Inherited wealth. Any justification?

[Agit8r]

Now why when I read this post am I suddenly seeing visions of those two young British Royals who are being wed. There's a prime example of wealth from what source? However, If someone pay's taxes on wealth , I fail to see how taxing it again somehow can be justified into being called anything but a penalty. The other issue here is this sense that money earned somehow belongs to the Govt. it does not. A person and company should however want to pay their fair share of taxes to support the nation in which we all love. The issue that comes to mind here is that when we do pay that money is spent in reckless ways and as such it is the taxpayers right to demand it be spent in a wise manner.

It isn't about money belonging to government, it is about a society based upon merit. Money is but a medium of recognizing merit, no?

Our society is not based on merit, it is based upon individual freedom. Our system does not merit government confiscation of private property beyond limited taxation. You are free to obtain and preserve wealth all of which is subject to taxation already. You have the ability to reach your financial goals via the merit of your own hard work and ability to make practical decisions with your time and money.

Then why did our founders believe--as the 1776 Constitution of N.C. put it "That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State, and ought not to be allowed." o_0

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In a merit-based society, is their any justification for wealth being passed down generationally. And, if so, is there any limit to such justification?

Just askin'

"In recent years, no federal tax issue has been more critical than the estate tax. Since 1916, the estate tax has helped protect our economic system from creating an oligarchy; that is, a pervasive concentration of wealth. Our goal is to ensure that the US has a strong estate tax that holds the wealthy accountable for their fair share of our tax responsibility."

FAIR Estate Tax​

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I think you misunderstood. My point was the same as yours. If my family leaves me their estate after they have paid for it and have been taxed, then I shouldn't have to be taxed again for inheriting what they have already paid for.

What about the Gotti Estate or any "Soprano" estate? How about if the taxes weren't paid, such as they have it off-shore in tax shelters?
Wealth should be passed-on, but I support the current policy of only taxing wealth over $2.5m so that family farms and upper middle class folks aren't hurt.

That sounds @ right to me. How much unearned income does a child need to be comfortable?

Deducing from your logic, you would have no problem with the fed coming in and confiscating 55 percent on the 3 million dollar estate that you left your children or family members? After you had already paid taxes?

 

[rightwinger]

Now why when I read this post am I suddenly seeing visions of those two young British Royals who are being wed. There's a prime example of wealth from what source? However, If someone pay's taxes on wealth , I fail to see how taxing it again somehow can be justified into being called anything but a penalty. The other issue here is this sense that money earned somehow belongs to the Govt. it does not. A person and company should however want to pay their fair share of taxes to support the nation in which we all love. The issue that comes to mind here is that when we do pay that money is spent in reckless ways and as such it is the taxpayers right to demand it be spent in a wise manner.

Her wealth (Katherine Middleton's) comes from her family's hard work and sacrifice.

His comes from being born into the British Monarchy.... inherited money.

Either way, it's theirs, no one else has the right to take it from them.

And... the British Royal family pay taxes.

The Royal Family is nothing but pets kept for the amusement of the British people

 

[Agit8r]

In a merit-based society, is their any justification for wealth being passed down generationally. And, if so, is there any limit to such justification?

Just askin'

"In recent years, no federal tax issue has been more critical than the estate tax. Since 1916, the estate tax has helped protect our economic system from creating an oligarchy; that is, a pervasive concentration of wealth. Our goal is to ensure that the US has a strong estate tax that holds the wealthy accountable for their fair share of our tax responsibility."

FAIR Estate Tax​

Even worse than the movement against estate taxes, is the elimination of the Rule Against Perpetuities in so many of the states by the Pinochetist menace. Even in Virginia--FOR SHAME!

 

[kyzr]

I think you misunderstood. My point was the same as yours. If my family leaves me their estate after they have paid for it and have been taxed, then I shouldn't have to be taxed again for inheriting what they have already paid for.

What about the Gotti Estate or any "Soprano" estate? How about if the taxes weren't paid, such as they have it off-shore in tax shelters?
Wealth should be passed-on, but I support the current policy of only taxing wealth over $2.5m so that family farms and upper middle class folks aren't hurt.

Why should YOU get to draw the line?

I didn't draw it, I think that is current LAW. I don't see any need to change it.

 

[kyzr]

FYI THE "DEATH TAX" wiki splanation...
Estate tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can see the tax rate, but allowed to be paid over several years. Like a loss in the stock market. It transfers over in "tranches" after the tax is paid.

 

[Antiderivative]

The estate tax should be called the patriot tax. We live in America where we are suppose to value hard work and ingenuity, yet Republicans do not value these principles. Instead, they value the idea of perpetual wealth and dynasties.

These types of people would make King George proud.

 

[AllieBaba]

The reason people work to accumulate wealth is to provide for their children.

I loathe those who think that the individual matters not at all, and we should be prevented from caring for our own people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a merit-based society, is their any justification for wealth being passed down generationally. And, if so, is there any limit to such justification?

Just askin'

Merit based society? How fucking stupid are you anyway?

 

[Agit8r]

In a merit-based society, is their any justification for wealth being passed down generationally. And, if so, is there any limit to such justification?

Just askin'

Merit based society? How fucking stupid are you anyway?

Well that is the theory behind "The American Dream." I'm not actually stupid enough to believe that such actually exists

 

[Valerie]

It isn't about money belonging to government, it is about a society based upon merit. Money is but a medium of recognizing merit, no?

Our society is not based on merit, it is based upon individual freedom. Our system does not merit government confiscation of private property beyond limited taxation. You are free to obtain and preserve wealth all of which is subject to taxation already. You have the ability to reach your financial goals via the merit of your own hard work and ability to make practical decisions with your time and money.

Then why did our founders believe--as the 1776 Constitution of N.C. put it "That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State, and ought not to be allowed." o_0

We already have laws that protect against monopoly... Or tax evasion, to address some of the other points brought up...

 

[Agit8r]

Our society is not based on merit, it is based upon individual freedom. Our system does not merit government confiscation of private property beyond limited taxation. You are free to obtain and preserve wealth all of which is subject to taxation already. You have the ability to reach your financial goals via the merit of your own hard work and ability to make practical decisions with your time and money.

Then why did our founders believe--as the 1776 Constitution of N.C. put it "That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State, and ought not to be allowed." o_0

We already have laws that protect against monopoly... Or tax evasion, to address some of the other points brought up...

the relevant word there was PERPETUITIES.

 

[AllieBaba]

In a merit-based society, is their any justification for wealth being passed down generationally. And, if so, is there any limit to such justification?

Just askin'

Merit based society? How fucking stupid are you anyway?

Well that is the theory behind "The American Dream." I'm not actually stupid enough to believe that such actually exists

Thank you for supporting my vision of you as a lazy, jealous elitist who thinks he should be paid for sitting on his ass, while the people who do work and accumulate wealth pay you out of their pockets.

 

[Agit8r]

Merit based society? How fucking stupid are you anyway?

Well that is the theory behind "The American Dream." I'm not actually stupid enough to believe that such actually exists

Thank you for supporting my vision of you as a lazy, jealous elitist who thinks he should be paid for sitting on his ass, while the people who do work and accumulate wealth pay you out of their pockets.

I'm not a plutocrat, or any other sort of welfare queen

 

[Valerie]

As one state after another acts to make perpetual trusts possible, a little-noticed provision in some state constitutions forbidding "perpetuities" is receiving new attention. The first such provision--originally in North Carolina's 1776 Constitution and later copied by other states--is now the subject of litigation that will determine the constitutionality of the state's recent repeal of the Rule Against Perpetuities as applied to beneficial interests in trust. The case, Brown Brothers Harriman Trust Co. v. Benson, 1 seems set to become a landmark that could be influential as other states with similar constitutional provisions respond to the demand for allowing perpetual trusts.

Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the
genius of a free state and shall not be allowed.
N.C. Const. art. I, § 34.

On August 19, 2007, House Bill 1384 became law in North Carolina. 2 It repealed the Rule Against Perpetuities as applied to trusts if the trustee has a power of sale. 3 It is, therefore, now possible in this state to create perpetual trusts. Popularly known as "dynasty trusts," such trusts can preserve property for the benefit of a settlor's descendants from generation to generation forever, that is, in perpetuity.

By adopting this statute, North Carolina joined a nationwide movement away from the centuries-old policy of limiting the duration of trusts. Although the dynastic impulse is as old as the human race, settlors today create such trusts mainly to shelter assets from federal taxes on succession at death.

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=9f15c941bd7dc8264932f131905e44a3

 

[Intense]

The estate tax should be called the patriot tax. We live in America where we are suppose to value hard work and ingenuity, yet Republicans do not value these principles. Instead, they value the idea of perpetual wealth and dynasties.

These types of people would make King George proud.

You are misinformed. State Capitalism has you by the Balls. Time to change course Comrade.

 

[washamericom]

no ownership of anything, one make of car, a government authority should decide who gets one. only the friends of the leader would have access to the club of the sons. sounds like a plan.

 

[Agit8r]

As one state after another acts to make perpetual trusts possible, a little-noticed provision in some state constitutions forbidding "perpetuities" is receiving new attention. The first such provision--originally in North Carolina's 1776 Constitution and later copied by other states--is now the subject of litigation that will determine the constitutionality of the state's recent repeal of the Rule Against Perpetuities as applied to beneficial interests in trust. The case, Brown Brothers Harriman Trust Co. v. Benson, 1 seems set to become a landmark that could be influential as other states with similar constitutional provisions respond to the demand for allowing perpetual trusts.

Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the
genius of a free state and shall not be allowed.
N.C. Const. art. I, § 34.

On August 19, 2007, House Bill 1384 became law in North Carolina. 2 It repealed the Rule Against Perpetuities as applied to trusts if the trustee has a power of sale. 3 It is, therefore, now possible in this state to create perpetual trusts. Popularly known as "dynasty trusts," such trusts can preserve property for the benefit of a settlor's descendants from generation to generation forever, that is, in perpetuity.

By adopting this statute, North Carolina joined a nationwide movement away from the centuries-old policy of limiting the duration of trusts. Although the dynastic impulse is as old as the human race, settlors today create such trusts mainly to shelter assets from federal taxes on succession at death.

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=9f15c941bd7dc8264932f131905e44a3

Thank you for documenting our departure from Original Principals

 

[Agit8r]

no ownership of anything, one make of car, a government authority should decide who gets one. only the friends of the leader would have access to the club of the sons. sounds like a plan.

how does that have anything at all to do with the topic at hand? o_0