been doing a fair bit of reading on this and it all seems to boil down to the concept of "unearned income"
that the children of parents who've earned a fair bit of money haven't done anything to earn the wealth and assets their parents are looking to pass down to them

also seems like a large chunk of the demographic that supports this is unemployed or financially illiterate and feel they are trapped in a cycle of poverty they can't escape from and they need handouts from those that were more productive in their lives in order to get out - and they won't be able to get out with these handouts because they're bad with their finances anyway

four questions for our socialist pardian friends

why does it matter if someone has or hasn't earned money they've been given?

who gets to decide who has and hasn't earned something anyway?

why should the fate of wealth accumulated over a lifetime not be decided by that person themselves prior to their death?

what would you make of a 5-50% tax on all money held in checking and savings accounts at year end below what you make personally?

the concept of wealth/inheritance taxes seems very anti-family to me as a whole, particularly with the proponents who propose a 100% tax on all assets, savings, land owned by a dead person beyond an arbitrary threshold

if i'm working my ass off to accumulate wealth and resources it's to give my kids as much of an advantage as i can give them so that they can do better than i did
i certainly wouldn't work so hard if it was to be handed off to communist neets

This post was edited by duffman316 on Dec 30 2020 07:08pm

There's two types of people in this world. Those that work, and those that don't.

Iirc anything under 11 million are exempt for inheritance taxes. If it makes you feel better, I’m sure those this tax does apply to have legal ways around it.

With the great reset on the horizon, all that stuff will belong to the Government

i'm more concerned with the perceived validity of the idea than the arbitrary value that people will set to avoid getting taxed themselves
there is no reason the concept of redistributing perceived excess can't be extended to include a lot more people

This post was edited by duffman316 on Dec 30 2020 07:34pm

If they've earned the money they've been given is central to the moral justification of capitalism.

The legislatures elected by the people, same as all laws.

Wealth accumulating at the top is toxic to the economy as a whole. Inequality is necessary to drive productivity and innovation under capitalism, but there isn't a single person alive who would say "Gee, I'd try to invent something, but if my net worth is capped at a billion dollars why would I even bother?".

I don't think a wealth tax is the right solution, so I don't think we should implement it.

We will very soon reach a point where the richest person on Earth could pay for food water and shelter for the entire rest of the population. It doesn't take a genius to see that nobody could ever in a million lifetimes have "earned" that level of wealth, nor could that accumulation of wealth ever be good for the economy.


You seem to be taking this personally, when there is no chance you will ever be at a level of wealth where (barring a world shattering event) you would be targeted for a wealth tax. You are millions of times more likely to be homeless than to ever be a billionaire.

some people are always more concerned with other people’s money, unfortunately

Don’t think the same dollar should be taxed 3+ times

It should exist at a line somewhere above my net wealth when i die.

Yep. One of those people made this thread.