I think the Bushes are an excellent example of the principle: most parents are unable to recognize the mediocrity of their children. The effect this has plays out the hardest in wealthy families where money is often transferred to second or third rate talents.
In a system where there is the possibility of going homeless, the children of capitalists are understandably scared. But they take it a step further - they put people out on the street. Why? So that they can enjoy luxuries. Capitalist systems turn out a lot of junk. They need to keep many people poor. As workers gain power and enforce changes in their homelands, they move the factories offshore so they can exploit child labor and enslave their parents without fear of containment.
I do not believe in abolishing the free market except where the good being transferred is a common good, e.g. sewers, roads, electricity, parks, etc. Accumulation of wealth does not disturb me as a reward for a life well lived: but it must never become a springboard for the mediocre becoming the governors of our destiny. This is the tragedy of America today: we're controlled by a class which has no idea of what it means to make your own life.
When I hear Barbara Bush defend all her sons as "good boys" I hear the very reason why we should renew heavy inheritance taxes: we can't afford to allow the less-merited to decide the course of our lives.
The bottom line is simple - you've gotta tax someone, and it hurts less to tax dead people than living people, because dead people need money a lot less than living people.
You can't take it with you and your kid didn't do anything to deserve it, no matter how much you love him.
Poor and middle class people love their kids too - and they have to pay higher taxes while alive so rich people can leave their children more money than they need. I'm tired of people trying to defend that - taking money from people who earned it to give it to people who didn't. That's what repealing the estate tax is.
While people should be able to succeed to the best of their ability, they should never be able to succeed to the point where they become inefficient and lack purpose. And from a meta-perspective, if individuals within the system are becoming inefficient and unmotivated, then the system itself is inefficient and unmotivated.
To apply this to inheritance tax: the instant acquisition of massive wealth immediately nullifies the drive of the recipient to succeed. Some are already bordering on useless (for instance, Paris Hilton) because of how they've been coddled by their parents' fortunes. Why should we help them lose even more purpose and motivation?
Look at that guy with the new Mercedes A great big house and fancy ladies Winning the game by dropping Daddy's name And hanging with the other Lucky Sperm Club babies The swinging king of the society scene Gets obscene in a limousine Charging cheap thrills full of frivolous frills Taking lazy luxury to new extremes
And oh it must be fun To be so wealthy, healthy, rich and young One might wonder what he's done To become the fortunate one
I think the Bushes are an excellent example of the principle: most parents are unable to recognize the mediocrity of their children. The effect this has plays out the hardest in wealthy families where money is often transferred to second or third rate talents.
