Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 100% inheritance tax

Posted 2 years ago on May 23, 2012, 3:45 p.m. EST by ThePrice (-2)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Hi, I have a simple question to the Occupy Movement.

As you know, the elite rules us through their wealth. They own the banks, the corporations, etc. And when the members of the elite pass away, they give their wealth to the next generation as inheritance. And so the wealth stays inside the same families from one generation to another.

So my question is this:

How do you plan to take the elite's wealth away from them?

Because of course you have to do that somehow, in order to bring real change to the world.


I myself think that the only real way to achieve this is to implement a 100% inheritance tax.

This tax would mean the end of the super rich, royalty, banking families, and so on. Also it would guarantee that no such elite can be born again.

All the wealth now held by the elite would go to the state, which can then use it for the common good.


So what is the Occupy Movement's opinion on this?

And if you oppose this idea, then tell me some alternative method on how you plan to remove the elite's wealth from them.

42 Comments

42 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by shifty18 (9) 2 years ago

I'd simply move and the state will be left with 100% of nothing.

[-] -1 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

So after "the 1%" has been destroyed by this tax, and a new system has been installed, you would then leave the country and go somewhere where "the 1%" is still in power?

[-] 1 points by shifty18 (9) 2 years ago

This is if I were part of the 1%. I'd move to avoid the tax.

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

And this way too we would get rid of the 1%. They would be facing the decision to either give up their wealth, or leave the country.

Although personally I would arrest all of them before anyone can escape, and confiscate their wealth.

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

land's not going anywhere

[-] 2 points by shifty18 (9) 2 years ago

It can be sold to buy land elsewhere.

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

lol

[-] 2 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

This is a horrible idea. What about small farmers? Often they have a lot of land, valuable land too, but little cash. It forces them to sell off the land, which is turned into housing estates, a factory farm, or something else less desirable. Think about that before you suggest ridiculous ideas.

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

Small farms are no different from a small companies.

So the state would take control of it, and if the children of the farm/company owner wish to continue the business, they then have to buy this farm/company from the state.

And if they can't afford it, then chances are the farm gets converted into something "less desirable" as you said.

[-] 1 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

What? Why? So the state will steal a farm from a family who has worked it for years simply because the main owner died, then force them to buy it back? That is horrible.

[-] 2 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Tyranny, greed, control, and totalitarianism isn't the answer; it is THE PROBLEM. Answer to your "simple question"-

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/socialism_3.html#sm9CcyYHf52UVaLM.99

[-] 2 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

This is really stood because then you would have to tax everyone's inheritance. Farmland is worth millions of dollars so you would have to take that to. You can't just take everyones money.

[-] 2 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

And so what would you do about family farms? The old man dies, his family wants to keep farming, the income from the farm is $50,000 a year, the land is worth $5 million. In your scenario, the family owes the IRS $5 million that they can't possibly come up with so they have to sell it. Other farmers don't have that kind of money either, by a long shot. The only folks that do are big multinational agricultural conglomerates like Archer Daniels Midland. So they buy it, and now instead of it being a family farm, it's owned and run by a big multinational.

Is that really what you had in mind? And more importantly, would you be willing to go to Nebraska or Kansas and pitch this idea to the people there?

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

About the farms and land, special laws might be needed for them.

But I would say that these would become "socially owned" as well most companies would be. So the state might own one part, some company one part, private investors one part, and the people who work in the farm would own one part.

And no, I would rather not go to those places and tell something like this to the farmers there. But I don't have to, once it's written in the law, these people simply have to have deal with the situation.

[-] 2 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

You seem to be suggesting some sort of collective farm scheme like they had in the Soviet Union. Leaving aside the fact that the collective farm scheme was a dismal flop, what reason do you have to believe that people in this country would accept such a thing? And how do you intend to get it written into law without some critical mass of popular support?

I take it that you'll just force it on them. Interesting. Are you intending to impose some sort of dictatorship, or are you planning to install some sort of elite ruling council that will make decisions for a populace that you deem to stupid to make these decisions for themselves?

[-] 1 points by 22250flatshot (-18) 2 years ago

Inheritance taxes are singularly hated. If you want to be cast aside as a politician, raise the inheritance tax.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

I suggest that everyone here reads this:

http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/

Here's a great quote about the 100% Inheritance tax from their front page:

What do the elite fear above all? - having their wealth taken from them. What does 100% inheritance tax achieve? Precisely that - the complete and irrevocable end of dynastic wealth.

Imagine a world in which the rich realised they would lose all of their money and assets to the Commonwealth at their death. They would have to spend, spend, spend, wouldn’t they? A huge amount of cash and assets would be pumped into the economy. Recession would turn into growth and this time there would be no boom and bust economic cycle because there would no longer be any point in the rich seeking to bend every rule in the book to make themselves richer, knowing that all of their money would eventually end up with the Commonwealth.

The world can be changed overnight - just by stopping the rich elite in their tracks. If you really do believe in the 99% versus the 1% then demand the introduction of the tax that guarantees the victory of the 99% percent - 100% INHERITANCE TAX, the bedrock of meritocracy. Anyone who opposes 100% inheritance tax is a friend of privilege and the rich elite. Anyone who opposes 100% inheritance tax is a supporter of a two-tier society where those who can pass on resources are the winners and the rest are losers: permanent second class citizens.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

Here's a nice list of "heirs awaiting an inheritance" :

http://www.inheritancefunding.com/Inheritance-Funding-Blog/bid/20410/Heirs-to-Today-s-Largest-Fortunes

Will the Occupy movement allow all these heirs and heiresses to get their inheritances?

Or would you rather see the state taking control of all of that wealth?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I haven't thought about this one very much because I don't think it is a high priority. But here are some thoughts. Since the beneficiaries have almost always had considerable advantage of their family's wealth, it is not unreasonable to expect and require them to put the whole package to work. Managing the wealth as a charitable fund, would be a way to use their education and supposed skills. Regulating the charities and limiting their investments to socially responsible one's, and the distribution of the income to valid socially beneficial causes (not political one's) could certainly be done.

If you want them to wind down, you could stipulate the distribution of a fraction of the principle until it is gone.

You seem to want someone to speak for the group so you could make a point. I am deliberately not doing that. But I have given you a solution to a problem that many consider real. So, what exactly is your point?

The profligate spending of irresponsible children is probably not an effective policy.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

problem with this is more money in the goverments hands doesnt help the people not one ioda. how about redistribute the wealth to the poorest people who can prove that they have worked steadily for 5-10 years.

or use the money to finance home building on land that we the people already own, yea thats right we own the land, the government cannot own land, and then allow the poorest to move in their rent free.

[-] -1 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

But in order to redistribute the wealth, it first has to be taken away from the elite one way or another.

This tax I proposed achieves just that.

So first the wealth would go to the government, which can then redistribute it to the people.

But the problem here of course would be, that we need the "good guys" to be in control of the government. And the current political system cannot provide such real leaders. Both the democrats and the rebuplicans are corrupt.

So first we need to abolish the current political system, which has clearly failed one time after another, and then set up a better system in it's place.

[-] 2 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

Regardless of who you put in, you won't end up with a system like that. Whoever has the redistribution power will ALWAYS be influenced to give out more money to one person over another...or even keep it for themselves.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

This is exactly why you idiots will never be successful, your greed, avarice, envy, hatred and jealousy are palpable and to a non-diseased mind you come across as a murdering little creep.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

100 % is not enough.

You must nip this in the bud.

Rich kids have way too much of an advantage from day one. You must prevent them from unfairly receiving all sorts of goodies from their parents including:

Expensive nanny

Private school tuition

Tutors

Nutritious food

A fancy house

Nice cloths

The cool new car that you were jealous of in the high school parking lot

Expensive prom dress

Fancy vacations

Big Wedding

College tuition at an exclusive school that daddy's endowment got them in.

Good connections for that first job

A job in the family business

Tuition for the grand-kids

And don't forget a loving home, they surely don't deserve that

[-] 2 points by farmer88 (40) 2 years ago

Sounds like all you have is a huge grudge, especially when looking at that last one. I'd suggest seeing someone to let out all your anger.

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

So, from what I have read from these comments so far, it would seem that a few people here support this idea, but also many are against it.

But as I said in my original post, if you don't like it, then try to present me a better alternative.

In the front page of this website it reads that "the only solution is World Revolution".

That statement alone makes one assume that you would have some radical solutions on how to fix things.

So let's hear them.

...

So:

  1. How does this group plan to take away the elite's wealth and power?
  2. Or is it planning to do that at all?
  3. And if not, then why does this group even exists?

Because how can there be a "world revolution", if the super rich are allowed to keep all their wealth and the ownership of banks, corporations, industries and so on?

You must understand that the "top 1%" are actually FAMILIES, which stay in power and get richer only because they are allowed to always pass their wealth to the next generation.

But if we take away their ability to transfer their wealth to the next generation, then these families will surely be destroyed. This is what the elite fear the most.

...

And to make my point as simple as possible, consider this question:

When some super rich "banker baron" dies of old age, what would the Occupy movement do to his wealth?

  1. Would you allow the children of this banker to inherit it all?

  2. Or would you rather see the state to take control of this wealth, which can then redistribute it and use it for the common good?

...

[-] 2 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

"You must understand that the "top 1%" are actually FAMILIES, which stay in power and get richer only because they are allowed to always pass their wealth to the next generation."

Not hardly my friend. The richest people in this country today are almost all self-made -- athletes, movie stars and entertainers, self-made businessmen and women like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, et al. And many of them, particularly the athletes, come from poor backgrounds. The inherited old money isn't much of a factor anymore, and certainly doesn't control politics. You guys are taking your cues from a very outdated playbook.

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

Even if their wealth is self-made, in most cases they were paid way too much for their work/achievements.

And after these people eventually die, then all that wealth is inherited by their children and family members, and at this point it becomes "old money".


Also check out this:

http://www.therichest.org/world/richest-women/

That's the list of the richest women in world, and all of them inherited their wealth, except one.

[-] 2 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Paid too much? Really? Nobody makes you buy an iPod. Every dime that Steve Jobs made came from somebody that willingly forked over some money to buy a luxury that they most certainly could had done without. If they choose to do so, by what right does someone else have the right to interfere?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if I have no inheritance

I would be in the streets

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdIxHQYH4ME&feature=email&email=comment_received

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

The reason why the "1%" (that you're supposedly resisting) is in power and owns half of the world, is: 1. Because they have been allowed to gather massive wealth And 2. Because they have been allowed to keep that wealth inside their families through inheritances.

These families control the politics and law making by using their wealth and influence.

So if you want beat this 1%, you must take away their wealth. It's so simple.

And if you don't want to do that, then what's the point of this Occupy movement?

...

I originally got this 100% inheritance tax idea from this website: http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/

It describes a new system called Meritocracy, which sounds like a good alternative to our current system. I recommend you check it out.

[-] 2 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

We already have something of a meritocracy. That's why Steve Jobs was a billionaire.

[-] 0 points by ilovewallstreet (-27) 2 years ago

Cant believe what im reading. you people are marxists, socialists, worshiping a system that died in the USSR over 20m years ago. why take people's inheritance? how is that justice? is that what are founding fathers had in mind? of course not. and the idea to take peoples inheritance and give it to the State is rediculous. if we've learned anything its that the state is the worse choice when it comes to using capital efficiently. are you people even remotely educated on the basics of finance, economics, and most importantly, the Constitution?

[-] 0 points by RevolutionCA (33) 2 years ago

The USSR was state capitalist. The proletariat did not run anything, the state did. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production, not the state. The founding fathers were not the best people in history. Most of them owned slaves and thought that the people were too stupid to govern themselves.

[-] 0 points by ThePrice (-2) 2 years ago

This Occupy movement, and all other movements like it, need to have some concrete goals. We need to make change proposals that will cause fear in the elite.

This 100% inheritance tax idea is definitely one such proposal.

Because this is a fact: There won't be any real change unless the elite's wealth is taken away from them, and redistributed more evenly.

So in one way or another, we need to do it.

I have read your goals, and right now there seems to be no plan on how to remove the elite's wealth. But you need such a plan, otherwise you'll achieve nothing. Because if the elite is just simply allowed to keep all their wealth and assets, then what will change after the "revolution"?


I have written a short summary about this 100% inheritance tax in my own website: http://m484games.ucoz.com/index/100_inheritance_tax/0-26

It tells one way to do it (and in fact it's not quite 100% after all, as you can see, "daily stuff" and things like that would be freed from the tax).

Just imagine the panic that would strike the bankers, corporate bosses, royalty and the super rich, if the people would suddenly start demanding something like this...

[-] 2 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Your only problem is that the people will never start demanding this. Most people accumulate a bit of wealth by old age -- at least some money in the bank and a house that's paid for. They want to leave to to their kids and grandkids, and the kids and grandkids are looking forward to getting it. You'd take it all away and give it to the government. Good luck on that one. It'll never happen in a million years.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28124) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OH - Yes They Do.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (7328) from Coon Rapids, MN 14 minutes ago

Blind marchers hate it:

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (7328) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 minutes ago

The blind marchers ( supporters of the greedy corrupt white collar criminals ) sure hate this post.

I think there might be direct action proposals in it that could bother them a little.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/get-active-be-proactive-unite-in-common-cause/

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[-] 0 points by Renneye (3818) 2 years ago

100% inheritance tax is a part of the meritocracy system. You can build up a business over a lifetime, but then everything gets taken when you die. While having social benefits, I don't think it will ever fly with society today. I don't think we need to remove the elite's wealth, so much as we need to remove their power and their influence on power. That can best be done by not allowing elite corporate money into politics.

[-] 0 points by tinissima (6) 2 years ago

Thank you for finally bringing up a REAL issue, that is truly affecting us!! I think a 100% inheritance tax is unrealistic, but the percentage should definitely be revisited. Along with the estate tax!! Another REAL issue. You know who would support this? Probably the Gates family. Gates Sr. fought so that the estate tax would not be removed. Those are the alliances that OWS should be building.

[+] -6 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

99% after 5 million till the debt is paid

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

80%

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (7010) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

take longer to pay off, but sure I could work with that