General Discussion

Baobab

(4,667 posts)

2. Because you will already have given them everything before you die?

Reply to meaculpa2011 (Reply #1)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:09 AM

May 2016

I think that for the prevention of extreme concentration of wealth that would have to be treated the same as inheritance. Otherwise, you're right, many wealthy people would just figure out myriad ways around taxation and use them.

I suppose what I am promoting is a society where we relied on everybody having a stake in it - as in an ownership stake, and the current way of treating people as if they had no intrinsic 'stake' or equity in society would end.

People seem to think they have an ownership stake in jobs but they clearly don't as shown by back room policy.

More generally, work as we know it today is vanishing, we will not be able to go on the way we are now that far into the future.

The model is already in a state of advanced dysfunction. We need to be discussing the changes that are happening more honestly.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would a very low income tax and a very high inheritance tax please everybody? [View all] Baobab May 2016 OP

My wife and I are in the process of transferring... meaculpa2011 May 2016 #1

Because you will already have given them everything before you die? Baobab May 2016 #2

Universal Basic Income for all... meaculpa2011 May 2016 #6

I hate work and I'm 35. FML for the next 25-35 years MillennialDem May 2016 #10

I read The Culture books too. It's not right around the corner, sorry. nt IamMab May 2016 #3

Sorry, never heard of said books, its just fairly well known fact in the scientific community Baobab May 2016 #17

I think you mean "science fiction community." nt IamMab May 2016 #21

I don't know... JSup May 2016 #4

People could leave their children up to around $10 million in today's money Baobab May 2016 #5

Reward people for economic activity 1939 May 2016 #9

People would need a way to bypass that because they will not have practically any income Baobab May 2016 #22

mental labor will be done by machines too, much better than most people do because AIs Baobab May 2016 #23

Sometimes I read too fast... JSup May 2016 #14

It's more xianism than evolution... scscholar May 2016 #29

So the Sultan of Turkey living large 1500-1900 1939 May 2016 #31

Oh, he meant 'Christian'! JSup May 2016 #49

Naw 1939 May 2016 #50

With the 't'... JSup May 2016 #56

So long as there is poverty, all taxes should be steeply progressive. hunter May 2016 #7

UBI fixes most of these things MillennialDem May 2016 #11

Except for the "non-abusive workplace" 1939 May 2016 #24

thats the idea, by doing this, since everybody dies, there would no longer be poverty Baobab May 2016 #41

No. Income taxes have to be progressive. trotsky May 2016 #8

I would be ok with a flat tax IF capital gains were treated identically to income and there was MillennialDem May 2016 #12

I guarantee you, the rich would still come out ahead... trotsky May 2016 #13

Most flat tax analysis only looks at income (as opposed to capital gains and payroll). Now, I know MillennialDem May 2016 #15

There would likely be no middle class because all the middle class type jobs would be automated Baobab May 2016 #19

And if you could ponly pass $10 million down to your kids 1939 May 2016 #28

$10 million is way more than enough to live on the dividends. Even $1 million is close (for MillennialDem May 2016 #36

$30,000 (yr) isnt enough to live safely in America today, let alone in the future. Baobab May 2016 #20

$30,000 is def enough to live on, not safely... but it is the median individual income. And you coul MillennialDem May 2016 #37

"side work" wont be available in this hypothetical future- also >90% of mainstream jobs will vanish Baobab May 2016 #45

Tax on wealth upon death would be 100% - $10M for each child. Baobab May 2016 #18

Sounds kind of hellish to me. NT Adrahil May 2016 #54

They will be very much so, as the richer people are, the higher percentage of that tax. Baobab May 2016 #26

Say goodbye to the home mortgage deduction. trotsky May 2016 #35

They would not be taxed at all. Nor would many have jobs. Baobab May 2016 #38

That would help fix the debt practially overnight meow2u3 May 2016 #48

Interesting idea TrappedInUtah May 2016 #16

We couldnt "maintain a society with good jobs and wages" for everybody because most people will Baobab May 2016 #32

Inheritence tax should be minimal or non existent... TipTok May 2016 #25

This. B2G May 2016 #27

No, only the profit is taxed IphengeniaBlumgarten May 2016 #34

As it is now (current law) 1939 May 2016 #30

You only do that because the government is so corrupt now. Baobab May 2016 #33

Send me all your money 1939 May 2016 #42

$3.7M (just went through probate) not $5M REP May 2016 #46

From the IRS site 1939 May 2016 #47

Wonder what my lawyer was smoking REP May 2016 #55

unless those businesses were worh more than the number of children times $10M they would be passed Baobab May 2016 #39

Too many people?� Not enough resources? Not enough jobs? tularetom May 2016 #40

People arent "born to" spend most of their time making somebody else rich Baobab May 2016 #43

No, but it's the right idea MosheFeingold May 2016 #44

It wouldn't raise enough money 1939 May 2016 #51

Never ran the numbers, so I don't know MosheFeingold May 2016 #57

Pure Fantasy MichMan May 2016 #52

which jobs cannot be automated apart from the obvious ones? Baobab May 2016 #53