• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -5
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Because it’s truly insane and will never get any support in real life.

    Absolutely no one will vote in favor of the government confiscating all of your property when you die. Tankie shit isn’t popular outside of a handful of message boards.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      210 months ago

      Capping the amount of wealth anyone can inherit seems sane to me. In fact it seems healthy for the whole economy, so not just sane but prudent. If you let all the wealth be collected by a few the system breaks down and all the money becomes worthless. Preventing that is entirely sane.

      I’m against preventing the transfer all all property. That seems like a recipe for corruption but I’d vote for limiting it to a trust of like $50-$100 million maximum plus an occupied home, a vacation home, and some reasonable amount of small property like boats and cars. Honestly that amount seems excessive to me but I think the majority would be in favor of such a law.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        110 months ago

        If you let all the wealth be collected by a few the system breaks down and all the money becomes worthless.

        This is not how wealth works

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -110 months ago

          An economy only works when a majority participates. An ideal economy has everyone participating.

          You can do a basic thought experiment to figure this out. Imagine 10 people control $100 trillion. Everyone else controls $0. What do you think you’ll be able to get for $1?

          You might then say, “money isn’t wealth.” True. But if 10 people control all the wealth and everyone else has starved to death that’s even worse.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 months ago

      Holy multi Strawman attack batman LOL.

      Because it’s truly insane and will never get any support in real life.

      It’s got lots of support IRL already. I support it, therefore your assertion of ‘never get support in real life’ is specious and incorrect.

      Absolutely no one

      bzzzt wrong again, I’d vote for estate tax reform in a heartbeat.

      no one will vote in favor of the government confiscating all of your property when you die.

      if this is what you think the estate tax is you’re incredibly stupid. yet another misrepresentation of reality to fit into your premise, but it’s so fucking dumb from the outset it doesn’t even warrant a reply. Yet here we are.

      Tankie shit isn’t popular outside of a handful of message boards.

      Taxing the ultra wealthy isn’t ‘tankie shit’ you fucking dirtbag. Cute attempt to associate ‘people who don’t think a few should horde all the wealth’ with ‘tankies’.

      Your entire argument is lies and garbage. Please, just stop whatever weird piece of performance art this utter shitshow is.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        110 months ago

        It’s got lots of support IRL already. I support it, therefore your assertion of ‘never get support in real life’ is specious and incorrect.

        Lol

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          010 months ago

          that’s all you got huh?

          weaksauce. no refutation, no thesis just… lol.

          god what a waste of time your entire existence must be.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -410 months ago

        Estate tax is a tax, not a confiscation. If the tax were two high it would require manu inheritors to sell shares to shares to pay it, which would dump the share price of a company.

    • @zalgotext
      link
      -410 months ago

      I am in favor of capping the generational transfer of wealth

      Can you read?

        • @zalgotext
          link
          210 months ago

          The key word here is “capping”. People are assuming for some reason that an estate tax means the repo man comes and takes all your earthly possessions after you die or something, but no one’s suggesting that. They’re suggesting putting a cap on how much you can pass down in an inheritance, as a way to prevent the hoarding of wealth by a single person/family.

                • @zalgotext
                  link
                  110 months ago

                  If necessary for the inheritor to meet their tax obligations, sure. I’m sure there’s a dozen different estate tax systems in place that tax professionals would know more about, but yes, liquidating assets would be one way for an interior to meet their tax obligations.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    110 months ago

                    What would another way be? Say I inherited my parents company they built, entirely privately owned.