this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
129 points (92.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43807 readers
836 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure I understand your point so if I'm off base let me know.
Firstly, inheriting $200k - $1M doesn't keep anyone poor. It doesn't even stop wealth from concentrating at a level that harms others and warps society - it just prevents that level of wealth from passing down to people who did nothing.
Secondly, if everyone was poor who would be controlling them? You have to keep most people poor and a much smaller group of people unassailably wealthy to control them. That's exactly the problem that high death taxes address.
In my part of the world $1m (even for USD, add 40%)is not even enough to buy a small house. A million dollars is a FUCKLOAD of work but you can't buy shit. At best you get a country shack with maintenance required, no insulation kind of thing, and no money left over.
Maybe that adds some context.
And is that $1m cap per person or for the whole estate? Either way people aren't gonna interit anything that worthwhile