- 10 Aug 2012 05:29
#14028049
There are many arguments made against people who get something for nothing (i.e. those “deadbeats” "on the public dole"). Those arguments can be persuasive. I would like to see those arguments applied to the beneficiaries of estates. Looking at it from the perspective of a decedent who wanted to give his/her money to heirs, you'd think he/she would be "entitled" to give their "hard-earned" money to anyone they want to, thus avoiding a "death tax." But instead, look at if from the point of view of the recipient. What distinguishes an heir from anyone else who gets something for nothing?
Let's take all of the arguments used against all those people who get something for nothing and apply those arguments against heirs. Where do these recipients get their sense of “entitlement”? If those heirs claim to have "earned" it, then why were they not paid during the decedent’s life? And if it was earned, did they pay income tax on those earnings, like everyone else?
In reality, there is a compounding of wealth going on here, as any economist will tell you. And much of that wealth is un-earned. This compounding occurs not only with money, but with education, culture, values, and any number of other benefits we find increasing as we go up the economic ladder.
Without a death tax, the divide grows larger between those who work hard for their money and those, both rich and poor, who don't. Which begs a question: Why do those who work hard for their money continue to support those who don't work so hard on the rich end (heirs), while lambasting those who don't work so hard on the poor end. Both recipients, on both ends, are getting something for nothing.
I think I may have an answer. When you follow the money back, you find, inevitably, that at some point in the past, some of it was not earned. Indeed, some of it was taken, stolen, or obtained through theft of land and property (Indians, for example) or services (slavery, for example, including indentured servitude and general abuse; blacks, Irish, Chinese, etc.). This wealth too was compounded over the generations and the recipients thereof received better educations, contacts and other advantages.
However, we like to wipe the slate clean with each new generation, refusing to make a son pay for the sins of his father. And, we go so far as excusing those sins through contemprorary justifications (it was legal back then, of those Indians attacked each other and us too, or blacks sold blacks, so there!).
So, part of our culture and values is the idea that we start fresh with each generation on the liability end of morality, but not so much on the asset end of immorality. We don’t all start fresh in the working world and bootstrap ourselves up. Even is we work hard, we still stand upon the bones of our fathers, mothers, and all the victims who have gone before.
There is a compounding of cultural values too. The more distance and time we can put between us on how we got this way, the more of an excuse we have to not except responsibility for how it came, and it’s compounding in our favor.
There is hypocrisy here. If the son shall not be held for the sins of the father, why does he get the wealth? Why is he not at least cast in the same bin with the entitlement-sucking welfare queen that is so despised; because he wears a nice suit? If the son gets the wealth, then let him pay for the sins that engendered it. Follow the money.
It does not have to be so draconian. A simple and *partial* redistribution on what was NOT earned would suffice. At the very least, we shouldn’t have to listen to these beneficiaries talk about how they are risk-taking, swashbuckling, rugged individualist captains of industry who bootstrapped themselves into their wealth, alone, with their own hard work and brains; especially when many of them are so quick to whine about the sense of entitlement among those who receive government handouts for nothing. Better to level the playing field a little bit with each new generation and spend our time and money on our children and their educations while we are alive.
When some hear these arguments they just slough it off to “liberal guilt.” But what is liberal guilt, really, other than prima facia evidence of a moral conscience which many conservatives claim to be absent in the liberal mind? Some are awful quick to thump the Bible and claim liberals lack any sense of decency or morals. Hmmmmm. What would Jesus do?
Next time you hear some conservative complaining about those who get something for nothing a few Socratic questions might be in order. There is a lot of luck involved. If you will stipulate to that, then please follow it to its logical conclusion and don’t base arguments on purported character or lack thereof with defending or attacking the lucky and the not so lucky.
Let's take all of the arguments used against all those people who get something for nothing and apply those arguments against heirs. Where do these recipients get their sense of “entitlement”? If those heirs claim to have "earned" it, then why were they not paid during the decedent’s life? And if it was earned, did they pay income tax on those earnings, like everyone else?
In reality, there is a compounding of wealth going on here, as any economist will tell you. And much of that wealth is un-earned. This compounding occurs not only with money, but with education, culture, values, and any number of other benefits we find increasing as we go up the economic ladder.
Without a death tax, the divide grows larger between those who work hard for their money and those, both rich and poor, who don't. Which begs a question: Why do those who work hard for their money continue to support those who don't work so hard on the rich end (heirs), while lambasting those who don't work so hard on the poor end. Both recipients, on both ends, are getting something for nothing.
I think I may have an answer. When you follow the money back, you find, inevitably, that at some point in the past, some of it was not earned. Indeed, some of it was taken, stolen, or obtained through theft of land and property (Indians, for example) or services (slavery, for example, including indentured servitude and general abuse; blacks, Irish, Chinese, etc.). This wealth too was compounded over the generations and the recipients thereof received better educations, contacts and other advantages.
However, we like to wipe the slate clean with each new generation, refusing to make a son pay for the sins of his father. And, we go so far as excusing those sins through contemprorary justifications (it was legal back then, of those Indians attacked each other and us too, or blacks sold blacks, so there!).
So, part of our culture and values is the idea that we start fresh with each generation on the liability end of morality, but not so much on the asset end of immorality. We don’t all start fresh in the working world and bootstrap ourselves up. Even is we work hard, we still stand upon the bones of our fathers, mothers, and all the victims who have gone before.
There is a compounding of cultural values too. The more distance and time we can put between us on how we got this way, the more of an excuse we have to not except responsibility for how it came, and it’s compounding in our favor.
There is hypocrisy here. If the son shall not be held for the sins of the father, why does he get the wealth? Why is he not at least cast in the same bin with the entitlement-sucking welfare queen that is so despised; because he wears a nice suit? If the son gets the wealth, then let him pay for the sins that engendered it. Follow the money.
It does not have to be so draconian. A simple and *partial* redistribution on what was NOT earned would suffice. At the very least, we shouldn’t have to listen to these beneficiaries talk about how they are risk-taking, swashbuckling, rugged individualist captains of industry who bootstrapped themselves into their wealth, alone, with their own hard work and brains; especially when many of them are so quick to whine about the sense of entitlement among those who receive government handouts for nothing. Better to level the playing field a little bit with each new generation and spend our time and money on our children and their educations while we are alive.
When some hear these arguments they just slough it off to “liberal guilt.” But what is liberal guilt, really, other than prima facia evidence of a moral conscience which many conservatives claim to be absent in the liberal mind? Some are awful quick to thump the Bible and claim liberals lack any sense of decency or morals. Hmmmmm. What would Jesus do?
Next time you hear some conservative complaining about those who get something for nothing a few Socratic questions might be in order. There is a lot of luck involved. If you will stipulate to that, then please follow it to its logical conclusion and don’t base arguments on purported character or lack thereof with defending or attacking the lucky and the not so lucky.