If it is my wealth, why can't I leave it to whom it pleases me? The real question here is not inheritance tax, but taxation of any kind and gubbamint interference with my choices (choices which do no harm others or interfere with their right to choose for themselves.) Why do we let ourselves be robbed and pushed around by these assholes?
There's a fair amount I agree with here, but I think the point about 'nepo babies' may be overstated if you're looking at a sample size of 14 out of ~4000.
- inheritance wealth has been accumulated after tax, i.e. it's what remains from paying property and income taxes for a lifetime;
- the heirs did not work for the inheritance, but neither did the state, so it's as much "theft" if inheritances are expropriated by the state, as it would be if they are passed over to heirs
In Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine argued for an estate tax (_not_ 100%!) to fund a one-time payment to every citizen when they turned twenty-one. The recipient could spend the money on education, business, or wine, women, and song -- but after that, society owed you nothing.
An interesting idea. The problem with the estate tax is the same as that of any other tax on income, wealth, investment, or commerce. It makes no distinction between wealth that's been earned and wealth that hasn't. I think Steve Wozniak deserves every one of his billions of dollars, because he made computing more accessible to the whole world. I don't feel the same about an old-world aristocrat whose family has been collecting rent from landless peasants for hundreds of years.
> [Abolishing inheritance] is spiritual warfare in denying the eternal or long-lasting, and the same mentality behind replacement migration.
This is great insight. The whole piece is indeed thought-provoking, one of the best here. I have to ponder on the whole affair before commenting further. Let me just point out one thing in one of the twitter blurbs:
> Matt Walsh: Nobody lacks an internal monologue.[..] It's an absurd idea that any human being lacks a capacity for thought. Especially if that human is talking about their experience of not thinking.
If it is my wealth, why can't I leave it to whom it pleases me? The real question here is not inheritance tax, but taxation of any kind and gubbamint interference with my choices (choices which do no harm others or interfere with their right to choose for themselves.) Why do we let ourselves be robbed and pushed around by these assholes?
There's a fair amount I agree with here, but I think the point about 'nepo babies' may be overstated if you're looking at a sample size of 14 out of ~4000.
Interesting pair of comments from unz.com:
- inheritance wealth has been accumulated after tax, i.e. it's what remains from paying property and income taxes for a lifetime;
- the heirs did not work for the inheritance, but neither did the state, so it's as much "theft" if inheritances are expropriated by the state, as it would be if they are passed over to heirs
In Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine argued for an estate tax (_not_ 100%!) to fund a one-time payment to every citizen when they turned twenty-one. The recipient could spend the money on education, business, or wine, women, and song -- but after that, society owed you nothing.
An interesting idea. The problem with the estate tax is the same as that of any other tax on income, wealth, investment, or commerce. It makes no distinction between wealth that's been earned and wealth that hasn't. I think Steve Wozniak deserves every one of his billions of dollars, because he made computing more accessible to the whole world. I don't feel the same about an old-world aristocrat whose family has been collecting rent from landless peasants for hundreds of years.
Geoism FTW. http://gameofrent.com/
These Napoleon-hat NPC ideologies are in vogue again; time to read more James C. Scott books
> [Abolishing inheritance] is spiritual warfare in denying the eternal or long-lasting, and the same mentality behind replacement migration.
This is great insight. The whole piece is indeed thought-provoking, one of the best here. I have to ponder on the whole affair before commenting further. Let me just point out one thing in one of the twitter blurbs:
> Matt Walsh: Nobody lacks an internal monologue.[..] It's an absurd idea that any human being lacks a capacity for thought. Especially if that human is talking about their experience of not thinking.
There is what's probably the weirdest post ever on reddit which proves otherwise https://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/3yrw2i/i_never_thought_with_language_until_now_this_is/
Do yourself a favour and read that post because it's just so clarifying on the extent of how much other people can really be different from oneself.