Quote from: Hhampuz on Today at 12:43:44 AM

Quote from: rolling on Today at 12:42:20 AM

Quote from: Hhampuz on Today at 12:31:20 AM

Quote from: rolling on Today at 12:16:13 AM

Taking stuff away from successful people to give it to less successful people is called socialism. Just because you can beat someone up and take their money doesn't mean it's a good way to run a society. It's immoral and has never worked in any country that has tried it. It doesn't help the poor people, it just hurts the rich people. Poor people will always be poor because they don't know how to be rich or are just unmotivated.

And what about generational wealth, you cool with putting a tax on "dead" money (when someone uber rich dies)?

Or is successful a term that applies to anyone you are associated with, no matter what they did to generate that success?

If the person inheriting a fortune doesn't learn how to manage the money and be successful then the money goes back into society through mismanagement anyway.

Sure they got a head start but that's no guarantee of success.

But wouldn't that be socialism then? If taking from successful people and giving it to less successful ones? I just wanted to know when it applies and when it doesn't in your view.

Who is doing the taking in this scenario? Someone is willfully giving wealth to their heir. If the heir is indeed unsuccessful then they will lose the money that was given to them.