If anyone is hungry or has to work who does not want to work in this age of technology it means a society cannot afford the luxury of the wealthy. That wealth needs to be taxed away. If the wealthy don’t like it they can work to make sure the economy works for everyone. More than ever the contribution of wealthy is in question. The utility of their wealth is in question as is their right to it.

Possibly the core or a core motivation behind the notion of strong materialism was the idea that there are special hips and by extension that the fruit of those hips is also special and entitled. On the contrary, the same world that produced those hips produced what came out of them.

By gift or by trust or so-called inheritance there should be no silver spooning freeloaders. Think of the odious politics and life grooming inside the families where said freeloaders are inclined to be overly concerned and competitive against siblings about all the parental ass they have to keep kissing for an indefinite amount of time. Think of the curse of the ultra-wealthy always having to wonder if their kid are only in it to get their money. Ending this means elevating the value of family.

When you see a billionaire who doesn’t support inheritance their thought processes aren’t far off from the above. Germany after WWII had a default situation like that above where high and low alike were forced into the forests to foraged for grubs and eat grass. Their physical sicknesses got better during that period. On the other hand Cambodia had something like the above gone very wrong and 3 years of having to run for the hills where possible.

Ok you’re dealing with a couple different issues here so I’m going to address them.

My reaction o this is your logic os flawed. How our society is structured right now is to create massive artificial scarcity in order to promote the “economy” because our economy is based on things being scarce and so instead of promoting creativity and innovation our society instead has focused on promoting scarcity through things like copyright, patents and by stiffling independence and self sufficency. Instead of creating better and more high quality things we create a disposable culture based on planned obselece. People don’t need to work, or rather they need to work but not in the sense of working at a job for money in an occupation they hate. Tasks need to be done yes. And people should do things, especially things they love. But considering the technology we have should we have to do mindless shit no? Every house shuold have a garden, every house shuold be equipped with it’s own life support system (food, power, water reclaimation, waste reclaimation and recycling into compost for the garden, if possible radiation protection and air filtration but that’s pushing it at the moment and could largely be done with plants). If you grow yuor own food you don’t need to spend money (time at work) on groceries, if you generate your own power using rewnewable energy you don’t need to pay the power bill, if you own your own house you don’t need to pay rent, if you recycle and clean your water you don’t need to pay for it (that concept is so foreign to me but I hear some people do pay for water), if you create or recycle something you don’t need to buy it and therefore spend money/time to purchase it. Therefore the key to keeping people from having to work is promoting self sufficency. And to further promote this self sufficency you incorporate technolgies and knowledge to aid in it. Bulldozers to help dig walipinis for year round growing of food for example. Or 3D printers for creating household objects so you don’t have to buy them. I could go on about this but I think you get the point.

The wealthy have a right to their wealth. That’s not the issue. The issue is changing the culture and promotiong self sufficency so that people don’t give up their wealth to a centralized power in the first place.

Now here is where I get my first urge to smack you. If have created something I own it. It is mine. And furthermore if I have children then you bet your ass they’re entitled unless I say different. You’re not going to be taking away the inheritance from my kids after I die in the name of the state. That’s my legicy to leave to them. That’s private and the state has no place in that.

True. A elderly or dying reletive can turn into a political squabble when it shuold bring a family together. I’ve seen such things happen. But by the same token sometimes inheritence is by the only means a parent can leave their child any kind of a fortune, no matter how meager it might be.

Really I think it has to do with the amount of money one is talking about rather than the concept of inheritance itself. If all you inherit is a couple hundred dollars that’s nothing to get all worked up about (reletively speaking) but if you inherit a couple million it might be. Of course if you’re already bringing in a million or so it might not. Again it’s all relative. Also keep in mind that for the most part people these days are lacking in spiritual development and the more one pursues materialistic goals the more their spirituality wanes. Also the opposite is true. The more spiritually and emotionally fulfilled and developed you are the less you tend to care about money.


Wealth isn’t the problem and theft isn’t the solution.

Using aggression to monopolise something, denying others access, is the problem.


Apologies for being blunt here, but if someone attempts to prevent me from passing my earned wealth on to my children, well, you know where they can stick that idea.

There are few things more unjust than seizing someone’s private property that they wished to leave their children upon their death. I gotta say it, that’s pretty monstrous.

No lengthy analysis needed here.


I do think that people are one hundred percent responsible for there own experience- that is the spiritual- but then people aren’t separate either. I also think that its wrong to take what a parent leaves a child, but to limit rent seeking as a global externality I could see a place for getting utiltatian. For those who don’t like it, work to make sure the economy works for all new children coming into the world- allow them self sufficiency. Only sick children lack industry.

I have to say out of all the posts on this thread, I’m mostly in agreement with Warren. What everybody here seems to be talking about is whether they agree with inheritance tax or not. I definitely believe in inheritance tax because if you follow the argument for none to it’s logical conclusion, then the wealth just gets concentrated further to the 1%. This also has the effect of lessening money supply circulating around the economy. Billionaires keep their billions for generations and as Warren says it leads to massive disparities in a child’s life chances and privileges.
Obviously, we do not want to set the inheritance tax limit too low, to avoid all the issues mentioned by many on here. The only question to my mind is what level of assets does anybody get to keep before it is taxed. I’m sure that if this level was set at maybe 5 million ish, this would assuage many concerns.
I have to disagree to an extent with Traktion, in that concentrated wealth or “as rich as Croesus” wealth, is indeed the problem.


I’m really glad safecoin will be like cash, so no statist minded folks will be able to take some of it when I give it to my kids or to anyone else I choose to.


Yes it get’s concentrated in the hands of those who actually work for it and pass it down to their kids who either a) keep it. b) spend it and thereby decieminate it or c) use it again to earn more. You are essentially arguing that if someone earns something that if they reach a certain level of wealth you have the right to rob them or rob those they have given their wealth to.

Look let’s get real here if a billionaire has all the money what do we do? We switch to a different form of currency because unless a currency is being ciculated it isn’t worth jack shit. Furthermore the issue at hand is CULTURAL not economic as we have a CULTURE of hoarding wealth. In our culture we honor those who HAVE wealth rather than distribute wealth. In a gift economy those who DISTRIBUTE or GIVE wealth away are honored so really how do you get a billionare to distrubute their wealth? You mock them, you shame them, you dishonor them. And every bit of charity they engage in your praise them, you honor them, you glorify them. It’s that simple. Money isn’t worth anything. What people are seeking is really emotional and spiritual fulfillment.

Keep in mind that if you want to make a cultural shift you need to treat wealth the same on all levels, not just the super rich. All hoarding of wealth needs to be shunned and treated with distain otherwise you’re just “hating the rich” or “being jealous” and not given much credence. But if right from the get go from the time you earn your first penny you start getting shamed for hoarding wealth and being honored for giving it away then that will create a cultural shift.


I really like that one too.

But those billionaires as they move onto becoming trillionaires their accumulation should track contribution. That was one of the core argument is Thomas Picketty’s book. Namely that there is no semblance of contribution past a certain point of wealth accumulation that’s been the case for most of the history of our system its pure gravitational accretion. The wealth accrual goes exponential and the contribution flat or negative.

1 Like

Why would there be? When you have that much money you really don’t need to interact with society any more so why would you contribute back to it? At that point profit is being accumulated simply as a form of maintainance. At the billionaire trillionaire mark you are starting to influence and build your own society if that is your will. You don’t need to be charitable or seek approval from the society that birthed you.

1 Like

But that’s the point. People don’t want they complete liquidity between money and power that point. They don’t want the influence. Also the person might have made billions to begin with from activities that made everyone worse off. And if that wasn’t the case they would be able to do so later. Typically the trade off is societies through progressive taxation or regulation make it so that the money is less able to be used in ways that hurt people. Under progressive taxation the wealthy person keeps the money as long as they use it ways that either steward (which tax incentives) or don’t damage other people- its that second use that leads to the jail time associated with tax evasion.

But taxation of any kind is coercion, is theift, and therefore unacceptable. Unless you are saying that theft is acceptable in which case why is it illegal?

You understand that that influence is created by spending money? Also what exactly do you mean by “People don’t want they complete liquidity between money and power that point.” (By the way that sentence has really bad grammar.)

Perhaps but likewise you could argue that if the customers had taken responsibility for the way they spent their money and not supported their business by buying their products/service that they wouldn’t have the money in the first place. And it was a voluntary interaction. You reap what you sow.

So what you’re saying is because customers don’t want to take responsibility for their buying decisions and who they’re purchasing from that they need Mommy and Daddy to rob antisocial businesses and enforce complience with social standards. Why not just take responsibility in the first place and not buy from these companies in the first place OR accept that you made your bed and now you have to sleep in it.

Or you could develop a business or organization to counter the negetive effects of the business/rich person in question. If you have a corporation dumping toxic waste into a lake then develop a company or crowdfund a project that cleans it up.

1 Like

When you say wealthy; let’s pay close attention to what’s going on today: - In 2011, DTCC settled the vast majority of securities transactions in the United States and close to $1.7 quadrillion in value worldwide. DTCC has operating facilities in the New York metropolitan area, and at multiple locations in and outside the U.S. - 911 billion assets - what does this thing do that’s any good? 11,000 members not interested in profit - the Automatic Clearing House - aka bank wire transfer corporation;
Largest Dealer Banks[edit]
Bank of America Merrill Lynch
BNP Paribas
Credit Suisse
Deutsche Bank
Goldman Sachs
JP Morgan Chase
Morgan Stanley
Societe Generale
The Royal Bank of Scotland
Wells Fargo

uhhhhhhh I guess now you can forget about going after with the wealth distribution algorithm against the celebrity with the inferiority complex smashing their brains out at the night clubs along with a lousy 20 mill.
and pay attention to the biggest leeches of a system started 100 years ago aka

and - By 1973, the Bretton Woods system was replaced de facto by a regime based on freely floating fiat currencies that remains in place to the present day.

so the federal reserve still keeps to bretton woods type system but the economies are floating in fiat la la land;

I am 100% for silver spooning; everyone should be a freeloader; if you want to be fat, you should have the right to be fat. Let’s discuss the root cause of the problem which is centralized autonomous organizations which hoard and make society’s scarcity reality.


Ah yes and here there be dragons hoarding their treasure.

enables financial institutions to electronically transfer funds between its more than 9,289 participants (as of March 19, 2009).

there’e billions of people, yet the financial system to which each person currently subscribes to does not even include those people… just only several thousand institutions; this is a sick joke.
It’s obvious that safecoin is absolutely a bypass of this. safecoin is like opened source version of FEDWIRE secure, unique, and electronic.
Additionally, the entire slosh of bureaucracy and intervention along the way if any of this fedwire money ever even circulates to the constituents, of this I have supremely high doubts. Since when was ‘the government’ more important than its people. It is obvious to me that this is shifting, the people of the planet earth also have a fedwire.

1 Like

Once a certain amount of wealth is gained by an individual or group in any system they can then manipulate that system through bribes, legislation etc. to enable them to take almost all the money and horde it, to the detriment of everyone else. It seems that history has taught us that it’s part of the human condition to do this. We can’t seem to help ourselves.

IMHO inheritance tax makes sense.


Wealth will always grant power to some over others. However, the question should be how we can remove barriers to getting wealthy, not how we can steal the wealth from others.

1 Like

How can we stop the wealthy from stealing from us?


Strange argument, which is easily dismissed with the same reasoning and by asking “Why is taxation legal?”

You could argue this, but it would be a really weak argument; It assumes that all wealth is accumulated by selling products/services that people freely choose to buy. There are many other means by which wealth is accumulated, financial fraud within the present system for one. Also people don’t choose to be exploited by the rich, whether it’s working for low wages or living in a slum landlord’s property etc. There are just so many gaping holes in this argument, it would take too long to list.

A much stronger argument - why on Earth should the families of ancestral sugar/cotton plantations and the like get to pass down billions to their offspring generation after generation?
Oh I see you have an answer of sorts:

So you are OK with Corporations dumping toxic waste and leaving it for others to clean up? Bizarre…

You’re OK with this and don’t see any issues here?

Absolute nonsense.

I am arguing that most civil societies have come to a consensus that an “inheritance tax” is a very good idea for the reasons I have already stated. Yours is a minority opinion on this issue.

So you can see the problem then, yet you advocate for more of the same? You’re description is where we are today, so we continue playing this game of Monopoly, driving the poor further into the ground, concentrating the wealth until such a time as one player has all the money, others have none and then we start the process all over again?

You seem to be advocating the Victorian idea of philanthropic mill owners donating to the poor - this just leads to the abuses of the workhouses.
I must say you just sound like a tea party republican to me - am I right?


In a book i recently read the main character asked this question to help determine if an action was good or bad “what if everyone did it?” I’ve let this reside in my head for a few months now and it has held true. I might own it.

If everyone on earth kept (hoarded) a disproportionate amount of available resources would it be good?