If its known well before hand its less abusive. Certainly a small one compared to the actions of many governments throughout the world. But "less of an abuse", doesn't make for "a good thing."
Well what do you think? Is wealth better deployed in the hands of the children of the idle rich, or through distribution to the masses? That's the primary question.
Your main objection seem to be that wealth should not be taken from its holders, which I agree with. However, under this scheme, the children of the idle rich never get the wealth and are thus never become its holders. And current holders (the first heirs of the entrepreneurs that built the wealth) are able to pass on as much as they earn in their lifetime (as measured by their tax statements or something like that). So if they are using the inherited wealthy productively, it gets passed on, If they are not, they are unable to pass it on to their children. Remember, the heirs didn't earn it, they received it from their parents.
Anyway, what do you think? Is wealth better deployed in the hands of the children of the idle rich, or through distribution to the masses?
As for people avoiding taxes, that happens anyway.
Of course it happens, but your scheme makes it worse.
No, it makes the recipient of great wealth incented to declare as much income as possible during his lifetime, because that is the amount that he will be able to pass on to his heirs. If he hides his taxes, he gets to pass on zero (or at least much less). The wealthy will be highly incented to declare income in order to keep their wealth in their family.
Gates earned the money. It his to dispose of it as he sees fit.
Using this logic, his children didn't earn the money, so why is it theirs to dispose of as they see fit? Of course this system is not designed to make the heirs of the rich happy. They have to work if they want to pass on wealth to their kids.
They don't have to deserve it. Wealth shouldn't be taken away from anyone that people think doesn't deserve it. The government doesn't deserve it. I don't deserve it. You don't deserve it. Deserving it isn't an issue. Its irrelevant.
This is debateable, but the point is whether society is better off with wealth concentrated in the hands of the idle rich, or distributed amongst the people (some of which are also pertty frickin' idle!)? Whattaya think - why is society better if Paris Hilton's kids inherit $100 million instead of society taking it from her kids? |
