SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7985)12/24/2005 2:53:54 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542911
 
how much of their estates would people have to give up in order to stave off the dark ages?

Enough to turn a positive feedback cycle into at least a neutral one, or slightly negative. Because of the nature of the feedback cycle a progressive rate would be appropriate. I would guess it should average about 20% but it would need to be adjusted to actual results.

TP



To: Lane3 who wrote (7985)12/25/2005 1:08:45 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542911
 
And what about charity? My estate is headed to a non-profit. Would I lose control of that, too?


If you give your assets away then you won't have an estate.

Charities should not be immortal either.



To: Lane3 who wrote (7985)12/25/2005 1:12:34 PM
From: TigerPaw  Respond to of 542911
 
Would you clarify, too, that people get the use of their property while they're alive? You wouldn't take it before they die, would you?

In most, if not all, states there is a property tax. Some have a tax on all assets. I don't know how such taxes could be eliminated without some offset in other tax categories.

TP


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News