Inherited wealth. Any justification?

Should inherited wealth exist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 44 78.6%
  • No

    Votes: 1 1.8%
  • Yes, but it should be limited/taxed

    Votes: 11 19.6%

  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
By year-end 2005, twenty-one states had validated perpetual trusts by abolishing the Rule Against Perpetuities (the Rule or the RAP) as applied to interests in trust. 1 On one view, these states responded to demand by donors for perpetual control independent of tax considerations. If so, the perpetual trust might be reckoned as the modern counterpart to the fee tail and strict settlement, 2 another effort by one generation to control the disposition of the family patrimony by subsequent generations. On the other hand, as is so often the case in the development of estate planning techniques, tax incentives may be the root cause of the rise of the perpetual trust. The 1986 enactment of the generation skipping transfer (GST) tax conferred a specific and salient tax advantage on long-term trusts, and nearly all of the states that have abolished the Rule did so after 1986. Proponents of both views have adduced supporting anecdotal evidence.


https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=83a3eb93c217e89ccb00a44ccd0dad13
 
Well here's the issue. If you believe that the child doesn't deserve it, then who does? Whoever you give it too, including the government, wont have technically earned it. I think whoever made the money(the person who died) has every right to do whatever the fuck they want with it most prominently giving it to their children. So it is irrelevant if the person deserves it, the person who made the money wanted them to have it. Only case against this is a person without a will but there is no substantial amount of money that comes without a will.
 
I don't see the argument for giving anything back to the government when taxes have already been paid.

Ever witnessed Caroline Kennedy?

CarolineKennedy.jpg


Can you honestly tell me she merits the wealth she has?

It's not your place to decide. My Daughter Interned for her, she is an Ass, a Rich Ass, still she is entitled to what is hers. The Cancer is in the Root of your Argument, you lack the awareness of the meaning of Unalienable Right. Private Property is an Unalienable Right.
 
The money belonged to the who died-I think we can all agree on that. So therefore where should the money go? The answer is really simple: wherever that person wishes. It's their money-they can do whatever they want with it.

Whether they donate it to charity the day before they die, or they leave it all to their spouse/next of kin, or they leave it to their dogs (you can do that). It's nobody else's business-including the governments.
 
Yup.

Money isn't "on loan" to the people who earn it. It's theirs to do what they please with.

And that includes leaving it to their kids. There's no other reason to earn money.
 
The money belonged to the who died-I think we can all agree on that.

as long as the person has earned that through merit to society, of course. But MERIT IS NOT HEREDITARY! That is the one MOST BASIC principal that this country was founded upon
 
I don't see the argument for giving anything back to the government when taxes have already been paid.

Back to the government? Did other people's money once belong to the Government? No.

Who inherits what from whom is absolutely no one else's business... including the Government... and damned jealous, petty, greedy people.


Indeed. And as to who the wealthy are, most are Self Made. Punishing their success, and frugality (most live well below their means), is corrupt.

Want to be a millionaire? Don't overspend and use debt wisely.

We all may not be millionaires but there are plenty of financial and life-planning secrets we can learn from the well-heeled.

Most people know that wealth in the U.S. is in the hands of a small percentage of the total population. And, today, most of those folks with a net worth of $1 million or more have earned it themselves.

They're mostly entrepreneurs who create everything from high-speed networks to garbage haulers. They dig ditches and build houses and grow corn and make jewelry. They deal stamps or coins or artwork and control pests and cut lawns. They also cure people and give them new teeth. Others will defend their neighbors or even feed them.

And they're not big spenders. In fact, most of those with big bucks live well under their means -- think about Warren Buffett still living in that modest Omaha home -- and they put their money instead toward investments that help them stockpile more wealth.

"Wealth is what you accumulate, not what you spend," according to Thomas Stanley and William Danko, the authors of the seminal tome on America's wealthy "The Millionaire Next Door," first published in 1996.

"It is seldom luck or inheritance or advanced degrees or even intelligence that enables people to amass fortunes," the authors wrote. "Wealth is more often the result of a lifestyle of hard work, perseverance, planning, and, most of all, self discipline."


Yahoo! Finance - Financially Fit

It is funny that you would bring up Warren Buffet's name. He has explicitly stated that the wealthy need to be taxed more.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/238...s-taxing-the-rich-more-is-key-to-u-s-recovery
 
Last edited:
The money belonged to the who died-I think we can all agree on that.

as long as the person has earned that through merit to society, of course. But MERIT IS NOT HEREDITARY! That is the one MOST BASIC principal that this country was founded upon

You are thinking like a Collectivist. The Premise is False. When you Pay me for Goods or Service, it is not up to you how I use that resource. Why should I be accountable to you, or you be accountable to me in that way??? How does that serve Liberty???
 
Yup.

Money isn't "on loan" to the people who earn it. It's theirs to do what they please with.

And that includes leaving it to their kids. There's no other reason to earn money.

Right now the top 2% or 3% of incomes own 90% of everything. The rest of us are peons. The basic question is, does the government protect and promote a middle-class, or protect the super-rich? Didn't someone say "let them eat cake" when the citizenry had enough poverty?
 
Back to the government? Did other people's money once belong to the Government? No.

Who inherits what from whom is absolutely no one else's business... including the Government... and damned jealous, petty, greedy people.


Indeed. And as to who the wealthy are, most are Self Made. Punishing their success, and frugality (most live well below their means), is corrupt.

Want to be a millionaire? Don't overspend and use debt wisely.

We all may not be millionaires but there are plenty of financial and life-planning secrets we can learn from the well-heeled.

Most people know that wealth in the U.S. is in the hands of a small percentage of the total population. And, today, most of those folks with a net worth of $1 million or more have earned it themselves.

They're mostly entrepreneurs who create everything from high-speed networks to garbage haulers. They dig ditches and build houses and grow corn and make jewelry. They deal stamps or coins or artwork and control pests and cut lawns. They also cure people and give them new teeth. Others will defend their neighbors or even feed them.

And they're not big spenders. In fact, most of those with big bucks live well under their means -- think about Warren Buffett still living in that modest Omaha home -- and they put their money instead toward investments that help them stockpile more wealth.

"Wealth is what you accumulate, not what you spend," according to Thomas Stanley and William Danko, the authors of the seminal tome on America's wealthy "The Millionaire Next Door," first published in 1996.

"It is seldom luck or inheritance or advanced degrees or even intelligence that enables people to amass fortunes," the authors wrote. "Wealth is more often the result of a lifestyle of hard work, perseverance, planning, and, most of all, self discipline."


Yahoo! Finance - Financially Fit

It is funny that you would bring up Warren Buffet's name. He has explicitly stated that the wealthy need to be taxed more.

Well obviously He should Pay more Taxes, and Donate to Charities more, being that he is so inspired to do so. I totally support him in that.
 
Yup.

Money isn't "on loan" to the people who earn it. It's theirs to do what they please with.

And that includes leaving it to their kids. There's no other reason to earn money.

Right now the top 2% or 3% of incomes own 90% of everything. The rest of us are peons. The basic question is, does the government protect and promote a middle-class, or protect the super-rich? Didn't someone say "let them eat cake" when the citizenry had enough poverty?

The government doesn't protect and promote any class.

It protects the rights of individuals to advance themselves.
 
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'

Yeah, I earned it, therefore it is mine. I can do whatever the fuck I want to with my property.
 
The government doesn't protect and promote any class.

It protects the rights of individuals to advance themselves.

The government has things like "protected classes", "a progressive tax system", and student loans and other entitlements intended to help the poor.
The wealthy bribe the pols and don't need any help. They are getting richer as the rest of us are getting poorer.
 
The money belonged to the who died-I think we can all agree on that.

as long as the person has earned that through merit to society, of course. But MERIT IS NOT HEREDITARY! That is the one MOST BASIC principal that this country was founded upon

You are thinking like a Collectivist. The Premise is False. When you Pay me for Goods or Service, it is not up to you how I use that resource. Why should I be accountable to you, or you be accountable to me in that way??? How does that serve Liberty???

But massive accumulations of wealth are a construct only possible through the mechanism of government. In medieval times that mechanism was war and conquest. now it is only possible through recognition of the corporate person, limited liability, etc. And being entirely dependent upon government, in a REPUBLIC amassed wealth must answer TO THE PEOPLE!
 
Yup.

Money isn't "on loan" to the people who earn it. It's theirs to do what they please with.

And that includes leaving it to their kids. There's no other reason to earn money.

Right now the top 2% or 3% of incomes own 90% of everything. The rest of us are peons. The basic question is, does the government protect and promote a middle-class, or protect the super-rich? Didn't someone say "let them eat cake" when the citizenry had enough poverty?

Blame the "Too Big To Fail" Schemes, the Corporate Protectionism, the Monopolies that infringe on Free and Local Competition. What we live in today is not Free Market Capitalism. Unjustified Regulation. In all things there is balance, we are so far off the Reservation, there is no simple fix, the remedies are complex and compounded, and need to be fluid enough to adapt to circumstance. Every action will have repercussions to contend with. Grown Up's should take responsibility and Navigate. Totalitarianism should be rejected at all cost, while we still have the power to reject it.
 
Who is "they"?

And yes there are programs that in fact do those things.

But the PURPOSE of a free government is NOT to protect any particular class. It is to protect the right of the individual so that individuals may move about freely in society, and pursue their own vision of success.

It is not the purpose of any free government to manufacture success by taking from those who work and spreading the fruits of that labor among the people who don't, while stating a mission of "protecting" that unsuccessful class.
 
as long as the person has earned that through merit to society, of course. But MERIT IS NOT HEREDITARY! That is the one MOST BASIC principal that this country was founded upon

You are thinking like a Collectivist. The Premise is False. When you Pay me for Goods or Service, it is not up to you how I use that resource. Why should I be accountable to you, or you be accountable to me in that way??? How does that serve Liberty???

But massive accumulations of wealth are a construct only possible through the mechanism of government. In medieval times that mechanism was war and conquest. now it is only possible through recognition of the corporate person, limited liability, etc. And being entirely dependent upon government, in a REPUBLIC amassed wealth must answer TO THE PEOPLE!

You're complete numbnut.

Tell us again why you think you're entitled to take things that don't belong to you? Seems to be a pretty basic concept in life your parents failed to teach you.
 
Yup.

Money isn't "on loan" to the people who earn it. It's theirs to do what they please with.

And that includes leaving it to their kids. There's no other reason to earn money.

Right now the top 2% or 3% of incomes own 90% of everything. The rest of us are peons. The basic question is, does the government protect and promote a middle-class, or protect the super-rich? Didn't someone say "let them eat cake" when the citizenry had enough poverty?

Blame the "Too Big To Fail" Schemes, the Corporate Protectionism, the Monopolies that infringe on Free and Local Competition. What we live in today is not Free Market Capitalism. Unjustified Regulation. In all things there is balance, we are so far off the Reservation, there is no simple fix, the remedies are complex and compounded, and need to be fluid enough to adapt to circumstance. Every action will have repercussions to contend with. Grown Up's should take responsibility and Navigate. Totalitarianism should be rejected at all cost, while we still have the power to reject it.

If a company is proficient enough to take extreme power then it is their right as a United States Corporation to do as such. If another person or company believes themselves better then let them contest. The U.S is a competition and thats the point of it. Don't hate the large companies just because they're winning.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top