Enough

Is it your belief that every rich family has direct ownership of a company that they hand down generation to generation?

For as long as the parent gives it to their child, yes.

Yeah. That’s not how it works. A family whose wealth is dependent on the performance of a single company is most likely not going to stay rich for generations. Long term wealth requires diversification. Rich families are handing down large portfolios of publicly traded companies, real estate, etc. that produce passive income and are structured to weather downturns in the market.
The truth is the second or third generation that is inheriting wealth is not working for it, nor are they in control of the employment of the middle class. That’s why trickledown has never been effective.

So your argument that rich kids shouldn't inherit, is that that they're not gonna stay rich anyway?? Where do you see the problem if what you say is happening??

No I didn’t say anything of the sort. What I’m saying is that your idea that rich kids can shut down what their forefathers built is dumb and shows that you don’t actually understand how any of it works.
Also if the idea is that you only deserve what you work for then shouldn’t we have no problem with people giving up what they didn’t work for?

If that is the case.. then all old and unhealthy businessmen should be scrapping their business at the end of their lives, rendering everyone jobless and helpless??

I'm not working for my benefit, I'm working for my family's.
If I can set them up for a millennia or longer, I will. And God have mercy on anyone who tries to take that away, because I'm sure as fuck not going to stand idly by while what I built is taken away from those I built it for just because some snake of a politician decides they know better what to do with what's mine.

Again you demonstrate a warped idea of business. Business owners sell out to larger entities or go public when they are ready to exit. Exits are an essential strategy and are considered as early as the formation of the business.
Once the exit is taken then the capital is diversified into investments. That’s how long term multi-generation estates come to be. Do you really think Sam Walton’s kids own Wal-Mart? Do you think Zuckerberg owns Facebook?

If you don't think Walmart and Facebook aren't owned by one single person, what their spend thrifty kids do, shouldn't be a problem eh?
And if there is a law someday targeting the inheritance, middle class will be most affected, bcz even a napkin given by a parent to their kid will be considered inheritance..and will be acted upon

You keep interpreting what I’m saying as something to do with taxing inheritance and I’m not sure why. All I said is that families don’t control the same business generation after generation.
So, since it’s what you want to talk about.. In my state inheritance below $5mil is not taxed. I can’t really feel sorry for someone who is getting that much and has to pay basic income taxes on it like we do on the money we work for.

Scatmandingo, i think we're confused with what you think it SHOULD look like. You pointed out problems with what currently exists and in the absence of a solution from you, the people here have drawn their own conclusions to what they think your fix is.
.
Could you fill us in on how you see to fix it? Or what a better system would look like?

Do you guys actually read what I write? I never said anything was a problem.
I have stated the following things:
1. @coldpasta doesn’t understand how wealthy people became wealthy or how they actually act once they are.
2. There is a $5mil (now $11mil) tax exemption for inheritance and I don’t see anything wrong with people paying taxes above that.
3. If the spirit of the post is that “you should work for what you have” then why are people defending those who inherit their money and don’t work for it? Shouldn’t they shoulder a proportionally equal burden toward society as the rest of us?
At no point did I say the system wasn’t working, merely correcting things that were stated incorrectly and asking a question.

This has been a better read than the post, thank you scatmandingo

I have to agree with @scatmandingo on a few points. Chiefly, privilege. The thing almost no one wants to admit when discussing the “work for what you have” mantra is that so much of what we have and what we are able to do or get out of life was given to us by birthright. If we truly believe “work for what you have” then parents shouldn’t be able to help children, House them, pay college, but them cars, help establish credit, or consign or leave them property or wealth. If an athlete takes steroids, they still must train. In fact, in many ways they must train harder. They must lift more or run longer or so on, because the drugs don’t do the work, they allow you to work more and surpass what you could otherwise do. Athletes don’t take steroids to reach a point they could naturally with more work, they do it to reach points beyond their limits once they’ve reached that wall. If your parents pay for Harvard, you still must go and pass the classes, you still have to put in the work to...

... get promoted and have a career. So you did work hard just like someone on steroids must work hard to get far. However- how far would you have gotten without that boost? If you would have ended up in the same place then you didn’t need the help and someone else did. If you wouldn’t have, then you can’t look down on others who haven’t achieved what you have because you couldn’t have done it in their shoes either. So in sportsmanship- where the spirit of competition is fiercest next to the battle field and family court, and the spirit of fair play is held to high regard, they don’t let people compete who are juiced against people who aren’t, but in a society we control the rules to, we are fine to allow people to compete with an unfair advantage they did nothing to earn? People like feeling special, in charge, they like to feel that they deserve what they have and justify people having les as just being bad people or not wanting to work “like they did.”

@scatmandingo - "The truth is the second or third generation that is inheriting wealth is not working for it, nor are they in control of the employment of the middle class. That’s why trickledown has never been effective."
.
Like i said, you wrote what you think doesn't work. Trickle down economics is a ridiculous analogy for capitalism, but it is capitalism. If not "trickle down", what should happen?
.
I dont think anyone on the planet would honestly suggest that capitalism is perfect. But i believe it's the best system (not the crony version) humanity has ever had. Your words would suggest a disagreement with that statement.

TY

Firstly, the majority of people who benefit from social programs are not “lazy, drug addicted losers.” Secondly, the reason you must pay taxes, and why @guest especially must pay taxes- is because almost everyone is stupid. Case in point this argument. Your taxes fund roads that you use, that the goods and services you enjoy travel on. Drinking water, disaster relief, education so that other people can go earn a decent living too, and not be completely trapped in generational poverty because their parents couldn’t afford a private school. It makes sure you’ll have doctors and accountants and inventions in 20-30 years. It makes sure that the vast majority of the country who has less than you doesn’t rise up and form an insurrection. People who have something to lose are less likely to risk it than people who see the alternatives as better than their situation. You don’t need a fancy degree to correlate countries and areas with low poverty generally having lower crime rates.

You're right, I'm lying my ass off.

@guest While they’re not all lazy junkies there is a portion of the taker population that are third, fourth or even fifth generation takers since the 70s who pass on only the skill of mastering the system to their kids. I have been in public housing buildings where able bodied men are playing video games 8 hours a day. Persons deemed disabled for social phobias stand on the corner selling pirated movies and music to supplement their state income. If you can manage to qualify and hide your stolen car part business income the benefits in NY equal that of a $43,000 job, and they are demanding more. That means that non taxpayers are voting to grant themselves more of the money I worked to earn. Less than 50% of our population pays taxes. According to the census bureau 63% of illegals are also on some sort of public assistance. The 45% of my hard earned income that is redistributed goes in part to fund legions of undeserving cheats.

This is completely true. And people with no kids have a portion of their income go to schools, non-smokers tax money goes to treat COPD in active smokers via medicare, tax money from people who don’t watch football go into infrastructure improvements for stadiums.
That’s how our society works. You have to pay the taxes as your admission price. The elected officials decide where it is spent. You don’t like it you can vote against them, you can even run for office if you’re really worried about it.

I’ve done both. The takers outnumber the earners. They vote themselves more of my money every year.

I see. So if the government provides you with roads, schools, and military protection for free, then who's the taker? This is childish.

Infrastructure and defense are not what I’m talking about. When Bill Deblasio runs to a mic and proclaims that NYC will offer sanctuary to illegals and that NY has a great Medicaid program that covers illegals he is hurting NY taxpayers. Large portions of our population pay no tax or receive benefits that exceed the tax they do pay. I’m paying $6000 in annual property tax for a modest home in an agricultural community in NY, our state income tax is one of the highest in the nation. We have some terrible roads and bridges though.

What is being discussed is a classic example of transference- not a valid argument to the subject at hand. The fact that New York State, or any other entity charges an overburden of taxes is, while unfortunate, not material. What you describe can be easily explained as onenof two things. The first is a prime example of the point of much of this debate- that the fact we do not directly benefit, or directly see the good done by tax dollars not not mitigate that good, it merely is a lack of understanding on parts. A fallacy- “I do not see it, but I see XYZ, therefore that I do not see does not exist.” However it is more likely, both by your description and my experiences with East Coast infrastructure that it is the second- Ineefeiciency and corruption of the public management. The fact that entities and individuals acting in ineptitude or self interest are taking more money than they actually need to accomplish things they are failing to accomplish due to these things...

If you give guy $11 for dinner but he buys a pack of cigarettes instead he’s an asshole.

Bad example but it works too.

... doesn’t devalue or argue against public welfare programs, it is a separate argument for “cleaning house” of those who cannot do the job, and refining processes to prevent waste and abuse. In the welfare system, someone above mentions generational welfare families. That is a prime example. Most welfare programs are designed to provide as a “stop gap” whence is going well and then it is not. A few even require rudimentary criteria like “must be employed..” but most punish success, reducing benefits faster than a person can build their financial health. It’s a cycle. Investing money instead to teach people, to give them financial intelligence and job skills and placement which will allow them to function both at an income that makes public aid the poor choice, and in a placement that suits them- that is an investment in breaking that cycle and making self sufficient families and people. And yes- some will always abuse public welfare or any system. Just because some doctors are bad...

... or some patients abuse the medical system to get drugs, is that an argument to defund or disband the medical profession? No. Just because some abuse a good thing doesn’t mean the whole thing is bad. Just because (fake numbers for example) 8% of patients use a life saving medicine to get high doesn’t mean that the other 92% who actually may need or need it should be denied it punitively.

One alternative theory to the “inefficiency and corruption” situation is that it’s just really fucking hard to run a government. We see one politician follow another and another and none are able to affect much change for the most part. What are the odds we only elect incompetent people vs the job they have is exceeding difficult?

You’re right @scatmandingo. Something as enormous as a government and involving so many facets and subjective factors is not something we can realistically expect even the greatest human minds of all time to do “perfectly.” I did not mean to imply that all public servants- or even most are corrupt or incompetent. Just that of one chooses to take a negative view of the situation, that those two negatives are more workable than a view that taxes on their own are inherently wasteful, or that social welfare is a waste of money or that money raised for social welfare specifically will be instead somehow squandered. I am sorry if my comments made it seem like I was unappreciative of the public service of many passionate and upright people. At the end of the day even many of the corrupt or inept public servants either have their heart in the right place or are making strategic compromise to try and do “small bad” for “greater good.” It’s an important duality that we can acknowledge...

... challenges of a task, appreciate progress already made, but still recognize their is room for improvement. Our system has much room for improvement, but it is still far better than many alternatives. Thank you @scaandingo for that perspective and for pointing out how there was huge room to interpret what I said as a condemnation of all who dedicate themselves to the public good. My uncle was a long term local mayor of a small but famous/infamous town. I know very well the sacrifices and duties of politics, and while his decisions could sometimes not be what I would call “right” morally, he did a lot of good and was well loved for his contributions- and paid a very high personal price to achieve them.

I am involved in town politics. They all want less taxes and more services. I’m of the opinion that government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub. What we have now is a disgusting mess of redundancy and patronage. Public sector unions have bastardized “public service” to the point that a state job in NY is like winning the lottery. Paycheck for the rest of your life and you can coast for the 20-25 years you actually hold the job. Fuck that, that’s not how the rest of us live.

Well- unions are a complicated thing, but I agree with you that if things worked- we wouldn’t need unions, and slapping together a broken system to make up for a broken system isn’t a good solution. It’s tribal warfare- a bunch of little groups who all want the same thing but are fighting each other to get it, just like social welfare. People without money fighting people with less money, everyone fighting over table scraps while a minority eats lobster and enjoys the show safe because en masse all those voices could all have what they want- with compromise, but they all want to get exactly what they want so we build the division required to keep anyone from getting very far without joining the table. The smallest practical government is the best government- but the primary purpose of government is to do what people can’t, or is impractical for people to do.

The government should be like a good supervisor at work. It does paperwork and has meetings so everyone else can focus on their tasks, it protects every department and the company from outside threats the average employee can’t do anything about or may not even know of. It lets you do what you need to do- within some rules and boundaries- but doesn’t look over your shoulder or micro manage. It arbitrates disputes between equals, when two departments fight for resources or to achieve conflicting goals it looks at the bigger picture and determines where the priority is. It makes sure it’s employees are happy, healthy, taken care of, and sets some ground rules for a culture where people can get along well enough to be productive and not hate being there. The governments main purpose is to take a bunch of people who all have their own styles and attributes and make sure they can all live as they like- without stepping on each other’s toes- and to make the call when one persons ideas...

... on living stop another or multiple people from having the chance to live their way. We are all individuals with goals and sacrifices and families and ourselves we are trying to take care of. We all have dreams and ideas about what our lives should be like and we want to try and make those reality. But like a supervisor- we must realize that without employees there is no company, but without a company there are no employees. We are all part of this country. That’s teal patriotism. Recognizing that every single person, like em, hate em, agree with em or hunk they’re a loon- everyone including ourselves is a part of America- is an American- and so the company needs to run well. When it runs well, everyone is supposed to see those benefits, maybe not everything you ever wanted- but a fair shake, a home, enough to raise a family or follow your passions. So yeah- the government needs to stay out of the way enough to let us each try for those dreams, but it also needs to weave the canvas.

.. we paint those dreams on, and make sure that since we are all painting on the same canvas that we all play nice and everyone has room to put their mark on it.