Some Guy
Deregulated User
- Jan 19, 2010
- 2,437
- 426
- 130
This is the threat that concerned Jefferson when he spoke of the need for inheritance taxes, not as a form of revenue but a means to protect the democracy from citizens that might become too powerful, and then threaten the will of the people.
For one, others have debunked the idea that Jefferson wanted to end inheritance.
Second, the entire premise of your thoughts, which i applaud you for detailing, is based on people gaining too much power via their wealth. I would offer two counters.
1. If someone was to inherit a large amount of money, he/she can only really have power by spending that money in some way. They would need to have the resources, the knowledge or the help to put that money to good use and keep making money rather than just wasting it. After all, it is possible for people to make millions and have nothing just a couple years later. Plenty of athletes can act as perfect exhibits for this.
2. Clearly your concern here is the money corrupts. So your solution is to give it to the government which is not corrupt? In your estimation, has the government done a good job handling the nation's money, being $15+ trillion in debt? Why does the government thus get to decide what to do with that money? And why should we assume that the government has a noble cause or even the ability to put it to good use? Wouldn't that money be better spent by the heir perhaps starting his/her own company that employs people and creates some good or service beneficial to society?
Last edited: