| | | >> How would your scenario result in no investment? While someone who is pretty old might do as you say, that wouldn't be true of everyone.
Let's talk about a more realistic scenario. Estate tax of 55% on gross estates over $5M. You know, redistribute the wealth.
A guy I know, now in his 70s, started a business 40 years ago with nothing (he got fired from his sales job in Dallas, and said, "That will never happen again.") He had no money, but hit the ground running. Today, his business is probably worth in the range of $250M. He has two sons who are active in the business with him. He takes salary of 1.2M, the two sons take 400K/annually. The rest of the money is invested back into the business -- new warehouses, increased inventory, more salesmen, etc. I imagine they have ~500 employees -- probably half are low-wage warehouse workers.
Suppose he dies tomorrow. In 18 months, his estate owes the federal government around $125M.
Given this [actual, real life] scenario, you tell me how government taking the $125M helps the impoverished. Even assuming it doesn't require an immediate liquidation, at the very least it will require significant borrowing which will limit expansion of the business (unless he happens to have a $125M life insurance policy, which he obviously does not).
These are the people who make up the wealth in the country -- from physicians and other professionals who accumulate a few million over their lifetimes, to business owners who have seen their businesses grow over the years.
|
|
