A modest tax on their money won't force them to work. It will encourage them to, and I don't see the problem with encouraging people to work by taxing them for not doing so. I guess this is a matter of philosophy here though.
Then let the current taxes do that. There is no need to increase the tax on someone that can work and doesn't need to.
We already have taxes that punish people who get money without putting in the effort of working for it. Capital gains, anyone? This isn't as revolutionary of a concept as you're pretending it is.
Yes, but once they earn the money, it's not taxed. Cap gains is a tax on earned income I believe.
1) I didn't endorse taking so much away that, gasp, all of your efforts were for naught. You make it sound like someone still couldn't retire ridiculously rich or go through their life without working if they had enough. It would just force the people who tried to actually contribute in the way people who pay income taxes do.
2) Wouldn't it encourage them to work harder to save up that extra bit to be able to handle those additional expenses incurred? Thus working a bit longer.
3) It could encourage people to continue working when they would've retired, which would keep talented individuals working longer. Isn't that good for the country?
4) There could always be exemptions for people who donate certain amounts of money to charity, or better yet, do certain acts of community service.
1, I'm saying that because you and Asuras appear to be fine on taxing all wealth. In an effort to force someone to work. Any 'encouragement' is force in the end if you are taking away what they made.
2, Then let that person decide what they want, not some arbitrary level set by a board or society. It's no one's business if they person wants to for for decades to make a ton of money. It's also no one else's business if that person makes a couple of million and decides to retire at age 30.
3, No. You're -forcing- people to work when they don't necessarily want to or need to. If a person doesn't have to work, they should be made to work
4, So as long as they spend the money in ways you approve of, they get a pass? As long as it goes away by either taxation or 'donations' it's fine? I'm sorry, but that is no better than pointing a gun at their head and saying 'Give me the money or send it to the charities.'
There isn't much of a point in debating this though, it seems we have a fundamental disagreement. I think it's unjust that some people can inherit vast amounts of money simply by being born as the son or daughter of someone wealthy, do nothing with their life, and still live a better life than people who work hard. As far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong here please, you seem to be perfectly OK with this.
I have absolutely no problem with people having money. If they spend it unwisely, they'll either be forced to work or starve. If people who inherited wealth are smart, they do learn to manage and earn more. Just because you are born poor or rich doesn't mean you cannot improve your means if you have the ambition or drive, or sit on your butt lazing away.
What a person does with their money is their business. NOT 'society's' business. No matter what, the money is spent.
You are right we do have a difference of opinion. I believe in a person being able to keep the fruits of their effort and for that person to do with their wealth, what they want to. As long as it's not illegal, it's none of our business.