 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: Inheritance tax (or, why do we allow wills at all?) |  |
|
(Split off from a thread that was itself split off from a thread...)
I'm guessing a fair inheritance tax would hit the Rineharts and Holmes-a-Courts more than parents who have saved up a few thousand for their children — really, it couldn't hurt that much to levy taxes on millions of unearned money.
To be honest, I was even considering the other day the idea of abolishing wills altogether — when you die, provided you don't leave dependants, all of your money goes back to the state. That might be a bit radical, but it's something you'd have to consider if you wanted a truly level playing field. So, you'll have to forgive me if the idea of an inheritance tax doesn't totally horrify me.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
 |
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| &^*%$^&% commie. Absolutely dreadful idea. Is our property 'on loan' to us from the government until we die?? Horrible! The state interferes too much as it is. We should be abolishing the state, not private property! Fkn commie. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: Re: Inheritance tax (or, why do we allow wills at all?) | |
|
| David wrote: | (Split off from a thread that was itself split off from a thread...)
I'm guessing a fair inheritance tax would hit the Rineharts and Holmes-a-Courts more than parents who have saved up a few thousand for their children — really, it couldn't hurt that much to levy taxes on millions of unearned money.
To be honest, I was even considering the other day the idea of abolishing wills altogether — when you die, provided you don't leave dependants, all of your money goes back to the state. That might be a bit radical, but it's something you'd have to consider if you wanted a truly level playing field. So, you'll have to forgive me if the idea of an inheritance tax doesn't totally horrify me. |
no, you probably havent put anything away for your kids yet so why would it??
just because the Rineharts and Holmes -a-court did good business, does not mean they should prop up society any more than they already do. as for the pay taxes on unearned millions, where are the unearned millions? did they grow a money tree (good on them if they did) did they find it under a rock? (ditto). somewhere along the line, mum dad, uncle fricken fred made a good business move somewhere and EARNT those millions. they earnt it, its their money, its after tax, they should bloody well be able to do what they want with it.
i really dont get the whole why them not me, its not fair shit. good luck to them. unless they some how ripped me off, im happy for them. they certainly havent ripped me off any more than the government has over the years!! fricken stamp tax, what a load of bullshit. why do you begrudge these people? are they hurting you? i bet a massive proportion of the very rich donate to plenty of charities. could they give more? probably, but then so could i, so could you. unless your living in a humpy with no power or luxeries. its all in proportion.
even playing field?? i want that in footy only.
even playing field means everyones works the same time/effort.
well that aint going to happen, to many bludgers around here!!
give the money to the state? yep that will work, you just make sure your last dying minutes are on ebay or something, and spend every $£$%^%%$ cent, i know i would.
we pay plenty to helping those who cant (no objection there) or wont (too many, and yes it pisses me off, big time) help themselves
see below for reality:
ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
Two Different Versions.... Two Different Morals
OLD VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house
and
laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the
summer away.
Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be responsible for yourself!
MODERN VERSION
The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and
demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed
while he is cold and starving.
Channels 7, 9 and 10,the ABC and SBS show up to provide pictures of
the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable
home with a table filled with food.
Australia is stunned by the sharp contrast, and the rest of the
world jumps on the bandwagon.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper
is allowed to suffer so?
In The U.S.A., Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah in support of the
grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing,
'It's Not Easy Being Green.'
Acorn stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news
stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.'
Cardinal George Pell then has the group kneel down to pray to God for
the grasshopper's sake.
Prime Minister Gillard condemns the ant and blames John Howard,
Robert Menzies, Capt James Cook, and the Pope for the grasshopper's
plight.
Bob Brown exclaims in an interview on Today Tonight that the ant has
gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper and calls for an immediate
tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, Labor in conjunction with the Greens draft the
Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning
of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs
and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is
confiscated by the Government and given to the grasshopper.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends
finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he
is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house,
crumbles
around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house,
now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of asylum seeking spiders who
terrorise the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighbourhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY:
Be careful how you vote in September, 2013.
I've sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant - not a
grasshopper!
Make sure that you pass this on to other ants.
Don't bother sending it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't
understand it, anyway.
signed: an ant!! 
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'll try to expand my reasoning on this a little.
In a capitalist social democratic society such as ours, the idea of working for money is pretty deeply instilled. In theory, at least, you get a base level wage for working menial, unskilled jobs, and the pay rate increases as jobs become more skilled so as to provide incentives for taking on more responsibility, developing more specific skills and so on. We also provide welfare so that the unemployed can survive as well as being given incentives to find a job and contribute to society.
Our taxes go to government services that we all benefit from: health, education, irrigation, roads, science, arts and so on. Reasonably, we've set up a system in which those who earn more are taxed more (but not so much so that incentives for promotion and skill development are removed). So far, a pretty efficient system, right?
Now, some people end up amassing so much personal wealth that they have no use for it during their own lifetimes; or, they purposefully set some aside so as to give their children a free hand-up. This is where wills come in.
Personally, I'm not sure how that fits with the productive society model above. Why should people be entitled to large amounts of unearned money simply because of their family name? Isn't it better that they earn their own money and become productive citizens off their own bat? Ah, but some might respond, it is not for the children's sake but the parents'; this is money that parents have earned purely for the purpose of shoring up their children's future.
Personally, if I were a parent — and I probably will be one in a few years — I'm not sure that giving my children a whole lot of unearned cash upon my death would really be in their interests. What message does that send? Don't bother being a productive member of society, Daddy's got a million saved up for you when he dies. No, I'd rather teach my children the value of hard work and looking after themselves. So what if it means they can't live in a mansion and own three cars? Who needs that much money anyway?
It strikes me that this is something we should consider more sceptically. We live in a very different world to that of 100 or 200 years ago. The concept of 'old money' is and should be a relic of a class society. It strikes me that conservatives should be nodding their heads here — as pietillidie pointed out, if you're so against the uneducated poor and students being given enough to live on a subsistence level, how can you defend born-with-a-silver-spoon elites being given bucketloads of money to fritter away? Isn't this whole idea of 'freeloading' supposed to be the antithesis of a productive capitalist society?
At the end of the day, you can't stop parents giving their children gifts, and if Gina Rinehart wishes to give her grown-up daughter a couple of million to help with Porsche repayments that's her call. But once she's dead, as far as I can see, that excess money is unowned. It should, rightly, revert to the government in order to pay for the services our country depends upon. I don't see why offspring should be entitled to it.
So, what of the Greens' inheritance tax proposal? Surely, it's a small step in the right direction.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
[quote="David"], how can you defend born-with-a-silver-spoon elites being given bucketloads of money to fritter away
its not like they were just GIVEN money by the money fairy.
their parents gave it to them, their parents earnt it, when it is gifted to them, it becomes their money! its their $£$%^%%$ right to burn it for fueling their jet if they want!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: Re: Inheritance tax (or, why do we allow wills at all?) | |
|
| David wrote: | (Split off from a thread that was itself split off from a thread...)
I'm guessing a fair inheritance tax would hit the Rineharts and Holmes-a-Courts more than parents who have saved up a few thousand for their children — really, it couldn't hurt that much to levy taxes on millions of unearned money.
To be honest, I was even considering the other day the idea of abolishing wills altogether — when you die, provided you don't leave dependants, all of your money goes back to the state. That might be a bit radical, but it's something you'd have to consider if you wanted a truly level playing field. So, you'll have to forgive me if the idea of an inheritance tax doesn't totally horrify me. |
As per my post in the other thread, I just don't think an inheritance tax is fair nor in the interests of a nations economic activity. People with money employ people. Socially and Economically it's far better to have people employed.
Having said this (and sorry for slightly going off track but it is sort of linked), I think senior management & CEO salaries are way out of control (just like bonuses for senior management / top sales people & traders at Investment Banks). Happy for their taxes to go through the roof. (After all, it's not as though these people are risking their own capital to generate wealth. They aren't the people employing people. They for the most part are looking no further out then the next few fiscal quarters). Or failing this, maybe have some law which says a CEO can only be paid x times the amount of the lowest paid workers in the company. There's enough talent in this country to cover any top brass such a law might encourage to leave the nation. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Are you honest he or she was considering the other day the idea of abolishing wills — when you die provided you don't leave dependants all of your money goes back to the state ? |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Jo, it's not about fair or not fair. I don't resent Rinehart or Bill Gates one bit (I think they have an obscene amount of money, but that's a different matter).
At the end of the day, we all want a productive, wealthy country, right? We want to live in a place that's actually nice to be in. I don't think having piles of unearned money floating around is necessarily helping that; it just encourages people to buy things they don't need. So what that some rich people donate to charity? Under a more reasonable redistributive system they wouldn't need to — several times that amount of money would already be going directly to those areas that charities serve.
Your ant and grasshopper parable probably only exists in a world where a highly idealised dog-eat-dog American capitalist society is transformed into Soviet Russia overnight. For the record, I'm not a communist. All of what I've said so far is perfectly compatible with a capitalist social democratic society.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: Re: Inheritance tax (or, why do we allow wills at all?) | |
|
| Bruno wrote: | | David wrote: | (Split off from a thread that was itself split off from a thread...)
I'm guessing a fair inheritance tax would hit the Rineharts and Holmes-a-Courts more than parents who have saved up a few thousand for their children — really, it couldn't hurt that much to levy taxes on millions of unearned money.
To be honest, I was even considering the other day the idea of abolishing wills altogether — when you die, provided you don't leave dependants, all of your money goes back to the state. That might be a bit radical, but it's something you'd have to consider if you wanted a truly level playing field. So, you'll have to forgive me if the idea of an inheritance tax doesn't totally horrify me. |
As per my post in the other thread, I just don't think an inheritance tax is fair nor in the interests of a nations economic activity. People with money employ people. Socially and Economically it's far better to have people employed.
Having said this (and sorry for slightly going off track but it is sort of linked), I think senior management & CEO salaries are way out of control (just like bonuses for senior management / top sales people & traders at Investment Banks). Happy for their taxes to go through the roof. (After all, it's not as though these people are risking their own capital to generate wealth. They aren't the people employing people. They for the most part are looking no further out then the next few fiscal quarters). Or failing this, maybe have some law which says a CEO can only be paid x times the amount of the lowest paid workers in the company. There's enough talent in this country to cover any top brass such a law might encourage to leave the nation. |
Careful Bruno, some might label you a commie.
Perhaps, to mirror the concept of a minimum wage, we need a national maximum after-tax wage. Surely there comes a point where we can say authoritatively that nobody can possibly need that much money.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Last edited by David on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | , how can you defend born-with-a-silver-spoon elites being given bucketloads of money to fritter away |
its not like they were just GIVEN money by the money fairy.
their parents gave it to them, their parents earnt it, when it is gifted to them, it becomes their money! its their $£$%^%%$ right to burn it for fueling their jet if they want! |
It's funny how the language of entitlement — so often spoken of with contempt by the Mitt Romneys of the world — crops up when somebody suggests raising taxes. It's their money; they deserved it.
In my view, it is the parents' choice how they spend their money so long as they're alive. Once they're dead, though, it's unowned. Why do we just assume that their offspring should have the right to inherit it?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I'll try to expand my reasoning on this a little.
In a capitalist social democratic society such as ours, the idea of working for money is pretty deeply instilled. In theory, at least, you get a base level wage for working menial, unskilled jobs, and the pay rate increases as jobs become more skilled so as to provide incentives for taking on more responsibility, developing more specific skills and so on. We also provide welfare so that the unemployed can survive as well as being given incentives to find a job and contribute to society.
Our taxes go to government services that we all benefit from: health, education, irrigation, roads, science, arts and so on. Reasonably, we've set up a system in which those who earn more are taxed more (but not so much so that incentives for promotion and skill development are removed). So far, a pretty efficient system, right?
Now, some people end up amassing so much personal wealth that they have no use for it during their own lifetimes; or, they purposefully set some aside so as to give their children a free hand-up. This is where wills come in.
Personally, I'm not sure how that fits with the productive society model above. Why should people be entitled to large amounts of unearned money simply because of their family name? Isn't it better that they earn their own money and become productive citizens off their own bat? Ah, but some might respond, it is not for the children's sake but the parents'; this is money that parents have earned purely for the purpose of shoring up their children's future.
Personally, if I were a parent — and I probably will be one in a few years — I'm not sure that giving my children a whole lot of unearned cash upon my death would really be in their interests. What message does that send? Don't bother being a productive member of society, Daddy's got a million saved up for you when he dies. No, I'd rather teach my children the value of hard work and looking after themselves. So what if it means they can't live in a mansion and own three cars? Who needs that much money anyway?
It strikes me that this is something we should consider more sceptically. We live in a very different world to that of 100 or 200 years ago. The concept of 'old money' is and should be a relic of a class society. It strikes me that conservatives should be nodding their heads here — as pietillidie pointed out, if you're so against the uneducated poor and students being given enough to live on a subsistence level, how can you defend born-with-a-silver-spoon elites being given bucketloads of money to fritter away? Isn't this whole idea of 'freeloading' supposed to be the antithesis of a productive capitalist society?
At the end of the day, you can't stop parents giving their children gifts, and if Gina Rinehart wishes to give her grown-up daughter a couple of million to help with Porsche repayments that's her call. But once she's dead, as far as I can see, that excess money is unowned. It should, rightly, revert to the government in order to pay for the services our country depends upon. I don't see why offspring should be entitled to it.
So, what of the Greens' inheritance tax proposal? Surely, it's a small step in the right direction. |
The point your missing though David is that it not in the interests of society for every generation to start from scratch financially.
Wealth spreads wealth.
I also don't agree with the idea that if a child is born into a financially responsible household where they are given some help that it will increase the chances of them not becoming productive members of society. I would argue the exact opposite.
Sure there are the Natalie Sands of the world but for the most part these are aberrations.
Just like their is a cycle of poverty there is a cycle of financial responsibility. People who are financially responsible tend to pass those habits on to their children.
Inheritance Tax is one of THE great wealth destruction tools. Destorying wealth helps nobody. |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | David wrote: | | , how can you defend born-with-a-silver-spoon elites being given bucketloads of money to fritter away |
its not like they were just GIVEN money by the money fairy.
their parents gave it to them, their parents earnt it, when it is gifted to them, it becomes their money! its their $£$%^%%$ right to burn it for fueling their jet if they want! |
It's funny how the language of entitlement — so often spoken of with contempt by the Mitt Romneys of the world — crops up when somebody suggests raising taxes. It's their money; they deserved it.
In my view, it is the parents' choice how they spend their money so long as they're alive. Once they're dead, though, it's unowned. Why do we just assume that their offspring should have the right to inherit it? |
We don't just assume. We actively think about and accept that it is both fair, consummate with the human spirit and in the interests of society in general. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Great minds think alike. |
|
|
|
|
Bruno
Joined: 19 Sep 2003
|
| Post subject: Re: Inheritance tax (or, why do we allow wills at all?) | |
|
| David wrote: | | Bruno wrote: | | David wrote: | (Split off from a thread that was itself split off from a thread...)
I'm guessing a fair inheritance tax would hit the Rineharts and Holmes-a-Courts more than parents who have saved up a few thousand for their children — really, it couldn't hurt that much to levy taxes on millions of unearned money.
To be honest, I was even considering the other day the idea of abolishing wills altogether — when you die, provided you don't leave dependants, all of your money goes back to the state. That might be a bit radical, but it's something you'd have to consider if you wanted a truly level playing field. So, you'll have to forgive me if the idea of an inheritance tax doesn't totally horrify me. |
As per my post in the other thread, I just don't think an inheritance tax is fair nor in the interests of a nations economic activity. People with money employ people. Socially and Economically it's far better to have people employed.
Having said this (and sorry for slightly going off track but it is sort of linked), I think senior management & CEO salaries are way out of control (just like bonuses for senior management / top sales people & traders at Investment Banks). Happy for their taxes to go through the roof. (After all, it's not as though these people are risking their own capital to generate wealth. They aren't the people employing people. They for the most part are looking no further out then the next few fiscal quarters). Or failing this, maybe have some law which says a CEO can only be paid x times the amount of the lowest paid workers in the company. There's enough talent in this country to cover any top brass such a law might encourage to leave the nation. |
Careful Bruno, some might label you a commie. |
Hahahha. 
All I am really doing though is echoing the sentiments of Gordon Gekko.
"Today management has no stake in the company" (or atleast in reality, very little stake).
"And I have spent the last two months analyzing what these guy's do, and I still can't work it out"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF_iorX_MAw
(I expect most of the rest of his speech to be lost on you though ) |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Bruno wrote: | I also don't agree with the idea that if a child is born into a financially responsible household where they are given some help that it will increase the chances of them not becoming productive members of society. I would argue the exact opposite.
Sure there are the Natalie Sands of the world but for the most part these are aberrations. |
On the contrary, I would have thought that this is a core principle of capitalist society: work is driven by incentive. Remove any incentive and it goes without saying that the drive to work hard, get promoted etc. is going to be reduced.
Think about a hypothetical society in which unemployment benefits are set too high. Isn't this the same basic principle?
| Bruno wrote: | The point your missing though David is that it not in the interests of society for every generation to start from scratch financially.
Wealth spreads wealth. |
But most of us do 'start from scratch' financially. That's a normal state of affairs. We live at home until we're 20, we go to university or take up a trade, we develop the skills to get a good job and then we get that job and hopefully keep getting promoted until we change careers. We earn our own money and become productive members of society. What role does inheritance money play in that process? How is this (already quite typical) process not in the interests of society?
| Bruno wrote: | | Just like their is a cycle of poverty there is a cycle of financial responsibility. People who are financially responsible tend to pass those habits on to their children. |
If so, the children of millionaires should need no handouts from their parents. They've grown up with that work ethic, you say. Am I right?
| Bruno wrote: | | Inheritance Tax is one of THE great wealth destruction tools. Destorying wealth helps nobody. |
On the contrary, it takes surplus money and injects it back into society. That makes us wealthier, wouldn't you say?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
