No, I think you probably wouldn’t.
From your link:
#1 seems to indicate that the top 1% are making more money- *not *that they’re inheriting less.
#2 is merely asking them how they made their money, and then using their answer as a data point. How many businessmen are going to say that they just got lucky and inherited their money?
#3 is the only one which seems to indicate what the article claims.
Ha. I love it how you condemn people for inheriting money. “They didn’t do anything to earn it!” And what’s your solution? Give it to a bunch of other people who didn’t earn it!
OK, so we have established that most millionaires made their own money and didn’t inherit it. Were you going to draw any inferences from that, or has the topic been exhausted?
So, if Obama were dumb enough to try something as described in the OP, it would have to be a true tax on earnings rather than an estate tax, and it would not be possible to justify it by claiming that people didn’t deserve to inherit from their parents. Anything else?
Well if that’s the case, then what is the objection to a heavy estate tax? After all, these (self-reported) geniuses don’t need daddy’s money to make their fortune, right?
I don’t think that we’ve “established that most millionaires made their own money and didn’t inherit it.” At best, ONE of the article’s points indicate that.
Is it your contention that everyone has equal opportunity to become rich, regardless of initial wealth?
Presumably the idea that most people would rather leave their money to their children than to a bunch of strangers.
For most folks, “everything belongs to the government” is not the default way of thinking. And it is more than a bit of a non sequitur to believe “I made myself rich, therefore I have no objection to the feds grabbing everything I worked for as soon as I die”.
No, it is not, which may explain why I didn’t say it.
Is it your contention that no one can get rich unless they inherit their money?
Okay, as much as I like arguing hypotheticals, the situation described in the OP similar to hypothesizing that Bush would throw aside the election and install himself as President for Life. As in “it’s vaguely possible, but not bloody likely, that he’d try, and the successful execution would be extremely difficult.”
Your argument has been that most of the wealthy are self-made. If that is so, what difference will it make if estates are taxed? The cream will rise to the top anyway, right? They have no need of inherited wealth to make their fortunes.
Now the truth is I doubt your “studies,” since they seem to rely entirely on self-reporting by the wealthy. I’ve never met a rich person yet, even those who inherited chunks of money, who didn’t believe in their hearts they were self-made.
Or, as the saying goes, they were born on third base and thought they’d hit a triple.
Since you want to cast the debate in moral terms, what moral right do heirs have to an inheritance? How did they earn it? And why shouldn’t it be taxed, same as any other income?
I’ll concede the point that at least some folks with more than 30 million dollars inherited it, and those folks may or may not be good at anything. But even they must have inherited it from someone, which just pushes the hypothetical person who was good at something back a generation or three. Paris Hilton wouldn’t have her fortune if her grandfather hadn’t had the fortune before her, and he was good at something (running hotels).
The right of their parents to do as they wish with their money, including giving it to their children.
I’d have to say that the heirs have a bit more of a ‘moral right’ to their parents or grandparents stuff than others have in taking it from them…don’t you? If your folks have a house, say, do you think you should have some right to it after their deaths? Or do I, as the government, have the right (moral or otherwise) to take it away for the good of the people? Or do you consider all of your parents stuff to be fair game for everyone else out there? What about your own stuff wrt any children you have?
I’ll tell you…I want MY stuff to go to MY kids or other relatives if I shuffle off this mortal coil, not to The People™, regardless of their need. The People™ are ALREADY getting their cut from me after all, ehe? The stuff I actually manage to accumulate is outside of The People™’s cut afaiac…even though when I DO shuffle off The People™ will still manage to get a cut anyway from my estate.
Give it all to them? Fuck that. Let em eat cake…
-XT
So why shouldn’t that be taxed, same as any other income? The child did nothing to earn it. Shouldn’t it be taxed at a higher rate than earned income, for that matter? Why should we tax a man who works to earn his money, but not a man whose inherited wealth falls into his lap?
Nope. And I didn’t claim that, nor did I imply it.
I’m curious, though, as to why you were so quick to post a link which refutes the idea that the majority of the wealthy started out wealthy… and yet you don’t think that every wealth level has the opportunity to become wealthy through their own hard work or talent.
Well…actually we DO have estate taxes and they are pretty hefty already. Why isn’t that enough?
As for the rest, We, The People are already taking this theoretical rich dude all through his life. We tax his income and we tax whatever business he owns, we tax his investments and we even put taxes on luxury goods he may own. Then he kicks the bucket and you want to grab it all, seemingly, or a good chunk of it…for the good of The People of course.
Leaving aside the ‘moral’ right to do so however, it’s kind of stupid. After all, what are the chillins gona do with the money? Are they going to immediately take it out of the banks or investment vehicles and stuff it in mattresses? Assuming they aren’t, then they are either going to blow it on fast women and booze (or big boats, planes, clothes or whatever the supposed Idle Rich™ blows large blocks of cash on these days), in which case the money is already going to be injected into the economy in the form of jobs to provide all those goodies, or they are going to invest the money (or simply keep the money in the Daddys current investment vehicles), which means…that we will STILL get our cut from it (in several forms actually).
Or, we can loot attempt to loot the rich when they die (or when they are alive seemingly), which would mean that the smart rich would take their marbles and play somewhere else. I promise you if the government attempts to enact legislation to take away my children s inheritance to a greater degree than they already are, I’ll be moving my capital offshore somewhere…and I’m guessing I won’t be alone. Which will mean that The People won’t even get the cut they are CURRENTLY getting.
The problem with these schemes to soak the rich are that they generally won’t work, as a large percentage of the rich will take their capital somewhere else if things get too bad. Anyone trying to actually do this (which, thank the gods Obama is too smart to try) will end up hurting the very people s/he is trying to help, while the folks they are trying to soak will just go play somewhere else.
-XT
Here’s the thing, XT. We are not just a collection of individuals. We are a society. We all benefit from being a part of that society. The wealthy have benefitted the most, and should bear the greatest part in maintaining the infrastructure of that society. (Is that what you mean by taking their money away and giving it to “The People”? 'Cause if so, I’m surely in favor of it.)
For example, we have enormous military expenditures. What class of Americans do you suppose benefits the most from our military adventures? Who, then, should bear the cost of maintaining that military?
The Republican party has been whittling away at estate taxes for years, as I’m sure you know. I have no problem with a reasonable exemption, but above a certain level, estates should be taxed heavily, to put those assets back into the kitty that supports our nation’s infrastructure, and to keep the burdens on the poor and middle class as light as possible. Children of the wealthy have no moral claim on those assets. They didn’t earn them. And the rich dude who did is dead.
And by the way, these obscenely rich dudes and their wealthy scions aren’t theoretical. They are all too real. Recommended viewing: Born Rich.
Well, spoke-, a couple of things by way of comment. First off, I don’t think that the wealthy HAVE benefited more than everyone else from society. I think that society gets more out of having the rich than the rich get out of having society, generally speaking. Without our society after all, there would still be rich (granted there would be a lot fewer of them on the ground in that case)…since there were rich long before our society existed and there are rich in societies that are completely unlike our own. The difference though is that in THOSE kinds of societies there are generally a LOT more poor and miserable schlubs roaming about than in our society.
That said though, the next point would be that the rich ALREADY are paying quite a bit towards society both in the form of taxes and in the form of jobs that their capital creates. The top few percentage of wealthy in the US pay for a rather large percentage of our yearly taxes…and this doesn’t get into those fringe benefits like jobs and industry and all that jazz.
And no, that’s not what I meant by ‘taking their money away and giving it to “The People”?’. I have no problem with taxing the rich (or the middle class or poor either). As you say, this is what provides us with all the goodies we all like, such as roads, schools and Mars exploration. I will even go further and say that I wouldn’t be opposed to a modest increase in taxes of The Rich (as well as the middle class)…though I’d be more happy if the government could figure out how to budget and then stick to that budget. No, what I object too is the tone of the OP and others which seem to want something extra. Not a modest increase in taxes but a looting of the rich. To me this is both stupid and smacks of attempts to kill the wyvern that chases the golden rabbit.
Our military adventures, as you put it, were purportedly to secure our future access to oil. So, at a guess, I’d say that ALL levels of our society benefit pretty much equally in this endeavor…or suffer pretty much equally in the consequences of the fuckup, however you wish to view it. Since the rich pay more in taxes than any other group I’d also say they are ALREADY footing more of the bill than anyone else is. I’m unsure why you feel they should pay extra for this.
Yes, I do know that as you accurately surmised. However, as YOU know it’s still in effect and it’s still a pretty hefty chunk. Myself, I agree with the Repubican’s in lowering this (to a reasonable degree) as We, The People will STILL get our cut in the end. Once the estate has been awarded to the heirs they will have to pay taxes after all on their future gains, on their investments…and then there is that capital stuff and the potential jobs it creates. Or, if the heirs are stupid and blow the money we STILL get our cut in the form of the jobs and revenue generated in the goods and services too those wealthy sloths. Even if they blow it on drugs and hookers the money still gets injected into our system in one way or the other.
Well, the devil is in the details. I have no problem with taxing SOME of an estate, but it would depend on how much. As I said with the current income tax rates, I probably wouldn’t be opposed to a modest increase on this, if it could be justified that the current levels are too low. But you seem to be going for more than a modest increase here…and I have serious problems with that. I have even more serious problems with attempts to seize all or most of the wealthy above some arbitrary levels a la the OP and several other posters.
And I disagree with you…children DO have a ‘moral claim’ if anyone does to the property of their parents. Certainly more than complete strangers do.
How did society earn the right to loot our theoretical rich dead dude exactly? Why do they have more right to the bulk of our rich dudes assets than his own children? Again, how would you feel if the government seized your folks house or other assets when they died and you weren’t given even a choice about it? I have no issues with the government getting it’s cut, mind…just with the notion that it should get MORE than it’s current cut, or that somehow the children don’t have rights to their parents stuff…or that somehow society DOES have some kind of moral right to it.
I’ll check it out if I have time in my hotel room tonight, but I have to tell you that I think a LARGE idle rich class is a myth. Oh, there are certainly people out there who inherit large estates and do nothing with the money but squander it…but the thing is they don’t STAY rich if they do that. If they waste the money then eventually the well runs dry and they are no longer rich…and my heart bleeds for them. But by and large the rich in our country work…or at least their money does.
Still, I’ll take a look and see if your link modifies my own opinion on this.
-XT
You are not doing society any favors by letting scions inherit enormous wealth.
If I can live off the interest, dividends and other income generated by my dad’s huge estate (theoretical, believe me), I have no incentive to achieve. If forced to get out there and earn a living, I might have invented a better battery and made the electric car feasible. But hey, why do that when I can just go skiing with my buds at St. Moritz?
Some of you are acting as if total US wealth is a fixed amount and any inheritance of wealth reduces the amount available for others, thus harming the notion of equality of opportunity. But wealth is not fixed, and the opportunity referred to is the opportunity to create wealth through education and work, which is not harmed by the fact that some people start life with some wealth already in hand.
Well what about the incentive of those whose wealth exceeds the cap? And what about the incentive of those who would receive distributions of others’ wealth under this plan?