on a sliding scale getting higher the larger the estate. Taxing 50% of Buffett's forty billion still would leave his heirs with more money than they could ever spend. Although in Buffett's case he is an ardent supporter of the tax and opponent of dynastic wealth, and his heirs will not get but a small percentage of his wealth.

Saying its stealing just dumb. Citizens don't just take from the whole. There is no moral reason why someone should inherit billions of dollars unless you want to revert to genetic aristocracy. No thanks.

 

Warren Buffett isn't limiting his call for higher taxes to a minimum rate for very rich Americans who get a large chunk of their income from investments.

He's also one of several dozen wealthy people who have signed a statement calling for a "strong tax on the largest estates." It's been released by a group called "United For a Fair Economy."

Among the other signatories: Buffett's friend Bill Gates, former president Jimmy Carter, investor George Soros, and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

Noting that they have "benefited significantly" by government investments in schools, infrastructure. and public safety, among other things, the signer say it is "right morally and economically" to have a "significant" tax on large estates because it "promotes democracy by slowing the concentration of wealth and power."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100301732

 

It's their ****ing money! If somebody like Buffett wants to give it away to random people, he is free to do that. All it is is a money-grab.

 

Who gives a **** what they say?

 

I can find people as rich as them that don't advocate that. What's your point? We should listen to your idea because it's shared by rich person A and not rich person B?

 

If Buffet wants to let those locusts in DC dispense his life's work, he's free to do so. But he shouldn't force others to do the same.

And the real purpose isn't to use Buffet's wealth, it's to ensure no one else does without the state's permission. It's about control.

Buffet's wealth is a drop in the bucket of the federal treasury, they print as much in a month.

 

It would be interesting to see an inheritance tax rather than estate tax.

 

As I mentioned on page 1, Buffett has lost any credibility on this issue in my eyes. It's one thing to talk a good game about egalitarianism, and sure, Buffett claims that he supports estate taxes (although I believe he will be leaving his entire fortune to charity, and will thus escape the tax man), but that's all a bunch of b.s. when you turn around and name your son as your successor. Why does little Buffett Jr. need any of daddy's money when he can just have the job of running one of the world's largest businesses handed to him because of his last name?

 

You have accidentally hit Buffets point on the nose. We cannot check this type of power that he and people like him are passing to his progeny. We can, however, tax wealth and hope to allow more people to eventually have better get access to the same benefits. Buffet seems to see his at least some of his failings and hypocrisy as a person and advocates for higher taxes on people like himself. He knows as a father that he can't help but help his children and he knows others people in his same situations also can't help but want to do what is best for their children, but at the same time he recognizes that people acting in such a selfish manner is a net harm to society. He knows that government is the only institution which has the power to spread that privilege around. You seem to agree with him that such unchecked privilege is a bad thing.

For the better part of 60 years, intergenerational mobility in the U.S. has been on a downward trend. A more robust estate and inheritance tax is one of the many ways in which the state can provide for the necessary services to fight against the decline and maybe even reverse the trend.