Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Citizens Manifesto -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (336)	7/28/2005 6:17:34 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 492

Why should a person who inherits (and does not earn) wealth have the right to give it to their kids, if society says the wealth is better distributed amongst the population that amongst the children of the lazy? Because the wealth doesn't belong to society in general, and most specifically it doesn't belong to the government (which would be the organization taking it). If you think letting non-working recipients of large wealth keep the wealth in their family is better than passing it out to the general public, can's you just explain why? "It's their money" is not a comparative discussion... Because "its their money". I don't need a comparative discussion. Even if society as a whole would benefit from taking it away I would still be against it. Now having stated that I'm against it either way, I can also talk about whether society would benefit or not. You brought up Paris Hilton. I don't know exactly how wealthy she is, but considered in isolation it might be better for society if all her wealth, beyond what would be needed to adequately support her, was magically distributed to every American in equal proportions. I'm not stipulating that it would be better for society, but I am certainly willing to entertain the notion that it would be. However that isn't what would happen in your plan or any other plan for a larger inheritance tax. It would be taken by the government. It also wouldn't be an action in isolation, nor would it be something that magically happened. It would be a deliberate action by congress to pass a law to seize the wealth (if not from Paris then from her estate when she dies), and it wouldn't only effect people who lived the "idle rich" life style, or were otherwise like Paris Hilton. It would be a general rule that such wealth should be taken, and it would amount to an extension of government power and a decrease in liberty. Thus in my opinion it would indeed make society worse off. Tim