Inheritance
 

Considering that there is a limited amount of money in our economy, is it ethical for the funds of an entity to be passed on to their beneficiaries after their death, allowing massive amounts of money to be hoarded and, with a basic understanding of municipal bonds and other safe investments, essentially locked in the ownership of a family for perpetuity?

Should anyone ever have a claim to someone else's property and fortune? What should happen to people who depend on someone as their sole provider once that provider dies? Should there be a limit to how much money a family can hoard?

Voted for some limits.

You should be able to leave a property and some cash for your kids if you have it. Needs to be a limit though.

Not really opposed up to a certain point, but who is being served by trust fund kids?

I want to become filthy rich so my next couple of generations of family don't have to work. And if I fail in that goal, I hope my kids will use their inheritance to try and achieve the same goal.

No limits. Let people do what they want with their own stuff.

So you want your kids to be Donald Trump Jr.?

How is it your stuff when you're dead?

Theft is theft, doesn't matter who you're stealing from.

A corpse can't own things. A corpse is a corpse, not a who.

Assuming you've worked for it, it's your money to do with as you wish. What's the alternative? Let the State have it? As if. If I could be buried with all my money I would.

Seriously, I'm leaving all my money to Karen, and **** anyone else, ESPECIALLY the State. ****s.

Have you heard about that thing called "will and testament"?

You against zombies getting rich then?

It's kind of funny that the bootstrap types are always the first to defend inheritances. I guess they don't have the same faith in their children that they have in the poor to do shit for themselves.

Also, considering that no endeavors happen in a vacuum, and that those fortunes couldn't have been made without the society and economy that the lower classes slave to maintain, it's hard to look at any amount of money as purely belonging to one person. When someone hoards wealth to such insane degrees that it further lessens the already limited pool of money in our economy, maybe society has the right to level the playing field, even if only in extreme circumstances.

We're talking about how we'd like the law to be, and since a corpse is a corpse and can't use a bank account or buy property then logic dictates that they can't own anything, because duh. **** your will and testament. You want to dictate how you're buried? Fine. You want to be able to dictate what happens to $10k or $50k or whatever limits are reasonable, then go ahead cause who cares, but if you're Bill Gates then that's a lot of assets to pass onto someone who did nothing to earn them and who has no claim to them other than their daddy's warm and fuzzies.

Well, my inheritance is going to come from a life insurance policy, so how is that not my money? I pay the premiums: you gonna say Karen don't deserve to reap the rewards of that when I shuffle off this mortal coil?

Church. Try making all that money if nobody builds a road for you to drive to work on.

Again ignoring the poor zombies. :(
And I bet you wouldn't say that if you were Gates's son.
It'd be gimme gimme it's mine nobody else can have any get the **** out of my way!
You know it would.

It doesn't have to be completely Draconian, but there should be reasonable limits to the amount of money you can pass on.

Yes let's continue to be ruled by the desires of entitled rich kids.

How does 200 grand sound?

That's too low imo. Especially if you have multiple children.

I have no children, but a sister whom, if I should go before her, is going to need every penny of that to be able to continue to live at home, or at least in a decent nursing home.

Why the hell can't you live without 200 grand you didn't do anything for? Money to pay for a sick loved one who can't take care of themselves is an entirely different matter than fully healthy people who do not need 200 grand.

I don't want (more) laws that legalise theft and ones that allow for state property appropriation.

Spread that wealth around if you please, see the prices of everything raise slightly and for it to mean essentially nothing. I'm sure big corporations will be happy when everyone rushes to buy that new expensive item they couldn't afford before.

Why do people still think that controlling the economy by force will help anybody but those who are already rich?

wtf are you talking about? I'm saying that's what she'll get when I pop my clogs. And if you think it's too much, then up yours. She's going to need a whole lot more. I just hope she goes first.

#MurderSuicideTheOnlyWay
#CheckOutTogether
#TrollheartKarenDeathpact

OMG please stop calling it theft. It's always theft with you. You were that kid who wouldn't share his Power Ranger toy during play time, weren't you? The entire reason you live in a society is to trade rights and money for security. You don't want to have your money stolen then go live in a cabin on a mountain, otherwise you owe the state/people for all those services you use. You want to drive a car? Then either pay for the road or build it yourself.

Oh for the love of Christ I'm saying that someone in that kind of need is a special exception.

Make Batlord in charge of knowing who needs what and what they are allowed to have. I'm sure he would make the right calls and it wouldn't collapse like every other socialist hellhole.

Eliminating ridiculous trust funds = socialist hellhole

:laughing:

Obviously I was talking in a broader context. Inheritance being one element.

I imagine my first act of not letting rich kids keep their parents' wealth for no reason probably wouldn't break the country, but I've gone on record multiple times to say that people are too stupid to know how to govern themselves under any form of government. You're the one who seems to have faith in social Darwinism.

Good thing we're only talking about inheritances, then. Otherwise, you'd be overreacting with all this Batlord's socialist burger kingdom nonsense.

Nope, not at all. I don't have faith in a stateless society magically working. I do have faith that without government people would still strive to help those in need anyway, but there's no guarantee of that being flawless either.

The bigger question is whether or not the government should be able to take your property and give it to others. I'd say no, because ~theft~, but I didn't say it would solve all of our issues.

Yes, the current model of wealth hoarding is doing so much for charitable organizations.

Again, I was talking broader picture. But the principle still applies.

Maybe you would see a rise in charitable donations at the point of death if there wasn't a death tax, maybe you wouldn't. I would be inclined to think there would be.

Why on earth would you be inclined to think that?

Because they would have more money to do as they please with. It would be insane to think a decline in donations would occur, and pretty reasonable to assume it would at least remain the same.

Rich people are spending ludicrous amounts of money on art these days because they've amassed so much of it they have nothing particularly good to do with their money, so they speculate to sell art at even more exorbitant amounts of money than they bought them for to people willing to drop a cool $100 million. I'm rather doubtful that people spending that kind of cash on paintings are that concerned with AIDS research.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ar...report-1253585

$450 million da Vinci: Here's the real reason rich people spend millions on art

Should gifts be taxed? If your mom helps with your rent should it be illegal not to report it as taxable income? What if you live at home as an adult? Should you be responsible to pay a tax on the expenses given to you?

So there’s an estate tax or a death tax. Should giving that wealth to your kids on your death bed be a loophole around it? How about a parent in good health that trusts their kids?

When grieving over a lost parent should part of the process be hiring an accountant and a tax attorney? Suppose it’s debatable what an estate is worth?

Is the money really in better hands with the government? Isn’t tax money really funneled into the bank accounts of the super rich? Would an estate tax actually serve to redistribute even more wealth into those accounts by funding things like the military industrial complex? Would the money end up being used to blow up a hospital in a third world country? Or the next trillion dollar bailout? Or “private” prisons?

Family fortunes rarely make it to a third generation so the money is likely to be organically dispersed without a death tax. The government can’t be trusted to redistribute the wealth.

Money and private property should be done away with but as long as it’s entrenched in our societies my gut take on this is I would rather some rich dude's kids get the money than the government.

Better than working at McDonald's flipping burgers while living out of mommys house.

I’m pretty sure if the government was going to take the money anyway people would be more inclined to give it to charities that suit their ideologies. Like a cancer research firm their kids happen to control.

I mean your kid would be a loser either way, so why mentally hamstring them? You have a giant business. Make them work as a copy boy or whatever and then cut them off.

Are you in the work builds character camp for this discussion?