posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:15 AM
Originally posted by OnTheLevel213
It's perfectly clear. It's just that a 100% inheritance tax likely will go to expanding the welfare system, thus disincentivizing people to get off
I am a bit confused, I do not know where I brought up a 100% inheritance tax, and didn't know that was part of this theory, but I've not been back to
this thread for a while, I may have fogotten things.
But all taxes go to government spending.
"Expanding the welfare system" means what? I don't think I understand what you mean by that?
What about using that money to hire more social workers and investigators that will enforce laws and rules upon those receiving aid? Less abuse and
less freedom for them tends to be a deterent, I have seen.
In this country, you don't get a check each month- you are put into government housing and put into a system which controls what you do and forces you
to take steps towards re-insertion into the society. You are obligated to take courses and classes, and have daily surveillence and guidance.
If you want freedom, you have to get off the state.
Funding could go to that sort of program and would not encourage people to become (or remain) dependant.
That's my point; that you presume Paris Hilton is a representative sample. It seems like everyone's mind just defaults to idle, ill-behaved socialites
when the children of the rich are mentioned.
Okay I see what you meant then! But I will raise the question in another way then-
How can one claim to hold a value upon individual merit, and simultaneously support inheritance of this sort?
Do you mean to say "I believe in individual merit for one generation, then the second is exempt"?
edit on 14-12-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)