[quote=SK in CV][quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?[/quote]
It’s only fair right? Why only make it harder for people who are trying to get rich. Why not also make current rich people not rich anymore like the rest of us or make it harder for them to stay rich.[/quote]
Go with that. See how far you get. Not something I’d be in favor of.[/quote]
I think that’s the entire point. When you are the one that has to pay for it then people object. For instance what if we structured medicare/social security as a system where you put in $x and took out $y and we kept track of the net. If your net balance is negative when you die government gets first claim to your assets. I.e. you paid in $200K to the system and take out $400K government gets to liquidate your estate and take the $200K difference first before any inheritance is issued. That sounds pretty fair to me but nobody would go for that. Everybody thinks that’s unfair even though it amounts to the tax payer subsidizing somebody’s inheritance right now.
A free lunch is a pretty popular idea. I’m sure a free lunch poll without any mention of who’s paying would get 80% of the vote. If I say SK is the one paying for it then it’s still pretty popular maybe 70% of the vote. But if I start saying well everybody is paying a portion of it or we’re going to draw straws to determine who pays then it gets a lot less popular.
The social services we have are all nice to have ideas and if we could afford them that would be great, but when you can’t you need to start making hard decisions. We could certainly provide basic shelter, food, clothing and medical services to the 60-70 million Americans in the social safety net system for less than the current $2 trillion, but it would amount to a drop in lifestyle. You’d lose a lot of choices about where you live and what you eat, but you wouldn’t be in the street or starving like some seem to suggest.