Should Weath Be Redistributed?

[Wells]

You need to be more clear. What money is the company forfeiting exactly?

[Nadev]

You need to be more clear. What money is the company forfeiting exactly?

If the CEO who oversaw all of the revenue the company takes in dies, does the company fire everyone and start over so that the new CEO "earns" the money back?

I mean this as a hypothetical challenge to the notion against inheritance.

[Wells]

That's.....not what anyone is talking about. That's not inheritance.

[Every Pwny]

Let's say the wealth is redistributed by completely honest and righteous board of people (for story telling purposes). Now Tom and Dave have the same amount of money, Tom saves his money, Dave flagrantly spends all his money. Now Tom is richer than Dave. Soon enough Dave is poor and Tom becomes rich, Dave has a child and this child is born poor. You can't really blame the child for the actions of their parents, so now since Dave's child is poor through no fault of his own should there be another redistribution of wealth to correct this generation of people born into poverty?

Would you need a complete redistribution of wealth every few years to keep it even?

[Deleted]

Inheritance is actually a fairly interesting problem. Its fairly anti-meritocratic and certainly helps prop up oligarchy.

It's not a problem at all, unless you believe people shouldn't be allowed to care for their children without the children being put in debt for it. The inheritance taxes that exist in many nations today are actually promoting "oligarchy" instead of counteracting it.

[Nadev]

That's.....not what anyone is talking about. That's not inheritance.

Familial inheritance maybe, but the new CEO of a company is inheriting an entity, a property that he didn't build or run. If we take away wealth and property as inheritance to the successor, we should by that logic take away the company as well, since the new successor didn't build that empire.

[Wells]

It's not a problem at all, unless you believe people shouldn't be allowed to care for their children without the children being put in debt for it. The inheritance taxes that exist in many nations today are actually promoting "oligarchy" instead of counteracting it.

Its sure as fuck a problem if you actually believe in meritocracy. And your claim is going to need some explaining.

Familial inheritance maybe, but the new CEO of a company is inheriting an entity, a property that he didn't build or run. If we take away wealth and property as inheritance to the successor, we should by that logic take away the company as well, since the new successor didn't build that empire.

That's an entirely different definition of inheritance and not the one anyone is discussing. If you want to discuss inheritance then stay on target.

[Wells]

Thanks for the well thought out and rational addition to the thread.

[Nadev]

That's an entirely different definition of inheritance and not the one anyone is discussing. If you want to discuss inheritance then stay on target.

I give up.

[Deleted]

Its sure as fuck a problem if you actually believe in meritocracy. And your claim is going to need some explaining.

Family businesses, farms or other big capital (real estate) has to be sold to be able to satisfy the tax man, assuming the inheritance consists mostly of it.

And no it's not a problem. Private people can spend their money how they like, and if they want to "spend" it on their children, they should be allowed to do so.

[starlord]

Family businesses, farms or other big capital (real estate) has to be sold to be able to satisfy the tax man, assuming the inheritance consists mostly of it.

And no it's not a problem. Private people can spend their money how they like, and if they want to "spend" it on their children, they should be allowed to do so.

then their children are not wealthy because of their own hard work.

[Wells]

Family businesses, farms or other big capital (real estate) has to be sold to be able to satisfy the tax man, assuming the inheritance consists mostly of it.

This is entirely a myth in the US. In 2011 there were 110 small business and farms large enough to qualify for estate taxes

Moreover, this handful of taxable small-farm and small-business estates would owe only 11.3 percent of the estate’s value in tax, on average, according to the Tax Policy Center — well below the average effective tax rate of 18.9 percent for all taxable estates (and far below the top marginal rate for the estate tax of 45 percent under the 2009 rules).

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3223

Losing the family farm to the evil gub'mint is just a GOP boogeyman they prop up on behalf of their donors.

[Deleted]

then their children are not wealthy because of hard work.

They're wealthy because of the hard work of their parents. Just like a child might be well educated and raised because of the hard work of their parents. Sure, the kid hasn't "earned" it, but so what?

Losing the family farm to the evil gub'mint is just a GOP boogeyman they prop up on behalf of their donors.

I wasn't specifically pointing to the U.S. because I have no clue what the U.S. inheritance tax laws even are.

[Wells]

Our entire society is predicated on the notion that success is a result of merit. Tell me on what merit Paris Hilton got her millions (billions?). Emerging from the proper vagina?

[starlord]

They're wealthy because of the hard work of their parents. Just like a child might be well educated and raised because of the hard work of their parents. Sure, the kid hasn't "earned" it, but so what?

so... then you cant say "wealthy people all work hard for their money and therefore deserve it". some do. some dont.

[Curanhadin]

I can see valid points to both ideas yes or no. One being who can justly redistribute it? Big negative towards the redistrubution, and i dont feel its justifiable to take wealth from a selfmade moneymaker. On the other hand a problem with wealth is old money families who came into wealth and influence decades or centuries ago that use that wealth and power to stay wealthy and keep others from have much of a chance at becoming wealthy. I think there is a huge problem with old money for many reasons one being people who are born into vast wealth can be as big or a bigger leach on the economy as people with no wealth and whom rely on social services. They are able to skate by money taxes that the average person pays on a regular basis. They never take out loans whcih interest on loans is a big stimulant to economy. They already have wealth and feel part of an elite societal grop and want to keep it elite and keep others from going that group. I could go on and on for more arguements on both sides but time to get back to beta.

[Isendar]

Do you think we should redistribute the wealth of rich people who have worked so hard to get where they are?


Why or Why not?


In my opinion, innovation does not come from slacking and waiting around for government hand outs, it comes from honest, efficient, hard working people that bring something different to the table.


What about you?

No. I think that wealth should not be redistributed. It goes against the very fundamentals of the constitution and our country's founder's ideals and dreams. I think that the government would do well to pull back alot of what they've invested into our "New Era" continuity and allow the individual states to pick up the slack while the federal gov't reorganizes. The gov't should be a last resort, parachute, not a crutch. There to help in times of crisis but not a constant reminder that the states and their citizens need hand-holding.

Finally, if the system ain't working, maybe then it would be time to change it. And finally, once it is changed/fixed, if it ain't broken after that, don't fix it!

Part of the biggest problem were facing isn't the fact that the 1% are rich and the 99% are poor, but that the 1% have stopped spending. And their spending used to account for a whole lot. The young spenders of the past have turned into the savers of now. They are frugal with their money and leave it to their children in trust funds or give to charity. By the time the child is of age for the trust fund, he/she has probably grown out of the rampant spending age and is more family/career focused. More and more people think about how their going to save money for their retirement than how to enjoy their lives up until that point. Especially now that medical science has gotten so good that living until 100 is no longer a pipe-dream. That's 35 years of money that retirees have to plan for, and there ain't any money spent on fun with that in mind. The fact that playing the stock market is a whole lot more risky creates quite an issue as the 1% are more reluctant to invest. That creates a ton of problems especially because your average $20k-35k worker in this country is more concerned about keeping his job and paying bills than investing in stocks and bonds.

[starlord]

Exactly. And still people who like the idea of redistributing feel like they are entitled for it. Rather than that kid whos parents hard work made them wealthy. I dont fucking see the logic in that.

the problem arises when the wealthy children get better access to education and better social connections than the poor children whos parents /ancestors shovel mud. the wealthy simply have to let their money accumulate, the poor have to get very lucky.

[Maleficus]

Are people not aware of the implications poverty has on a sociaty?
Humanity breeds crime, violance, predjudice, hatred, jealousy the list is sooo long. It's quite disturbing that people seem to be unaware of that.

I see the hefty taxes I've paid throughout my working life as an investment, I don't want poverty to run rampant in my country because I don't like all the bad shit that it results in, so me contributing as a tax payer is an investment that I fully support.

Fixed that for ya..and in the US, poverty has not really been reduced despite TRILLIONS of dollars thrown at it.

[Deleted]

I'm a science teacher and it depresses the hell out of me when you ask a child what he wants too do when he grows up and the answer you get is "I want to be famous" or "I want to go on the X-Factor".

Let's compare jobs shall we:
Doctor: Study for top grades at 16, undertake an intensive (and expensive) 5 years university course, work horrendous hours for terrible pay when you're a junior for 2-3 years then work for an additional 9 years to become a consultant in order to earn a good six figure salary (say £250,000).

American Idol/X-Factor Winner: No training, singing ability isn't earnt as your born with it (may as well say a lottery winner earnt his money), undertake intensive competition for a few months, salary varies but millionaire within a year.

EZMODE YO.

We reward the wrong people in society.