Would you support an estate(death) tax of 75%?

[Elegiac]

What people like him dont understand is that what state gave, state can just as easily take away. This alone makes the natural rights concept far superior.

Exactly what about rights being 'natural' makes them less easily violated.

[Zoranon]

Fun Fact: They can do both. I said "human welfare", not "general welfare".

The point being that we invent them based on what we believe is most necessary at a given moment; necessary meaning, what best facilitates welfare with the least amount of detriment at a given moment in time.

Yeah state giveth and state taketh away. That is an awful concept of individual rights, the permanence alone makes natural rights as a concept far superior and I am saying that as someone who is not religious.

[Elegiac]

With emphasis on "If". Even in a lot of European countries, ideas like those - especially to such a radical extent like 75% - don't find much approval. In which case it's not going to happen.
Funny how that works.

Sure. But fun fucking fact, this is an entirely hypothetical 'ought' discussion as to whether or not there should be an estate tax.

So appealing to how things are done currently is the worst form of cop out.

[Zoranon]

Exactly what about rights being 'natural' makes them less easily violated.

Isnt that obvious? When people believe that rights are inherent/come from a higher power, then they naturally conclude that state cannot alter or abolish them.

[Celista]

So having the state provide everything for you doesn't promote laziness?

No social safety net in the US provides that. We give disabled people $700 a month to live on.

[Elegiac]

Yeah state giveth and state taketh away. That is an awful concept of individual rights, the permanence alone makes natural rights as a concept far superior and I am saying that as someone who is not religious.

Again, how does whining that rights are 'natural' make them any less violable.

It's far superior to rest rights on a basis of what ought to be done and what produces the most benefit for the least harm. Your way of thinking, in short, relies on a mythologised premise to bypass any thinking or critical discussion.

So basically, it's an admission that you and people like you are too fucking lazy to argue why a right should exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Isnt that obvious? When people believe that rights are inherent/come from a higher power, then they naturally conclude that state cannot alter or abolish them.

Which has prevented human rights abuses how many times in human history, I wonder.

Oh. Exactly zero.

[Zoranon]

Again, how does whining that rights are 'natural' make them any less violable.

It's far superior to rest rights on a basis of what ought to be done and what produces the most benefit for the least harm. Your way of thinking, in short, relies on a mythologised premise to bypass any thinking or critical discussion.

So basically, it's an admission that you and people like you are too fucking lazy to argue why a right should exist.

And more insults, you are really starting to repeat yourself, just goes to show your intellectual bankruptcy. You are starting to bore me with your brainless repetition.

[Elegiac]

And more insults, you are really starting to repeat yourself, just goes to show your intellectual bankruptcy.

As opposed to "it's quadruple taxation" or "it's despicable", which is about as much as I've gotten out of you on this subject.

[Siraeyou]

An estate tax would not serve the purpose that most people would think (double dipping the wealthier estates) since more intelligent people have would issues of inheritance of property/wealth settled before even passing if this was the case. They would just legally transfer ownership of whatever desired assets to their would be inheritors to circumvent the tax.

[Elegiac]

You are starting to bore me with your brainless repetition.

Brainless? Far be it for me to question why people refuse to think more cerebrally about rights as they actually exist within society and not just appeal to a truism of being "natural and god given".

Why -should- there be an unfettered right to inheritance? What useful function would said right perform apart from the 'feels' aspect? None of you seem remotely willing to answer that question, which is why your manner of thinking will ultimately remain shallow and ignorant.

If you aren't willing to question why a right should exist, you will never have the intellectual equipment to defend them when they are under threat.

[petej0]

None of those things absolve you of being right wing, point in fact. Policy points do not a political ideology make.

I could never run under the Republican ticket with my ideology, I could not run under the Democrat ticket with my ideology (according to you). So that puts me squarely in my own damn box. Dont lump me in with Republicans just because I agree with a few points of view. Especially since I probably agree more with Democrats on issues.

Look, I am not against an estate tax, but it shouldnt be 75%. It should be a case by case basis as to not be overly burdensome on the family.

[Elegiac]

I could never run under the Republican ticket with my ideology, I could not run under the Democrat ticket with my ideology (according to you). So that puts me squarely in my own damn box. Dont lump me in with Republicans just because I agree with a few points of view.

Did I say "republican"? I believe I said "right wing".

[Zoranon]

As opposed to "it's quadruple taxation" or "it's despicable", which is about as much as I've gotten out of you on this subject.

Its hilarious how every discussion with socialists ends the same way: insults, logical fallacies such as tu quoque. Then again, given the intelligence of most of you, it is not really surprising.

[Scathbais]

It's an ideal tax because the person you're taxing is dead and won't care.

The family will care. A family business would be ruined if the owner dies and the family has to sell the business in order to pay the taxes on it. That is wealth destruction, not wealth redistribution.

Why pass on all that wealth to children who might not be as capable? Redistribute the wealth and let it fall into more able hands.

The government has consistently demonstrated its inefficiency and ineffectiveness when it comes to using our tax dollars wisely

Warren Buffet is for this idea.

Warren Buffet pledged the majority of his wealth to Bill Gates' foundation, thus sheltering it from the government when he dies.

[Elegiac]

Its hilarious how every discussion with socialists ends the same way: insults, logical fallacies such as tu quoque. Then again, given the intelligence of most of you, it is not really surprising.

Criticising ad hominems and then dispensing your own merits an appeal to hypocrisy, quite frankly.

You've not addressed a single point made besides saying 'no, that's untrue'.

[Zoranon]

Criticising ad hominems and then dispensing your own merits an appeal to hypocrisy, quite frankly.

One ill turn deserves another. As I said I am not religious and thus I do not believe in nonsense like turning the other cheek.

[Elegiac]

One ill turn deserves another. As I said I am not religious and thus I do not believe in nonsense like turning the other cheek.

Clearly you are religious on some level since your level of thinking about rights, especially property rights, seems to end in 'well I believe they are natural so there'.

[Akka]

Which is entirely irrelevant. If your parents make money and decide that you should have it after they die, then it's their right to give it to you.

Just pre-emptively countering any attempt to pretend people benefiting from inheritance somehow "earned" the money.
The point about money being taxed only once each time someone get it and not double-taxed still stands.

[shaunika123]

wouldnt that just incentivize people to spend all their estate before they die and write it on to their children's names?

there's so many loopholes to abuse it it's not even funny

you pay taxes in your entire life, why tax you a second time?

[Elegiac]

you pay taxes in your entire life, why tax you a second time?

The government can levy a thousand and one different taxes on you, and it wouldn't be 'double taxation'.