Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

[farmaholic]

Its known as inter vivos transfer, happens all the time.

Good thing its only a hypothetical problem we're discussing....heaven forbid. It would never happen.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As a farmer, with sons interested in farming, and having been given a discount on buying land from my parents, who got a break buying land from their parents, I am against the idea of inheritance taxes, as would be any farmer. I suggested 100% to be controversial, probably doesn't need to be that high to have the required effect.

But, as an ambitious hard working, wage earner earlier in my career, trying to save funds to buy enough land and expand the farm to be viable, I would have been further ahead the other way.

We must be all familiar with the concept of compound interest? Money invested at the beginning of ones career/life goes much further than at the end. Same with paying income tax on income earned early in life as compared to investing it. Give ambitious young people the ability to keep what they earn by eliminating income taxes, and they can afford to get a start in whatever business they want even without a hand up from parents. The current scenario all but guarantees the only ones farming ( for example) are those who inherited it. Does that mean that they are the best, most efficient managers of that business, or are there others who would be much more capable, but never get the chance due to governments stealing most of their income as taxes?

Right now we already have a massive wealth redistribution from the working middle class to the welfare state and to those connected to government, and the socialists only want to make that worse. What I am proposing is that IF society believes that redistribution is necessary( and that natural economic cycles won't do it for us sooner or later), then inheritance taxes would do the least harm to an individuals motivation to create wealth. Any other wealth redistribution scam just completely destroys the entrepreneurial spirit and all motivation.

Can anyone else propose a better means of funding governments ( there is a minimum level of service that even us die hard free market small government types expect), controlling monopolies( how much complaining is there about family owned monopolistic grain companies on Agriville?), Motivating citizens to create wealth to contribute to the economy, and ensuring that the most capable are the ones managing the businesses?

If your parents were able to start a business from scratch, pay for it and expand it, and passed on those values and work ethic, and if the business model is still valid, why can't you do the same and pay for it again the same way? Made that much easier with 100% after tax dollars instead of 50%.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Farma you nailed it.

Why would anyone work get ahead if the day they die it all goes to the government.

Sounds like Russia and boy that worked good.

The men gave up working found it was more fun to Drink and party and do piss all than work the women worked to feed their family and the country didn't move ahead it went backwards.

So whoever thought up that stupid idea give your head a shake.

I'd rather be allowed the opportunity to amass and enjoy a large fortune by compounding my investment while I'm alive, but lose it all after I'm dead and no longer able to enjoy it, than never be given the chance to create any wealth since big governments taxes take most of it my entire career.

[farmaholic]

You are a smart fellow AF5, and I don't want to get into a sparring match with you on this topic. But if you're giving 50% of your net away in taxes while trying to build a business, you better incorporate. I don't think there's a solution for the average person pulling in big money and saving for a down payment or subsidizing a fledgling farm/ business. Not everyone can incorporate as a consultant or a "business".

There's no free ****ing ride under incorporation either, it allows you to build the business quicker with bigger net tax dollars....but it's all accounted for against the shareholders or their beneficiaries. The Taxman, er I mean Taxperson, gets their pound of flesh sooner or later!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

You are a smart fellow AF5, and I don't want to get into a sparring match with you on this topic. But if you're giving 50% of your net away in taxes while trying to build a business, you better incorporate. I don't think there's a solution for the average person pulling in big money and saving for a down payment or subsidizing a fledgling farm/ business. Not everyone can incorporate as a consultant or a "business".

There's no free ****ing ride under incorporation either, it allows you to build the business quicker with bigger net tax dollars....but it's all accounted for against the shareholders or their beneficiaries. The Taxman, er I mean Taxperson, gets their pound of flesh sooner or later!

We are incorporated now, but that requires a certain economy of scale to justify, which meant that I spent all these years building the business with after tax dollars. Incorporation Works excellent for expanding and existing profitable business, But is no help at all saving to start an invest in a new venture. If anything it is a barrier to entry To anyone not already established. I bought all of our land with after-tax dollars, and now that we are incorporated land costs are out of reality Even at corporate tax rates, Which partially defeated the purpose of incorporating. At least by my math,Apparently other People's math is different or better I suppose.