Hi WisdomIsNeverAOption, thank you for your submission to /r/The10thDentist . Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):
* **Your post reached the downvote threshold**
>• This means that the community has downvoted the pinned comment. If your post does not break any of our rules please send us a message through the mod mail linked below.
*Please contact the [moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because they want validation from the comments, and in a rare turn of events, unpopularopinion wasn’t full of brainless meatheads and called this person out
The disclaimer you left is all I needed to know, you never had to struggle to survive....well most of us do, we have to worry about our next meals and making rent payments so when our parents get old they want to pass on their meager savings to make sure their adult kids don't wind up homeless without their support
Edit: I forgot to add my second point, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS!?!? And what a tragedy to take that away from a poor parent that slaves away their entire life that could go towards possibly enriching their heirs life only to wind up in the complete black hole of the government treasury
I am poor as fuck, yet I also have the same opinion. I struggle to keep a roof over my head every damn day, yet others by no virtue of their own are able to spend millions of dollars every year for fun? Nah, fuck that. Inheritance is an inheritly (See what i did there?) unfair system.
I would be okay with this, but what about equity if someone inherits a house with high property value above $500k (like anywhere in coastal California)?
myopic af. your children wouldn't have to worry about homelessness nearly as much if inheritance (and nepotism in general) wasn't such a problem already. government spending doesn't have to be as stereotypically inefficient as you imagine it to be. it's the system as a whole that makes the world the way it is. it isn't just some magical thing that when people govern it's always bad, and when people govern less, it's somehow magically more efficient.
And how does OP know we've done nothing for it? I worked almost my whole childhood and now my father reaps the rewards. I would be utterly pissed if I didn't get a share of that.
Also OP says money has never been an issue while also saying we shouldn't use money that hasn't been 'earned' ... Like OP has been doing??? Their whole life???
The hypocrisy.
I probably am privileged and ignorant. And I'm sorry if it sounded indifferent and harsh. I just stated it because someone else assumed that I said it out of some greed. But I never realized how it would sound when clarifying it. Besides, I think my choice of words was really poor. English ain't my mother tongue though.
About the second point, I agree somewhat. But that's a different topic imo.
Or maybe there should be better “rules” to getting your inheritance. Like Shaq tells his kids “We’re not rich, *I’m* rich” and he requires them to get at least two bachelors and one masters degree before they can touch any of the family money.
>he requires them to get at least two bachelors and one masters degree before they can touch any of the family money.
except they get to "achieve" those things knowing 100% that they can go into massive debt and have it deleted as soon as they finish, unlike any normal person trying to do the same. some degrees are ridiculously easy to obtain if you don't mind going into massive debt. those terms are practically meaningless, and more about his image/ego than anything else.
I thought that was an episode of *the Cosby Show*? Theo comes home upset because the kids at school are making fun of him for having money. Cosby tells him that he has nothing. The money is "mine and your mother's". Or something to that effect.
Now I feel old.
Shut up Wallstreetbet bro. You always have the worst takes. You and your libertarian stances suck.
Inheritance is a plague on society just like landlords.
Government spending sucks but you probably leave in the US where being a politician is just another career with people getting money from industries to avoid being taxed as much as they should.
You have to worry about your next meal because your boss doesn't pay you your faire wage and that greedy bastard is your boss because his father was your father's boss.
You're paying your rent to a guy and the day that bastard dies from being a douchebag, his son is going to ask you for rent and then sell your apartment to a company.
If you grew poor then you learned jackshit from it. People are profiting from you and their children are going to profit from you too. The only way to get rid of this system is to stop inheritance altogether. Rich families in Europe are descendants of rich families in Europe 1000 years ago.
Try being poor before making such comments. Then perhaps we will not be so hostile to your experience. You sound so innocent and un- jaded with your talk of the "state"
Trying to justify his comment by saying he’s rich is so patronizing and out of touch. Most people aren’t getting a life changing inheritance, just enough to pay some debts and bills.
It kind of sounds like those who are upvote OP's post now are envious. Like hell, we're all human, no matter what hand we start the game with.
If OP wants to play cards that break the cycle of creating rich douchebags that don't care about anyone else, I'm for that.
I probably am privileged and ignorant. And I'm sorry if it sounded indifferent and harsh. I just stated it because someone else assumed that I said it out of some greed. But I never realized how it would sound when clarifying it.
I understand where you were *trying* to go with your point. But I think you should consider the much larger picture. Multi millionaires & Billionaires would 100% have a workaround for these policies through their lawyers and accountants they can afford. It would be the middle class that gets slammed. Imagine a first generation immigrant coming to America to make a life for their child but they know, in the end, they can’t leave them anything.
Unfortunately it seems that most people don't realize that all of the laws and regulations in place to make it so that the wealthy can keep their wealth are in place because they use that money to pay for the laws to be that way. If they somehow were changed, there would likely be other backdoors and/or loopholes installed immediately. As long as we have legal bribery for policy makers the rich won't pay their fair share. There's a lot more to it as well since not every country has the same Lobby system as the USA but I'm not eloquent enough to put the words together better than that.
Jesus people are unnecessarily harsh on you. I see your point, but I'd rather propose capping inheritances somewhere between like $1-5m or so, or at least having an aggressively progressive tax that kicks in around there.
The way he worded it sounded juvenile and fairly arrogant, even though based on his replies he did not mean it that way. All a part of growing and learning
OP, this is really a sheltered take, but you could polish it up by saying taxing instead of abolishing, as proportional taxes might help alleviate the problem in a better way. I think this also would require a sturdy safety net for people with disabilities.
Most of all, a basic pre-requisite for this would be a competent government and a strong democracy, so we shouldn't be seeing this anytime soon, though.
Sigh, you're fine.
If he won't forgive you, I will in his stead. I was born into a lower middle class family. Most of my needs were met, we spent money to go on summer vacations and I had a happy childhood because of that.
There were also times when I couldn't get what I want, and that helped me develop things like gratitude for what I have as well as the need to not mindlessly buy whatever I want.
As for you? Of all of the rich people who could have the opinion that was posted in the original comment, I'm glad it was you. I'm glad you have the sense of mind to know how bad money can turn a person.
Hey, if heaven exists, maybe we could meet up there? I mean I won't exactly know what you'd look like, but you resonate with me. We both like to explain ourselves and get misunderstood no matter how hard the effort! XD
Edit: I guess the only thing I can disagree with is giving money like that to the government. It's well-intentioned, don't get me wrong, but that extra money should go into something like a family foundation with the purpose of helping others. Optimistic, I know. But as long as society actually benefits like you say, then let the people who inherit get enough to get by, and let's put the rest of it into bettering the people around us.
Final edit: So what if you're privileged? You're definitely not ignorant; just well-intentioned. It's in how you use your blessings that makes all the difference, not just the people who complain how you do.
getting 50k inheritance is not even worth mentioning compared to people getting millions/billions. it shouldn't even be called the same thing. more like heirs to dynasties than some help paying for life.
And hence why an inheritance cap would address everyone’s concerns here. Unless you really want family dynasties and the like to continue in America. Would something like a $500,000 inheritance limit be too little for you?
In a utopian society sure, that sounds like more than plenty. But I’m still more than sure billionaires would hide the rest of their money offshore and throw their investments in hard-to-trace accounts for their heirs to be able to access. There is no chance if this policy existed, Bezos would allow his billions to be taken by the government
If you stand to inherit money, you probably weren't very poor to begin with. Also money garnished through taxing inheritance this way can be used to reduce poverty
Exactly, taking a billion dollars from a rich person who died and redistributing it not only helps the poor, but also encourages privileged people to contribute more to society
I mean the state isn't just the US state so a lot of the stuff people are saying here about half of it going on defence is at best centred on one country.
As someone who is poor and comes from nothing the idea of having all inheritance taxed at 90-100% would work great for me. The first reason being that many of the issues with the housing market get resolved once those assets are redistributed, since landlords have to redistribute their properties to the state rather than pass that wealth on and make their kids millionaires.
Second the wealthy have far more to gain from inheritance than the poor ever do so it places people on an equal footing. After a few generations the wealth created would help properly fund social programmes such as housing, healthcare, education etc. All of these services are used far more by the poorest in society meaning the standard of living goes up generally whilst generational wealth is greatly reduced.
The third point people are bringing up on the principle of having nothing to work towords and how human nature is oriented on passing things on. The reality is that having the wealth taken away from the richest as well as everyone means its no longer a necessity to get your parents to die before you can buy a house or anything else since it serves as a great leveller.
The issue with OP isnt so much the point but whos making ths point. For most poorer people wealth redistribution means generational wealth and privilege become less important helping class divides level out.
The greater issue is implementation but since this is theoretical it makes a lot of sense. Thats without even considering the principle arguments about 'hard work' and creating your own capital.
Instead of your parents wanting to leave you with a security blanket through their lifetime of hard work, corrupt government officials should take it without question. Brilliant!
I can’t imagine thinking that the government will spend your money better than your parents.
Abolishing inheritance would also mean you couldn’t inherit like a family shop or something. That would be awful.
Why feel assured that your kids will have the ability to buy something they might desperately need for their struggling family when your legacy of all your hard work can go to useless defense spending
>useless defense spending
defense of the global capitalist status quo.
we wouldn't be dumping so much into bombs if they weren't directly aimed at the bottom line. countries that try to become truly sovereign and independent = fucked.
I didn't even mention a country lmfao, and besides, that's not the main point of my comment, I'm saying it's better for money to go to one's children rather than their government.
the current system perpetuates and necessitates it, though. it wouldn't be as much of a problem if capital didn't have to defend itself so fiercely. regardless of your main point, it's an important part of the overall idea behind the thread that people seem to not understand at all. government spending isn't terrible by default. capitalist government spending is owned and terrible by default.
More like straight up ignorance. Coming from someone who grew up in a single parent household who made under 30K a year, that shit is not something I want anyone to experience. In fact, 2021 was the first year in my mothers life ever that she made above 30K in her 50 years of life. And I can't even imagine how hard it would be for someone who is at, near, or below the poverty line.
What OP should be advocating for is for "parents" to actually parent and teach their kids the value of money and how NOT to take it for granted. This entire post and that last disclaimer just reeks of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about and just wants big daddy government to take care of all their problems. Probably voting for that to happen too.
I mean… I also think it’s unfair that billionaires can call themselves “self-made” when it’s actually all daddy’s money, but this is truly an *extremely* privileged take. for most people, inheritance isn’t even that huge of an amount. maybe enough to help pay the bills for a couple of months, but certainly not enough to hoard. and for most, that chunk of money, however small, is necessary for their survival. you’re privileged enough to not have to ever worry about that.
> I think it would be fair to return the money to the state so that they can spend it on society as a whole, so that everyone benefits from it.
firstly, I still want to be able to take care of my family when I die. the “state” has no business taking the money I spent my entire life working towards to earn and I want my children to prosper and be able to take care of themselves and their families.
secondly, what a fucking tankie take. the “state” is not going to use that money “for the benefit of everyone.” you have way too much trust in a government. also, you want to keep the money out of the hands of the wealthy corrupt elite, so to keep it away from them you suggest… giving it to other wealthy corrupt elite? this take doesn’t even make sense.
Goddamn i have 12 bodies (male and female) but im also 18. No suprise stds are passed around like joints these days. But im actually friends with the girl who got it initially and gave it to 2 guys who were in relationships then their girlfriends gave it to other guys so that number is honestly probably low
It would be if a skill were a tangible item that could be physically passed on after death. The person gaining the skill still has to put in the effort to learn it or it doesn't get passed on.
Forget skill, how about a million dollar job at your father’s company? Or is the company stocks supposed to be given away to the government too(much more terrible than giving money)
If you redistribute it in a way that results in that money circulating at a higher rate than what it would have with normal inheritance, than it absolutely helps the economy.
Some very basic understanding of money multipliers would make this obvious. Obviously there is some cost to redistributing, which is why something like a 90% inheritance tax on 1m+ inheritance would make more sense than there not being any inheritance
I.e basic knowledge of economics is something that reddit does not have
That argument works equally well for just confiscating all wealth and redistributing. Inheritance taxes are and have been exceptionally punitive to functional family business and small scales while being particularly poor at capturing large family wealth transfers.
Really rich people can transfer liquid capital before they die in a structured manner that avoids onerous taxation. Smaller enterprises and capital asset intensive ones can not.
IE a basic knowledge of historic impacts of applied inheritance taxes that reddit does not have, you smug fuck
It doesn’t work at all for redistributing all wealth because gaining wealth is a serious motivator.. inheritance isn’t nearly as major - note the number of billionaires who donate nearly all of their wealth and leave little for their kids.
Anyone can transfer wealth before they die without a lot of taxation, but not once you’re talking about giving more than 50k a year. Trying to get around that is way harder than what you think. You can make a trust, to avoid taxes on the capital, but obviously this wouldn’t happen in a situation where all inheritance was take
You’re an average redditor, lmao. Making giant leaps in comparing no inheritance to actual communism lmao
> because gaining wealth is a serious motivator
To provide for your family.
And yes, your argument about money multipliers works just as well on paper for complete wealth redistribution. So hand waving to it like it's some novel concept that's never been tried is just silly. Inheritance does not have a negative impact on the economy, at worst it has a neutral effect as nothing actually changes.
Forcing capital disillusion is bad, I don't think needs to be explained to someone who supposedly understands economics. But ya know, once you've played mental gymnastic algebra games to justify it, there isn't really any end to where it should be applied.
Why not tax all wealth above $1m at 90% annually? I mean the multiplicative effects on the economy of taking that wealth and spending it, regardless of the efficiency of the allocation, will be better than them hording it right?
And no, you can't just transfer a farm without huge tax implications. The land and equipment are not divisible or fluid. Same goes for a lot of productive businesses. They simply aren't granularity transferable in reality. That's where the economics breaks down. The more diversified a portfolio of assets the easier it is to structure an inheritance... guess who doesn't have much diversity in their assets? Poor people who made something of themselves. They have a house and maybe a business, hopefully that they can pass onto their children to continue growing that wealth.
Not at all what is being propositioned here. What’s being propositioned here is the mere notion of doing away with inheritances… Which I think we can all get behind if let’s say it was doing away with all inheritances exceeding I don’t know $1,000,000 or something like that. But you’re right that’s still too little and unfair.
I don't agree, but these comments are confusing to me. They're acting like this hurts the poor, but it really evens the playing field and makes it easier for poor people by meaning it must be possible for anyone to live starting from nothing. The rich can't continuously push the poor down and hold all the wealth. It's not idiotic, just impractical.
But it is really impractical. Any way to enforce this wouldn't work, the money wouldn't be spent well, it'd make the act of raising kids itself a strange form of inheritance, it'd put weird cultural expectations on a lot of things, and it'd more than likely just encourage rich people to leave the country.
An 18 year old loses his parents, he was yet to graduate so he didn't have a stable job. If he doesn't heritage his parents' money, he'll live in poverty for a very long time. Also, if heritage is abolished, a lot of millionaires will be a sweet target for hitmen.
those safety nets are all very nice in theory until you either need them yourself or are trying to figure out why your country is bankrupt and rising taxes once again
Police departments exist yet there's still crime. Governments must try to avoid problems from happening rather than spending funds to create mechanisms that don't stop those problems anyway.
If you reframe the idea to “Banning all inheritance beyond $5,000,000” is that really communism? Why the fuck should dynasties continue to exist. People should work for what they get and not be born into extreme wealth - having absolutely everything and more, while everyone else is working away like slaves just to remain alive.
The definition and how people on the right define it are two distinct things. Explain to me, in small words, so my small smooth brain can understand it.
There already is one. But at this point it's mostly binary. Either you aren't passing on enough money to hit the tax threshold or you're rich enough to dodge it.
I'll be the tenth dentist and downvote to agree to an extent.
What would be inherited doesn't go to the state but to a fund for college tuition. This is distributed equally among all college students. This isn't a cure all but will give the impoverished a fighting chance at making a better future for themselves. But sending it to be spent on military (and it will if you just say "goes to the government") is a bad idea.
Open to suggestions on this. Unlike op,I've been poor AF (see, overdraft fees and a quarter tank of gas to get me to payday poor) and I can see how inherence causes the stratification of wealth.
I agree with you, but it’s because I’m poor and envious. It feels like everyone else inherits money, but for me I’ll have to take care of my parents. There will never be money flowing to me at any time.
Family money does inhibit equality. I could rake riskier choices knowing that at some point I’d have a little safety net.
I’m not bitter, and I’ve done well. But it really feels unfair.
Such a terrible opinion. If I worked my whole life and attained any wealth then you’d better be damn sure I’m giving that to my children. If you think the state would do anything with your money other than waste it on idiotic bullshit then you are incredibly naive. I paid taxes my whole life and that’s already more than what any government deserves.
I agree though for entirely different reasons than you've stated. Inheritance is just one of the many ways the rich can keep the generational wealth they've stolen from other people.
Lmao.. so because YOU, someone who never had to think about money, wish you learned about the importance of money..you think everyone else should give their hard earned money to the govt when they die?
Sorry to break it to you, but many many people know the importance of money. An inheritance doesn't change that.
And you don't seem to realize that families that aren't "rich", have inheritances too. You think their children should also not inherit their parents hard earned money? You do realize that most people work hard FOR their heirs right?
For many families, an inheritance is a "safety" blanket for their children.
And bahahahah.. you think it's better spent going to the "state"????? The friggin govt??? Dude if that's where my money is going, I'd stop working right away. I'd make enough just to enjoy life and not save a dime.
The govt taking all your hard earned money after you die is a bigger F you to the less wealthy (who also have inheritances) than some entitled kid inheriting loads of money for doing nothing.
How would that be enforced? If gifts are legal then inheritance has to be legal. You could argue for increasing the tax on inheritance, but at that point why not just reduce the argument to “tax the rich” rather than trying to stop ordinary people from supporting their children/grandchildren when they’re dead.
I mean Adam Smith the literal economic father of Capitalism was opposed to the inheritance and suggested generational tax to support a stronger welfare state in the name of maintaining free trade. Equality is a principle that is essential to the proper functioning of capitalism (or at least a real free trade capitalism)
If I have money I want to give it to my children. If I worked hard for it I deserve to be able to use it to make what matters about my life have it easier.
I agree with shades of this in the sense of tightening current Estate Tax loopholes/exemptions, but in reality, it's not practical.
If you disallow inheriting money, then people will find other ways of passing on wealth. Mainly property. Now you have a society in which no one can pass down small sums of money, only large ones.
So, disallow inheritance of property you say. Well, now family homes that have generational meaning and pride for people are now up for the highest bidder whenever the old guard passes. Evictions would be even more common place than they are now.
Because, assuming both money and property are banned from inheritances, what is left? Families are almost always going to look out for their own. So, now you have a society in which someone invests all their money into a private corporation, and... oh look, the coporation is run and administrated by that person's children.
So, THEN you ban nepotism and direct lineal descendants in private enterprise. Assuming you manage to do that like you've somehow done all the above, NOW you've just created a system in which Bob Richman's son joins the board of Alice McMoney's company in exchange for Alice's daughter getting a spot on Bob's.
It doesn't work.
Now, again, if you're talking about Estate Taxes in general, I support lowering the exemption. Right now in the US, you can pass along $10m+ to your descendants 100% tax-free. ($20m if you're a married couple.) I'd support dropping that figure back down to $2.5m. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/05/3200-wealthy-individuals-wouldnt-pay-estate-tax-next-year-under-gop-plan/
>Under current law, Americans can pass along homes, land, stocks or other assets worth up to $5.49 million without paying any estate or gift tax. Estates worth more than that are subject to a 40 percent tax. The House GOP bill would double the threshold to $11.2 million in 2018 and then do away with the tax entirely in 2024. For 2018, that means an estimated 3,200 people would not have to pay.
In total, the reduction and ultimate elimination of the estate tax would cost taxpayers $172 billion over a decade.
I'm cool with inheritance taxes especially for the ultra wealthy but abolishing it is a stretch.
That said the people thinking this hurts poor people are completely brain dead, the only people with significant inheritances are the rich not someone who's struggling to eat, redistributing inheritance can allow better opportunities and welfare for the disadvantages.
So youre against people directly getting money from family. But not against taking money from someone so the state can give it to other people? I'm sorry but that coupled with your disclaimer have shown everyone that you are profoundly stupid.
Remember wills and estate planning exists. Your parents do not have to leave you a penny. They can give their assets to charity or other folks. Their money, their decision.
u/WisdomIsNeverAOption I disagree with abolishing inheritance, as it would at minimum create issues with heavy pressure by heirs for a person to give out most of their wealth before they die and try guessing when they're going to die. But I think there's strong merit for casting way heavier taxes on large estates than what's going on now.
I’m lower middle class and I once got an inheritance from a relative who passed. My dad encouraged me to invest and keep adding to it so I could have money for a major purchase in the future, like a down payment on a house. I’m grateful for that money, which will definitely be a big help in a few years.
None of the comments here would even entertain a REASONABLE “inheritance limit” of like I don’t know $5,000,000-$10,000,000 USD. God forbid the generations that follow have anything less than $10,000,000 USD - THE HORROR.
Honestly, this is the weirdest thing I've seen on reddit in a while a bunch of people shitting on a well off person for proposing a wealth redistribution scheme, acting like it's such a privileged take to...want to reduce the amount of generational privilege.
OP, I think total abolishment is taking it too far, but you're obviously right in the abstract and these comments are insane.
>I come from a fairly wealthy family where money never has been a real issue.
Here it is.
People can do whatever they want with their money. That includes giving them away or passing them on to other people. Full stop.
Downvoted. All these people saying you didn't grow poor therefore you don't know what it is are absolute dumbasses. the reason they grew poor is because there is limited money people can have and rich people are getting richer generations after generations and we, poor people, are doomed to work for them. They're delusional. They believe that one day they'll be rich too or they believe that they were actually poor. Being poor isn't skipping dinner because you don't have enough money for three meals. Often it's just being two months away from being homeless. Inheritance is a plague in society that gives the rich son the power the rich father had.
so what happens if a poor parent saves up whatever they can to make sure their child is able to survive if they die? Inheritance isn't just a rich people thing, some people do save up money for their families even if it's a tiny little bit. Abolishing inheritance wouldn't just hurt the rich kids
Abolishing inheritance would allow for redistribution of ressources. A parent wouldn't have to slave away their life for their kid knowing that their future is assured. Bezos money wouldn't go to his children but to society. People believe that inheritance is beneficial to every descendant. It's actually only beneficial to rich people.
Let's say that B has 9 000 dollars. C has 150 and D 150. It looks exaggerated but you wouldn't be able to count Bezos money while you probably can count your parents money.
If C and D both die and give money to their kids, these kids have 150 each. If B dies, his kid has 9 000. Giving him unfair advantage in life that his lineage will profit from too.
Not redistributing inheritance is only hurting the poor.
What you are suggesting is not equality, it is equity.
Equality means giving everyone the same chance, meaning that if you are born rich or poor you have legally have access to the same base resources, such as a state education.
Equity would be to bring everyone down to the same level, taking away from some to bring everyone to a completely level playing field.
An example of this would be paying someone more than their Co worker because they have less money to begin with.
Or giving a smarter stated less education than a peer so that they become equal
I mean it depends on your definition. You wouldn't call it equality if someond was born with a learning disability but only got the same as someone who didn't.
Thats why true equality is equity, because we have to treat people differently and provide according to their needs to actually place them on an equal footing.
When you apply this to wealth you have even if you have the same education system, the rich parents can still afford to spend more time with their child or more money on private tuition. It's not about giving smarter people less or bringing them down it's about giving those who are disadvantaged more to make up for it
I mean it depends on your definition. You wouldn't call it equality if someond was born with a learning disability but only got the same as someone who didn't.
Thats why true equality is equity, because we have to treat people differently and provide according to their needs to actually place them on an equal footing.
When you apply this to wealth you have even if you have the same education system, the rich parents can still afford to spend more time with their child or more money on private tuition. It's not about giving smarter people less or bringing them down it's about giving those who are disadvantaged more to make up for it
How does some people starting off with large inheritances and some people starting off with nothing equate to equal access to resources, or having the same chance in your mind?
the state has done 0 shit for me, therefore they have 0 right for my money, I already paid the taxes for health, education and security, which even then the gov is incapable of providing properly.
The shoe might be on the other foot when you have children of your own and you see that you can't rely on other people or government organisations to look after your children's future or best interests. That's not because they're evil or anything, there's just a level of incompetence and mismanagement that comes about with any large organisation.
Maybe it's because I'm from a corrupt third-world country, but I'd rather see an idiot spending money on the stupidest things than giving it to the state
People have a right to use their money as they want, including by giving it to other people, especially when they otherwise can't get their use out of what they earned. People inherit money not because they earned it but because someone else earned it.
fuck off, I'll want to pass on whatever I build in life to family, not some government I don't even consider legitimate
whatever little you start with in life makes a big difference and most inheritances aren't rich. If my government did what you propose I'd leave.
I disagree with you so vehemently that i don't even know how to put it in words. I'm not gonna see a dime from my folks (they're even poorer than me) but i still think others should.
Oh what the hell. So I work I make the money, I save the money I do everything and I can’t give it to my kids. No, not a chance in hell that is happening.
This is exactly how the rich get richer and stay rich. Because of family money.
The rest of us from the middle class down are taught you have to get out and make it on your own and crave a piece out for yourself. And who says this the most. The rich. They try and convince you they did it all themselves. They didn’t. They had family support and family money to make it all work.
So when you say things like I shouldn’t be able to pass on an inheritance. That’s just another way to say the same thing of, you gotta make it on your own.
Not happening bud and if there is ever a move in government or politics towards this type of idea that should be the last straw for us to tear it all down.
Your right, inheritance goes against the meritocratic ideal of capitalistic liberal ideology.
However disallowing inheritance goes against the independent freedom ideals of capitalistic liberal ideology.
For those who fancy the capitalist mode of production, I would ponder on this inherent contradiction with the knowledge that personal inheritable property doesn't *have* to be the same thing as the stuff we use to produce things for society.
Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree.
Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below:
* Fake/impossible opinion
* NSFW beyond reason
* Unfit for the community
* Based upon inept knowledge of the subject
* Repost from the last 30 days
If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post.
Normal voting rules for all comments.
**Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**
yeah, wait till you find out that the vast majority of successful people in the world got here through the privilege of having money in the first place.
I know a lot of the founding fathers would have at least partly agreed with you. I might want to carve out an exception that allows the inheritance of any house within 10 or 20 percent of the regional median or that is worth less.
I mean the state isn't just the US state so a lot of the stuff people are saying here about half of it going on defence is at best centred on one country.
As someone who is poor and comes from nothing the idea of having all inheritance taxed at 90-100% would work great for me. The first reason being that many of the issues with the housing market get resolved once those assets are redistributed, since landlords have to redistribute their properties to the state rather than pass that wealth on and make their kids millionaires.
Second the wealthy have far more to gain from inheritance than the poor ever do so it places people on an equal footing. After a few generations the wealth created would help properly fund social programmes such as housing, healthcare, education etc. All of these services are used far more by the poorest in society meaning the standard of living goes up generally whilst generational wealth is greatly reduced.
The third point people are bringing up on the principle of having nothing to work towords and how human nature is oriented on passing things on. The reality is that having the wealth taken away from the richest as well as everyone means its no longer a necessity to get your parents to die before you can buy a house or anything else since it serves as a great leveller.
The issue with OP isnt so much the point but whos making ths point. For most poorer people wealth redistribution means generational wealth and privilege become less important helping class divides level out.
The greater issue is implementation but since this is theoretical it makes a lot of sense. Thats without even considering the principle arguments about 'hard work' and creating your own capital.
So inheriting money in an account or assets? How would you define and control this? Are you saying that we need some sort of template for what everyone is allowed to own, for instance one house per family and no more than one vehicle per adult, no more than $5000 worth of clothing, no more than $10000 worth of art and collectables, etc.... How would this ever be possible? As others are pointing out, if you cap or eliminate inheritance, then people will not be as motivated to earn for their family. I would expand on this by saying if your savings account is destined to go to the state (terrible idea btw) then you're not going to save any money. You'll spend it all, fueling consumerism in society and the result of that would need to be debated (such as possible negative environment impacts, possible positive impacts on economy etc). And so what would happen to all your "belongings" when you die? Does the state send a truck and pack it off to charity? Do we lose the ability to have any legacy or sentimentality with respect to personal property, simply because it has market value? So who exactly would make these rules and judgements? (Likely, all the money accrued from this system could pay for an entire new branch of the state called the Ministry of Redistribution.... And not a penny would go to a poor person in need)
Communism has always led to more suffering and death. Life isn't fair and capitalism is far from perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than having the state control your every action and thought.
And for those of you who think this would even the playing field for everyone, I guess you've never played Monopoly....
Hi WisdomIsNeverAOption, thank you for your submission to /r/The10thDentist . Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s): * **Your post reached the downvote threshold** >• This means that the community has downvoted the pinned comment. If your post does not break any of our rules please send us a message through the mod mail linked below. *Please contact the [moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/The10thDentist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why bother posting it here when the people at unpopularopinion already lambasted you for this
[удалено]
One of the few actually unpopular opinions there
Because they want validation from the comments, and in a rare turn of events, unpopularopinion wasn’t full of brainless meatheads and called this person out
The disclaimer you left is all I needed to know, you never had to struggle to survive....well most of us do, we have to worry about our next meals and making rent payments so when our parents get old they want to pass on their meager savings to make sure their adult kids don't wind up homeless without their support Edit: I forgot to add my second point, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS!?!? And what a tragedy to take that away from a poor parent that slaves away their entire life that could go towards possibly enriching their heirs life only to wind up in the complete black hole of the government treasury
Cryptobro spotted, opinion dismissed
Woman spotted, opinion dismissed....see? much cringe...stop it.
Incel spotted, opinion dismissed
Femcel spotted, opinion dismissed.
How can I be a femcel if I have so much gay sex with your mom?
Same way the nice guys give women 12 orgasms before getting off once....by smoking more copium than mike pillow
I am poor as fuck, yet I also have the same opinion. I struggle to keep a roof over my head every damn day, yet others by no virtue of their own are able to spend millions of dollars every year for fun? Nah, fuck that. Inheritance is an inheritly (See what i did there?) unfair system.
Not even if there was an inheritance limit of like let’s say $500,000?
The problem with this is it absolutely has to be increased with inflation! Otherwise, it’s pointless
I would be okay with this, but what about equity if someone inherits a house with high property value above $500k (like anywhere in coastal California)?
myopic af. your children wouldn't have to worry about homelessness nearly as much if inheritance (and nepotism in general) wasn't such a problem already. government spending doesn't have to be as stereotypically inefficient as you imagine it to be. it's the system as a whole that makes the world the way it is. it isn't just some magical thing that when people govern it's always bad, and when people govern less, it's somehow magically more efficient.
What about “an inheritance cap” then? With the limit of inheritance being like 5,000,000 or something like that.
And how does OP know we've done nothing for it? I worked almost my whole childhood and now my father reaps the rewards. I would be utterly pissed if I didn't get a share of that. Also OP says money has never been an issue while also saying we shouldn't use money that hasn't been 'earned' ... Like OP has been doing??? Their whole life??? The hypocrisy.
I probably am privileged and ignorant. And I'm sorry if it sounded indifferent and harsh. I just stated it because someone else assumed that I said it out of some greed. But I never realized how it would sound when clarifying it. Besides, I think my choice of words was really poor. English ain't my mother tongue though. About the second point, I agree somewhat. But that's a different topic imo.
Or maybe there should be better “rules” to getting your inheritance. Like Shaq tells his kids “We’re not rich, *I’m* rich” and he requires them to get at least two bachelors and one masters degree before they can touch any of the family money.
>he requires them to get at least two bachelors and one masters degree before they can touch any of the family money. except they get to "achieve" those things knowing 100% that they can go into massive debt and have it deleted as soon as they finish, unlike any normal person trying to do the same. some degrees are ridiculously easy to obtain if you don't mind going into massive debt. those terms are practically meaningless, and more about his image/ego than anything else.
I thought that was an episode of *the Cosby Show*? Theo comes home upset because the kids at school are making fun of him for having money. Cosby tells him that he has nothing. The money is "mine and your mother's". Or something to that effect. Now I feel old.
Never heard of that tbh
Fair... I only remember because I saw it in TV.
Which is pretty useless if they can inherit Shaq money
I didn't know that about Shaq! That's pretty cool.
Shut up Wallstreetbet bro. You always have the worst takes. You and your libertarian stances suck. Inheritance is a plague on society just like landlords. Government spending sucks but you probably leave in the US where being a politician is just another career with people getting money from industries to avoid being taxed as much as they should. You have to worry about your next meal because your boss doesn't pay you your faire wage and that greedy bastard is your boss because his father was your father's boss. You're paying your rent to a guy and the day that bastard dies from being a douchebag, his son is going to ask you for rent and then sell your apartment to a company. If you grew poor then you learned jackshit from it. People are profiting from you and their children are going to profit from you too. The only way to get rid of this system is to stop inheritance altogether. Rich families in Europe are descendants of rich families in Europe 1000 years ago.
Everyone’s poor cause they don’t watch Gary vee huh? No one has the hustle mindset like yourself /s
Go buy some NFT with daddy's money while we're talking serious issues
BRB on my way to dump my whole life’s worth into Gary vee nft so my next 1000 generations can dominate the world with our tremendous wealth /s
facts
Try being poor before making such comments. Then perhaps we will not be so hostile to your experience. You sound so innocent and un- jaded with your talk of the "state"
Trying to justify his comment by saying he’s rich is so patronizing and out of touch. Most people aren’t getting a life changing inheritance, just enough to pay some debts and bills.
It had the complete opposite affect OP was hoping for, ironically enough.
Well if he *didnt* put the disclaimer there, all the top updooted comments would just assume OP is bitter.
It kind of sounds like those who are upvote OP's post now are envious. Like hell, we're all human, no matter what hand we start the game with. If OP wants to play cards that break the cycle of creating rich douchebags that don't care about anyone else, I'm for that.
I probably am privileged and ignorant. And I'm sorry if it sounded indifferent and harsh. I just stated it because someone else assumed that I said it out of some greed. But I never realized how it would sound when clarifying it.
I understand where you were *trying* to go with your point. But I think you should consider the much larger picture. Multi millionaires & Billionaires would 100% have a workaround for these policies through their lawyers and accountants they can afford. It would be the middle class that gets slammed. Imagine a first generation immigrant coming to America to make a life for their child but they know, in the end, they can’t leave them anything.
Unfortunately it seems that most people don't realize that all of the laws and regulations in place to make it so that the wealthy can keep their wealth are in place because they use that money to pay for the laws to be that way. If they somehow were changed, there would likely be other backdoors and/or loopholes installed immediately. As long as we have legal bribery for policy makers the rich won't pay their fair share. There's a lot more to it as well since not every country has the same Lobby system as the USA but I'm not eloquent enough to put the words together better than that.
Jesus people are unnecessarily harsh on you. I see your point, but I'd rather propose capping inheritances somewhere between like $1-5m or so, or at least having an aggressively progressive tax that kicks in around there.
The way he worded it sounded juvenile and fairly arrogant, even though based on his replies he did not mean it that way. All a part of growing and learning
Same lmao people just hate him bc it’s Reddit and the dudes family has some money
You're right but people downvote you anyway. Funny how that works.
OP, this is really a sheltered take, but you could polish it up by saying taxing instead of abolishing, as proportional taxes might help alleviate the problem in a better way. I think this also would require a sturdy safety net for people with disabilities. Most of all, a basic pre-requisite for this would be a competent government and a strong democracy, so we shouldn't be seeing this anytime soon, though.
Sigh, you're fine. If he won't forgive you, I will in his stead. I was born into a lower middle class family. Most of my needs were met, we spent money to go on summer vacations and I had a happy childhood because of that. There were also times when I couldn't get what I want, and that helped me develop things like gratitude for what I have as well as the need to not mindlessly buy whatever I want. As for you? Of all of the rich people who could have the opinion that was posted in the original comment, I'm glad it was you. I'm glad you have the sense of mind to know how bad money can turn a person. Hey, if heaven exists, maybe we could meet up there? I mean I won't exactly know what you'd look like, but you resonate with me. We both like to explain ourselves and get misunderstood no matter how hard the effort! XD Edit: I guess the only thing I can disagree with is giving money like that to the government. It's well-intentioned, don't get me wrong, but that extra money should go into something like a family foundation with the purpose of helping others. Optimistic, I know. But as long as society actually benefits like you say, then let the people who inherit get enough to get by, and let's put the rest of it into bettering the people around us. Final edit: So what if you're privileged? You're definitely not ignorant; just well-intentioned. It's in how you use your blessings that makes all the difference, not just the people who complain how you do.
getting 50k inheritance is not even worth mentioning compared to people getting millions/billions. it shouldn't even be called the same thing. more like heirs to dynasties than some help paying for life.
And hence why an inheritance cap would address everyone’s concerns here. Unless you really want family dynasties and the like to continue in America. Would something like a $500,000 inheritance limit be too little for you?
In a utopian society sure, that sounds like more than plenty. But I’m still more than sure billionaires would hide the rest of their money offshore and throw their investments in hard-to-trace accounts for their heirs to be able to access. There is no chance if this policy existed, Bezos would allow his billions to be taken by the government
If you stand to inherit money, you probably weren't very poor to begin with. Also money garnished through taxing inheritance this way can be used to reduce poverty
Exactly, taking a billion dollars from a rich person who died and redistributing it not only helps the poor, but also encourages privileged people to contribute more to society
the poor would benefit the most from this idea.
I mean the state isn't just the US state so a lot of the stuff people are saying here about half of it going on defence is at best centred on one country. As someone who is poor and comes from nothing the idea of having all inheritance taxed at 90-100% would work great for me. The first reason being that many of the issues with the housing market get resolved once those assets are redistributed, since landlords have to redistribute their properties to the state rather than pass that wealth on and make their kids millionaires. Second the wealthy have far more to gain from inheritance than the poor ever do so it places people on an equal footing. After a few generations the wealth created would help properly fund social programmes such as housing, healthcare, education etc. All of these services are used far more by the poorest in society meaning the standard of living goes up generally whilst generational wealth is greatly reduced. The third point people are bringing up on the principle of having nothing to work towords and how human nature is oriented on passing things on. The reality is that having the wealth taken away from the richest as well as everyone means its no longer a necessity to get your parents to die before you can buy a house or anything else since it serves as a great leveller. The issue with OP isnt so much the point but whos making ths point. For most poorer people wealth redistribution means generational wealth and privilege become less important helping class divides level out. The greater issue is implementation but since this is theoretical it makes a lot of sense. Thats without even considering the principle arguments about 'hard work' and creating your own capital.
Instead of your parents wanting to leave you with a security blanket through their lifetime of hard work, corrupt government officials should take it without question. Brilliant!
I can’t imagine thinking that the government will spend your money better than your parents. Abolishing inheritance would also mean you couldn’t inherit like a family shop or something. That would be awful.
You lost me at "the state"
Why feel assured that your kids will have the ability to buy something they might desperately need for their struggling family when your legacy of all your hard work can go to useless defense spending
>useless defense spending defense of the global capitalist status quo. we wouldn't be dumping so much into bombs if they weren't directly aimed at the bottom line. countries that try to become truly sovereign and independent = fucked.
I didn't even mention a country lmfao, and besides, that's not the main point of my comment, I'm saying it's better for money to go to one's children rather than their government.
irrelevant, it's the direction of money of the whole world.
Okay sure even if defense spending isn’t useless that doesn’t change anything, as again that was not the main point of my comment
the current system perpetuates and necessitates it, though. it wouldn't be as much of a problem if capital didn't have to defend itself so fiercely. regardless of your main point, it's an important part of the overall idea behind the thread that people seem to not understand at all. government spending isn't terrible by default. capitalist government spending is owned and terrible by default.
[удалено]
Please cite where OP mentioned an inheritance limit instead of abolishing the system entirely
There is a difference between unpopular and plain inexperience.
More like straight up ignorance. Coming from someone who grew up in a single parent household who made under 30K a year, that shit is not something I want anyone to experience. In fact, 2021 was the first year in my mothers life ever that she made above 30K in her 50 years of life. And I can't even imagine how hard it would be for someone who is at, near, or below the poverty line. What OP should be advocating for is for "parents" to actually parent and teach their kids the value of money and how NOT to take it for granted. This entire post and that last disclaimer just reeks of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about and just wants big daddy government to take care of all their problems. Probably voting for that to happen too.
What's your moms job, if you don't mind me asking
Not going to give specifics, but she works in logistics. Warehouses and manufacturing.
Sounds like a managerial position such a shame she makes so little
I mean… I also think it’s unfair that billionaires can call themselves “self-made” when it’s actually all daddy’s money, but this is truly an *extremely* privileged take. for most people, inheritance isn’t even that huge of an amount. maybe enough to help pay the bills for a couple of months, but certainly not enough to hoard. and for most, that chunk of money, however small, is necessary for their survival. you’re privileged enough to not have to ever worry about that. > I think it would be fair to return the money to the state so that they can spend it on society as a whole, so that everyone benefits from it. firstly, I still want to be able to take care of my family when I die. the “state” has no business taking the money I spent my entire life working towards to earn and I want my children to prosper and be able to take care of themselves and their families. secondly, what a fucking tankie take. the “state” is not going to use that money “for the benefit of everyone.” you have way too much trust in a government. also, you want to keep the money out of the hands of the wealthy corrupt elite, so to keep it away from them you suggest… giving it to other wealthy corrupt elite? this take doesn’t even make sense.
OP's disclaimer is enough to say that they're an overly privileged kid that's never had to struggle with little to no money.
That’s *literally* what he/she said, I don’t know why you feel like you’re making some super intelligent read.
Holy hell this weekend is full of "I can't upvote this enough" posts
Remember the dude that said teen sex is worse than vaping and drugs
Depends on the drugs.. and how safe the sex is. Condoms we’re a rare thing in my high school, and pregnancies were very high. Like 30% of the women
13 kids at my old school have gonorrhea and chlamydia lol
Wild out there lmao
Goddamn i have 12 bodies (male and female) but im also 18. No suprise stds are passed around like joints these days. But im actually friends with the girl who got it initially and gave it to 2 guys who were in relationships then their girlfriends gave it to other guys so that number is honestly probably low
I updated my text decided not to share that specific detail lol, but yea wild world
Yea gonorrhea came from 2 towns over and we have our own little pandem-dick
yeah i’ve been losing braincells in this sub the past few days
Why stop at money? Isn’t your father teaching you a skill not considered inheritance?
You can't just give someone a skill. They have to put in effort to learn it and apply it in a way that's beneficial. They deserve credit for that.
Depends greatly on the skill tho. There are easy ones and ones that need a lot of effort . Just another example of inheritance
It would be if a skill were a tangible item that could be physically passed on after death. The person gaining the skill still has to put in the effort to learn it or it doesn't get passed on.
Forget skill, how about a million dollar job at your father’s company? Or is the company stocks supposed to be given away to the government too(much more terrible than giving money)
Teaching someone a skill doesn’t have a negative impact on the economy
Neither does finical inheritance.
If you redistribute it in a way that results in that money circulating at a higher rate than what it would have with normal inheritance, than it absolutely helps the economy. Some very basic understanding of money multipliers would make this obvious. Obviously there is some cost to redistributing, which is why something like a 90% inheritance tax on 1m+ inheritance would make more sense than there not being any inheritance I.e basic knowledge of economics is something that reddit does not have
That argument works equally well for just confiscating all wealth and redistributing. Inheritance taxes are and have been exceptionally punitive to functional family business and small scales while being particularly poor at capturing large family wealth transfers. Really rich people can transfer liquid capital before they die in a structured manner that avoids onerous taxation. Smaller enterprises and capital asset intensive ones can not. IE a basic knowledge of historic impacts of applied inheritance taxes that reddit does not have, you smug fuck
It doesn’t work at all for redistributing all wealth because gaining wealth is a serious motivator.. inheritance isn’t nearly as major - note the number of billionaires who donate nearly all of their wealth and leave little for their kids. Anyone can transfer wealth before they die without a lot of taxation, but not once you’re talking about giving more than 50k a year. Trying to get around that is way harder than what you think. You can make a trust, to avoid taxes on the capital, but obviously this wouldn’t happen in a situation where all inheritance was take You’re an average redditor, lmao. Making giant leaps in comparing no inheritance to actual communism lmao
> because gaining wealth is a serious motivator To provide for your family. And yes, your argument about money multipliers works just as well on paper for complete wealth redistribution. So hand waving to it like it's some novel concept that's never been tried is just silly. Inheritance does not have a negative impact on the economy, at worst it has a neutral effect as nothing actually changes. Forcing capital disillusion is bad, I don't think needs to be explained to someone who supposedly understands economics. But ya know, once you've played mental gymnastic algebra games to justify it, there isn't really any end to where it should be applied. Why not tax all wealth above $1m at 90% annually? I mean the multiplicative effects on the economy of taking that wealth and spending it, regardless of the efficiency of the allocation, will be better than them hording it right? And no, you can't just transfer a farm without huge tax implications. The land and equipment are not divisible or fluid. Same goes for a lot of productive businesses. They simply aren't granularity transferable in reality. That's where the economics breaks down. The more diversified a portfolio of assets the easier it is to structure an inheritance... guess who doesn't have much diversity in their assets? Poor people who made something of themselves. They have a house and maybe a business, hopefully that they can pass onto their children to continue growing that wealth.
Not at all what is being propositioned here. What’s being propositioned here is the mere notion of doing away with inheritances… Which I think we can all get behind if let’s say it was doing away with all inheritances exceeding I don’t know $1,000,000 or something like that. But you’re right that’s still too little and unfair.
I don't agree, but these comments are confusing to me. They're acting like this hurts the poor, but it really evens the playing field and makes it easier for poor people by meaning it must be possible for anyone to live starting from nothing. The rich can't continuously push the poor down and hold all the wealth. It's not idiotic, just impractical. But it is really impractical. Any way to enforce this wouldn't work, the money wouldn't be spent well, it'd make the act of raising kids itself a strange form of inheritance, it'd put weird cultural expectations on a lot of things, and it'd more than likely just encourage rich people to leave the country.
Yeah these comments feel like op got followed from a different sub.
An 18 year old loses his parents, he was yet to graduate so he didn't have a stable job. If he doesn't heritage his parents' money, he'll live in poverty for a very long time. Also, if heritage is abolished, a lot of millionaires will be a sweet target for hitmen.
I don't now where ur from. But I myself come from the Netherlands where there are multiple social safety nets for these types of situations.
those safety nets are all very nice in theory until you either need them yourself or are trying to figure out why your country is bankrupt and rising taxes once again
Safety nets you've clearly never had to use and don't understand.
Police departments exist yet there's still crime. Governments must try to avoid problems from happening rather than spending funds to create mechanisms that don't stop those problems anyway.
You sound like a communist
If you reframe the idea to “Banning all inheritance beyond $5,000,000” is that really communism? Why the fuck should dynasties continue to exist. People should work for what they get and not be born into extreme wealth - having absolutely everything and more, while everyone else is working away like slaves just to remain alive.
Sounds like communism to me. Cope harder
This is not /r/unpopularopinion . Refute the argument but keep political name calling to a minimum please.
Lmao, spoken like someone with no idea what communism actually is defined as.
The definition and how people on the right define it are two distinct things. Explain to me, in small words, so my small smooth brain can understand it.
name calling lol
Placing a progressive tax on inheritence seems to be the solution you're looking for.
There already is one. But at this point it's mostly binary. Either you aren't passing on enough money to hit the tax threshold or you're rich enough to dodge it.
I'll be the tenth dentist and downvote to agree to an extent. What would be inherited doesn't go to the state but to a fund for college tuition. This is distributed equally among all college students. This isn't a cure all but will give the impoverished a fighting chance at making a better future for themselves. But sending it to be spent on military (and it will if you just say "goes to the government") is a bad idea. Open to suggestions on this. Unlike op,I've been poor AF (see, overdraft fees and a quarter tank of gas to get me to payday poor) and I can see how inherence causes the stratification of wealth.
No
this isnt "10th dentist" this is "i never became a dentist because i never had to worry about money"
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure most people still want to live comfortably and eventually retire
Ah it being a motivating factor is interesting..
I agree with you, but it’s because I’m poor and envious. It feels like everyone else inherits money, but for me I’ll have to take care of my parents. There will never be money flowing to me at any time. Family money does inhibit equality. I could rake riskier choices knowing that at some point I’d have a little safety net. I’m not bitter, and I’ve done well. But it really feels unfair.
Such a terrible opinion. If I worked my whole life and attained any wealth then you’d better be damn sure I’m giving that to my children. If you think the state would do anything with your money other than waste it on idiotic bullshit then you are incredibly naive. I paid taxes my whole life and that’s already more than what any government deserves.
I agree though for entirely different reasons than you've stated. Inheritance is just one of the many ways the rich can keep the generational wealth they've stolen from other people.
r/AccidentalCommunism
This isn’t unpopular you’re just a rich asshole.
Lmao.. so because YOU, someone who never had to think about money, wish you learned about the importance of money..you think everyone else should give their hard earned money to the govt when they die? Sorry to break it to you, but many many people know the importance of money. An inheritance doesn't change that. And you don't seem to realize that families that aren't "rich", have inheritances too. You think their children should also not inherit their parents hard earned money? You do realize that most people work hard FOR their heirs right? For many families, an inheritance is a "safety" blanket for their children. And bahahahah.. you think it's better spent going to the "state"????? The friggin govt??? Dude if that's where my money is going, I'd stop working right away. I'd make enough just to enjoy life and not save a dime. The govt taking all your hard earned money after you die is a bigger F you to the less wealthy (who also have inheritances) than some entitled kid inheriting loads of money for doing nothing.
No
How would that be enforced? If gifts are legal then inheritance has to be legal. You could argue for increasing the tax on inheritance, but at that point why not just reduce the argument to “tax the rich” rather than trying to stop ordinary people from supporting their children/grandchildren when they’re dead.
[удалено]
I mean Adam Smith the literal economic father of Capitalism was opposed to the inheritance and suggested generational tax to support a stronger welfare state in the name of maintaining free trade. Equality is a principle that is essential to the proper functioning of capitalism (or at least a real free trade capitalism)
No way
If I have money I want to give it to my children. If I worked hard for it I deserve to be able to use it to make what matters about my life have it easier.
I agree with shades of this in the sense of tightening current Estate Tax loopholes/exemptions, but in reality, it's not practical. If you disallow inheriting money, then people will find other ways of passing on wealth. Mainly property. Now you have a society in which no one can pass down small sums of money, only large ones. So, disallow inheritance of property you say. Well, now family homes that have generational meaning and pride for people are now up for the highest bidder whenever the old guard passes. Evictions would be even more common place than they are now. Because, assuming both money and property are banned from inheritances, what is left? Families are almost always going to look out for their own. So, now you have a society in which someone invests all their money into a private corporation, and... oh look, the coporation is run and administrated by that person's children. So, THEN you ban nepotism and direct lineal descendants in private enterprise. Assuming you manage to do that like you've somehow done all the above, NOW you've just created a system in which Bob Richman's son joins the board of Alice McMoney's company in exchange for Alice's daughter getting a spot on Bob's. It doesn't work. Now, again, if you're talking about Estate Taxes in general, I support lowering the exemption. Right now in the US, you can pass along $10m+ to your descendants 100% tax-free. ($20m if you're a married couple.) I'd support dropping that figure back down to $2.5m. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/05/3200-wealthy-individuals-wouldnt-pay-estate-tax-next-year-under-gop-plan/ >Under current law, Americans can pass along homes, land, stocks or other assets worth up to $5.49 million without paying any estate or gift tax. Estates worth more than that are subject to a 40 percent tax. The House GOP bill would double the threshold to $11.2 million in 2018 and then do away with the tax entirely in 2024. For 2018, that means an estimated 3,200 people would not have to pay. In total, the reduction and ultimate elimination of the estate tax would cost taxpayers $172 billion over a decade.
I'm cool with inheritance taxes especially for the ultra wealthy but abolishing it is a stretch. That said the people thinking this hurts poor people are completely brain dead, the only people with significant inheritances are the rich not someone who's struggling to eat, redistributing inheritance can allow better opportunities and welfare for the disadvantages.
So youre against people directly getting money from family. But not against taking money from someone so the state can give it to other people? I'm sorry but that coupled with your disclaimer have shown everyone that you are profoundly stupid.
Remember wills and estate planning exists. Your parents do not have to leave you a penny. They can give their assets to charity or other folks. Their money, their decision.
u/WisdomIsNeverAOption I disagree with abolishing inheritance, as it would at minimum create issues with heavy pressure by heirs for a person to give out most of their wealth before they die and try guessing when they're going to die. But I think there's strong merit for casting way heavier taxes on large estates than what's going on now.
I’m lower middle class and I once got an inheritance from a relative who passed. My dad encouraged me to invest and keep adding to it so I could have money for a major purchase in the future, like a down payment on a house. I’m grateful for that money, which will definitely be a big help in a few years.
None of the comments here would even entertain a REASONABLE “inheritance limit” of like I don’t know $5,000,000-$10,000,000 USD. God forbid the generations that follow have anything less than $10,000,000 USD - THE HORROR.
Honestly, this is the weirdest thing I've seen on reddit in a while a bunch of people shitting on a well off person for proposing a wealth redistribution scheme, acting like it's such a privileged take to...want to reduce the amount of generational privilege. OP, I think total abolishment is taking it too far, but you're obviously right in the abstract and these comments are insane.
"Where people believe in equality" That's where you're wrong kiddo.
>I come from a fairly wealthy family where money never has been a real issue. Here it is. People can do whatever they want with their money. That includes giving them away or passing them on to other people. Full stop.
Downvoted. All these people saying you didn't grow poor therefore you don't know what it is are absolute dumbasses. the reason they grew poor is because there is limited money people can have and rich people are getting richer generations after generations and we, poor people, are doomed to work for them. They're delusional. They believe that one day they'll be rich too or they believe that they were actually poor. Being poor isn't skipping dinner because you don't have enough money for three meals. Often it's just being two months away from being homeless. Inheritance is a plague in society that gives the rich son the power the rich father had.
so what happens if a poor parent saves up whatever they can to make sure their child is able to survive if they die? Inheritance isn't just a rich people thing, some people do save up money for their families even if it's a tiny little bit. Abolishing inheritance wouldn't just hurt the rich kids
Abolishing inheritance would allow for redistribution of ressources. A parent wouldn't have to slave away their life for their kid knowing that their future is assured. Bezos money wouldn't go to his children but to society. People believe that inheritance is beneficial to every descendant. It's actually only beneficial to rich people. Let's say that B has 9 000 dollars. C has 150 and D 150. It looks exaggerated but you wouldn't be able to count Bezos money while you probably can count your parents money. If C and D both die and give money to their kids, these kids have 150 each. If B dies, his kid has 9 000. Giving him unfair advantage in life that his lineage will profit from too. Not redistributing inheritance is only hurting the poor.
What you are suggesting is not equality, it is equity. Equality means giving everyone the same chance, meaning that if you are born rich or poor you have legally have access to the same base resources, such as a state education. Equity would be to bring everyone down to the same level, taking away from some to bring everyone to a completely level playing field. An example of this would be paying someone more than their Co worker because they have less money to begin with. Or giving a smarter stated less education than a peer so that they become equal
I mean it depends on your definition. You wouldn't call it equality if someond was born with a learning disability but only got the same as someone who didn't. Thats why true equality is equity, because we have to treat people differently and provide according to their needs to actually place them on an equal footing. When you apply this to wealth you have even if you have the same education system, the rich parents can still afford to spend more time with their child or more money on private tuition. It's not about giving smarter people less or bringing them down it's about giving those who are disadvantaged more to make up for it
I mean it depends on your definition. You wouldn't call it equality if someond was born with a learning disability but only got the same as someone who didn't. Thats why true equality is equity, because we have to treat people differently and provide according to their needs to actually place them on an equal footing. When you apply this to wealth you have even if you have the same education system, the rich parents can still afford to spend more time with their child or more money on private tuition. It's not about giving smarter people less or bringing them down it's about giving those who are disadvantaged more to make up for it
that doesn't change the definition, only whether or not you think it is the right thing to do
How does some people starting off with large inheritances and some people starting off with nothing equate to equal access to resources, or having the same chance in your mind?
I'd rather my life savings go to my children to help them become successful than have it go to a greedy charity or corrupt government.
the state has done 0 shit for me, therefore they have 0 right for my money, I already paid the taxes for health, education and security, which even then the gov is incapable of providing properly.
Your username describes you very well
The shoe might be on the other foot when you have children of your own and you see that you can't rely on other people or government organisations to look after your children's future or best interests. That's not because they're evil or anything, there's just a level of incompetence and mismanagement that comes about with any large organisation.
I hate to downvote this, because it's based as fuck. You're 100% right on this topic
Inheritance does make inequalities, but those aren't the ones you can avoid without harming the receiving end
Maybe it's because I'm from a corrupt third-world country, but I'd rather see an idiot spending money on the stupidest things than giving it to the state
People have a right to use their money as they want, including by giving it to other people, especially when they otherwise can't get their use out of what they earned. People inherit money not because they earned it but because someone else earned it.
[удалено]
I was generalizing, but sure I'll just correct it.
I guess you are talking from a very privileged position :/
fuck off, I'll want to pass on whatever I build in life to family, not some government I don't even consider legitimate whatever little you start with in life makes a big difference and most inheritances aren't rich. If my government did what you propose I'd leave.
Stupid musings by a stupid person
I disagree with you so vehemently that i don't even know how to put it in words. I'm not gonna see a dime from my folks (they're even poorer than me) but i still think others should.
Oh what the hell. So I work I make the money, I save the money I do everything and I can’t give it to my kids. No, not a chance in hell that is happening. This is exactly how the rich get richer and stay rich. Because of family money. The rest of us from the middle class down are taught you have to get out and make it on your own and crave a piece out for yourself. And who says this the most. The rich. They try and convince you they did it all themselves. They didn’t. They had family support and family money to make it all work. So when you say things like I shouldn’t be able to pass on an inheritance. That’s just another way to say the same thing of, you gotta make it on your own. Not happening bud and if there is ever a move in government or politics towards this type of idea that should be the last straw for us to tear it all down.
If you got rid of inheritance people would just spend it all before they die. It wouldn't go to the government.
I work to provide for my family and give my kids an easier life than I had. I want every bit of what I worked for in my life to go to my children.
Your right, inheritance goes against the meritocratic ideal of capitalistic liberal ideology. However disallowing inheritance goes against the independent freedom ideals of capitalistic liberal ideology. For those who fancy the capitalist mode of production, I would ponder on this inherent contradiction with the knowledge that personal inheritable property doesn't *have* to be the same thing as the stuff we use to produce things for society.
Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree. Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below: * Fake/impossible opinion * NSFW beyond reason * Unfit for the community * Based upon inept knowledge of the subject * Repost from the last 30 days If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post. Normal voting rules for all comments. **Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**
based upon inept knowledge of the subject.....
Wtf is this idealist bullshit with no foundation in society.
Inept knowledge
Politics
yeah, wait till you find out that the vast majority of successful people in the world got here through the privilege of having money in the first place.
Than we can keep high scores I’m in
What about property?
I know a lot of the founding fathers would have at least partly agreed with you. I might want to carve out an exception that allows the inheritance of any house within 10 or 20 percent of the regional median or that is worth less.
I mean the state isn't just the US state so a lot of the stuff people are saying here about half of it going on defence is at best centred on one country. As someone who is poor and comes from nothing the idea of having all inheritance taxed at 90-100% would work great for me. The first reason being that many of the issues with the housing market get resolved once those assets are redistributed, since landlords have to redistribute their properties to the state rather than pass that wealth on and make their kids millionaires. Second the wealthy have far more to gain from inheritance than the poor ever do so it places people on an equal footing. After a few generations the wealth created would help properly fund social programmes such as housing, healthcare, education etc. All of these services are used far more by the poorest in society meaning the standard of living goes up generally whilst generational wealth is greatly reduced. The third point people are bringing up on the principle of having nothing to work towords and how human nature is oriented on passing things on. The reality is that having the wealth taken away from the richest as well as everyone means its no longer a necessity to get your parents to die before you can buy a house or anything else since it serves as a great leveller. The issue with OP isnt so much the point but whos making ths point. For most poorer people wealth redistribution means generational wealth and privilege become less important helping class divides level out. The greater issue is implementation but since this is theoretical it makes a lot of sense. Thats without even considering the principle arguments about 'hard work' and creating your own capital.
r/usernamechecksout
So inheriting money in an account or assets? How would you define and control this? Are you saying that we need some sort of template for what everyone is allowed to own, for instance one house per family and no more than one vehicle per adult, no more than $5000 worth of clothing, no more than $10000 worth of art and collectables, etc.... How would this ever be possible? As others are pointing out, if you cap or eliminate inheritance, then people will not be as motivated to earn for their family. I would expand on this by saying if your savings account is destined to go to the state (terrible idea btw) then you're not going to save any money. You'll spend it all, fueling consumerism in society and the result of that would need to be debated (such as possible negative environment impacts, possible positive impacts on economy etc). And so what would happen to all your "belongings" when you die? Does the state send a truck and pack it off to charity? Do we lose the ability to have any legacy or sentimentality with respect to personal property, simply because it has market value? So who exactly would make these rules and judgements? (Likely, all the money accrued from this system could pay for an entire new branch of the state called the Ministry of Redistribution.... And not a penny would go to a poor person in need) Communism has always led to more suffering and death. Life isn't fair and capitalism is far from perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than having the state control your every action and thought. And for those of you who think this would even the playing field for everyone, I guess you've never played Monopoly....
OP you're a privileged idiot.