It is the goal of the Right to remove what they call the "Death Tax", that is, inheritance tax - taxes paid on the value of property left to one's children and other relatives. Inheritance, of course, is something only wealthy families have to worry about. The opportunity to leave something behind to care for your children applies to a relatively small proportion of families. For most of history, in most of the world today, and in most American families, things are sort of the other way round. Parents need children to look after them as they age and their own fortunes diminish. If a child dies prematurely, the economic impact on a poor family can be considerable. The child will not be able to contribute his or her labor and/or income to the well-being of the parent(s), placing the burden of supporting the parent(s) on the State, or, in the case of a callous and uncaring State, leaving the parent(s) to rot.
I would therefore like to propose a Death Tax to replace Inheritance Tax: whenever a child predeceases one or both remaining parents, said child shall be replaced via a tax levied on families at the oppposite end of the median-income continuum. Specifically, one child, of similar age, shall be removed from a wealthy family and transplanted into the poorer one. Of course, this could work in the other direction, such as when the child of a wealthy family is killed in a riding accident, sportscar crash, bungled kidnapping attempt or from piloting an airplane while high on cocaine. It is more likely, however, that the flow of Death Tax replacement children would trend in the other direction, since death due to war, poverty, malnourishment, overwork, street-violence, police brutality, stress, suicide, work-related accidents, preventable/curable diseases, tends to affect the poor disproprtionately.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Treating children like possessions to be traded for economic or cultural reasons does not make any psychological sense whatsoever. People with money are just as subject to emotions as less privileged people and tearing kids away from their parents is a horrible idea. There are plenty of orphans who can be placed into families who can properly care for them. But this must be done with great care.
Oooo... I didn't know you could troll on here...
The idea suggested is possibly a joke. The upper class represents a very small proportion of the population in comparison to the lower and middle class. The upper class would completely run out of children by the year 2013 and by the year 2040 the upper class would cease to exist. Then nobody would be around to create employment for the lower and middle class. We're talking about a complete economic breakdown here. Somebody stop this quick! :O
Oviously the child cannot move home..... the tax burden of that child might do though. Lets say a family have three children and their estimaed help to their parents in old age is say $6,000 per annum after their parents are 65.
Now one of them dies leaving the parents with a possible only $4,000 per annum after 65. Why can we not help out by replacing thse peoples CURRENT tax burden which would be locked away from them til they retire. After all they gave the state TWO NEW TAXPAYERS and they were prepared from thier own already taxed pockets to raise a third taxpayer. Surely their investment in their children can be recognised!
The object of death duty (allegedly, ignoring just collecting money) is to prevent wealth accumulating over generations. The rich tend to get richer. Without death duties, if you have enough money to pay for your retirement and some left over, that goes to your children, who start with investments earning more and accumulate even more than you ever did. But those that inherit nothing are left out.
That is how the landed aristocracy kept getting richer over centuries, and the poor getting poorer, until the industrialisation brought a new rich and revolutions overthrew them both.
That is why death duties are often charged on the receiver, if you distribute your money amongst many recipients less tax is charged in total.
With death duties, if you are rich you can ensure your children are rich, and possibly your grand-children as well, but after that they have to earn some money.
The alternative: Bill Gates great-great-grandchildren owning everything!
You can always have life-insurance for your children.
The offhanded remark that it is the wealthy that create jobs that support the rest of us should not go unchallenged. The majority of businesses that create jobs are small businesses. The large corporations are not necessarily the creations of the wealthy. They are owned by many many people who own stock and who may not necessarily be wealthy. Undoubtedly the CEOs that may direct large corporations are frequently very wealthy but their current policies of sending huge numbers of jobs to other countries to increase profits (where labor is cheaper) is not exactly encouraging to people in the local labor market.