If there ever is a simple solution for the vast inequality in the distribution of wealth,it is this

[UndertheOcean]

Tax all inheritance income beyond $ 100,000 at a rate of 100%

That way any rich schmuck can then convincingly argue that they earned their position in life , rather than having it handed to them.

[bluestateguy]

1. If you set the threshold that low, you'll be socking mostly middle class people

You would effectively be saying that a working person would be unable to inherit the house that is owned by a parent who dies.

Your argument makes sense. Your numbers do not.

[Warpy]

8. People on the bottom have bought the lie

that $100,000 is the threshold for being rich. They need to multiply that by 100 and they'll have a better idea of what it actually is.

Personally, I'd love to see the tax start at a mil and be a progressive one, kicking in to 99.9% at $10,000,000. That way, the middle class wouldn't find it has nothing to leave the children (and you'd be surprised how fast that house and bank accounts and investments add up), while the billionaires would find that they are unable to found an inheritable aristocracy of wealth.

That's really what we want to prevent, not parents being able to leave what they worked hard for to their children. We want to prevent aristocracy, not solvency, from generation to generation.

[bluestateguy]

15. Indeed

And many middle class people are frankly depending on being able to receive a modest inheritance to supplement their own retirements. We should not want to block that.

[DesertFlower]

19. that makes sense.

many middle class people are worth close to a million when you add up their houses, cars, bank accounts, etc.

[Oregone]

16. If everyone is starting on first, it wouldn't be "socking" at all

Using all those funds to create a social net, community commons and infrastructure aimed at mobility would promote success for the low/middle moreso than inheritance. In such a society, they simply wouldn't need it, and would still receive a larger percentage of their parents wealth than the rich kids would.

[bluestateguy]

22. Then you are talking about something other than the estate tax

Close corporate tax loopholes, raise the top marginal income tax levels back to 1980 levels, make religions pay taxes and cut bloated Pentagon budgets. Then you can do all the things that you mentioned.

It's appropriate to have an estate tax to prevent the very wealthy from creating a sort of permanent aristocracy by passing upon enormous sums of wealth from generation to generation. That's what the estate tax was designed to do. What it was not designed to do was to deprive a public school teacher or a factory worker who makes $45,000 a year from inheriting the modest home that their parents worked a lifetime to pay for.

[TBF]

2. Well I tried to rec this but I guess all the wealthy people are here today unrec'ing -

which is actually the main problem with this party.

[Naturyl]

3. You got it.

This party can't accomplish much when it is hamstrung by the presence of people whose economic self-interest is not served by progressive values.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. To paraphrase...

This nation can't accomplish much when it is hamstrung by the presence of people whose economic self-interest is not served by progressive values.

[DesertFlower]

4. i disagree. our will states that our

entire estate go to animal charities. do you want the government to have the money or the ASPCA, humane society, etc.?

[LAGC]

18. There's plenty of needy people who could use government services that money could provide...

Slightly more important than over-bred animals.

[DesertFlower]

20. i'm not talking about over bred

animals. it's the ones in the shelters who have been abandoned by the needy people because they can't afford to keep them.

[LAGC]

23. Well, I feel for those animals, I really do.

But I still think people are more important.

[backwoodsbob]

6. no no no

my mom's house is valued at 125k.I should give it up to the state when she dies ?The state should seize all her belongings?

[Greyhound]

7. Raise the limit, and close the legal loopholes such as directed charities and so on,

and that would be a step in the right direction.
:kick: & R

[backwoodsbob]

9. one mill is a good number

a decent home in a city is WELL over your 100k platform.Everything should be seized by the government when someone dies?

Talk about a fascist state

[safeinOhio]

10. Warren Buffett is only leaving

each of his kids 500K. He says that's not enough to make them lazy. I agree, that would be more than enough unearned income for anyone.

[wickerwoman]

11. Here's how they do it in the UK:

"For the 2010/2011 tax year, the IHT rate is 0% on the first £325,000 (the "nil-rate band), and 40% on the rest of the value, at death, of an individual's tax estate. The nil rate band rises annually; tax is only payable on the value of an estate above the nil rate band. For example, all other things being equal, an individual whose estate is £354,000 (the mean London house price in 2007) will pay IHT amounting to 0% of £325,000 plus 40% of £29,000 i.e. £11,600 in all. This is 40% of the amount over the nil rate band, but in this example, 3.2% of the total value of the estate. Those whose estates match the average nation-wide house price of £210,000 will pay zero IHT."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_%28United_Kingdom%29

This tax is credited with helping to bring down the aristocracy in the UK.

£325,000 = US$510,000
£350,000 = US$550,000

Something starting in this range sounds appropriate to me with a gradually increasing rate bands from 20-80% on estates valued over $100 million.

Currently the estate tax in the US starts at 45% for estates over $3.5 million.

[PavePusher]

12. Legalize government-by-kleptocracy. Got it. Uh... no, thank you. n/t

[flvegan]

13. That's one way to make the estate lawyers and accountants rich.

As the wealthy move their millions offshore and put everything in trust to avoid a law for the naive.

[zeemike]

14. May I suggest that there is a better way?

And it was invented by a guy named Moses way back when....it was called the law of the Sabbath which had these principles.
NO one could be forced to work more than 6 days in a row.
Every seventh year the land must lie fallow.
And every 50 years all property was returned to it's owner.

And it is this last one that made poverty last at most one generation because every 50 years you would get back the land your father and grandfathers had...so every 50 years there was a new deal....They called it the Jubilee.
But it was easy for them to implement because they started by dividing the land equally among the 12 tribes....and under this system they did prosper for several hundred years.

[Oregone]

17. Only problem....

Rich people can afford to set up massive trusts that live beyond their deaths, ensuring their children will retain those assets by being in the trust that owns them

[dkf]

21. I just canvassed an area where people are extending and building on modest plots of land

I even saw some 5 car garages because you have so many families living there. At 100k every single person living in these multifamily homes would be out on the streets once the person with the title dies. Or they would have to take out mortgages just to pay the estate tax and you know where that will probably end.

The average house in Hawaii is worth over half a million and you often have 3 generations in one house. Your idea would decimate many Hawaii families.

[mitchum]

24. But...but...but...mother lions kill prey and bury it so that their cubs can dig it up and eat it...

20 years later!
Why are you against the natural order of the world?

Wait a minute...