Amarna Forum

This is always interesting when it comes up. Where do you stand?

Making this thread because I'm reading Umineko and that's made me want to frame the issue like a family struggle. If you think of the human race as a big family to some degree or another inheritance taxation isn't a question of dispossessing your posterity or not so much as potentially broadening your succession for the sake of strengthening it.

In the case of a single family the thought is, you could give it all or most to your first son because he's your first son, or you could spread it wide and even, or you could distribute it between your children based on perceived promise and potential.



Now expanding this out to a national level, let's say England, you could give it all to your own children, but an inheritance tax could ideally serve as a kind of mandatory opening for the rest to be up for grabs within the greater English family. Only it's not so direct as a share of your wealth going to some promising English genius who is currently going without is the obvious problem, and where this all starts to break down. If it were, I would be quite happy with that idea.

I of course have suggested England as an example because of Mikka's engagement with this subject. I don't know where he stands on it, but in raw principle I'm not opposed.

As I've just said above, there's a clear Carlylean case to be made for inheritance taxation on the grounds that things should go to those who would make the most manful use of them. This isn't libtarded because it's also a potential justification for empire and slavery.

Where I have to disagree with Inheritance Tax on a practical level, now and into the foreseeable future, is the same reason I disagree with the idea of trying to build a mandarin class in England. How could this possibly be selected for under current conditions? We know that if it were to be worked towards today taxed inheritance wouldn't go to the Mikka's of the world. It'll go to run the NHS for another 2 seconds, or it'll go to some family of ethnic trash to bribe them into colonising England, or it'll go to arts grants for nigger communist dance therapists, etc.

Inheritance Tax I think needs a few conditions to justify itself. One being the clear definition of a kind of broader national family which everyone accepts. Otherwise why can't I collect the taxed inheritances of Chinese Billionaire clans? They would never do that. But a white government would absolutely give white inheritances to ethnics if unchallenged. No sane person would tolerate this. Second is a sense that the spending would be worthwhile. Poor use of general income taxation and the rest is painful enough. But seeing inheritances vacuumed up into that same wasteful pool would be too much to bear I think. I believe that taxed inheritance should be earmarked in some way with its spending publicly visible. I would actually like this done with all tax, but this limited one I think would be an interesting case study. Force it all to be funneled into something like education programs in which we can track results for money. Or make it even more direct. The state chooses someone it considers worthy and you can track their life to see if it was worth it. Like sponsoring some nigger child in Africa only they're a member of your national family and hopefully selected on promise rather than wretchedness.

I really like a certain limited number of possible inheritance taxes. Before anybody gets all pointed with Mikka I would recommend thinking of the best possible implementation of his more eccentric ideas. I think there's real value in defending potentially good ideas rendered unworkable by present circumstances.

I feel this is similar to what I have been thinking about lately. I was thinking about anti- immigration polemics and the idea of a nation as patrimony struck me as a powerful slogan. Not only because it’s true in that a nation should through natural course be passed on to progeny but also in the idea of securing one’s inheritance. 

Machiavelli Wrote:But above all he must refrain from seizing the property of others, because a man is quicker to forget the death of his father than the loss of his patrimony.

Reason based off personal interest and gain over morality. That a small group a libtards shouldn’t be able to, through mass immigration, rob one of his patrimony, which is most definitely what has happened. That even if we give all your personal wealth for your moral crusade, through the act of importing thousands of foreigner to live off welfare, take jobs, and destroy social trust—you are going beyond your right and taking the collective patrimony of a nation for your own petty momentary mid-life crisis. 

But I think this, although reasonable amongst libertarians(personal interest motivated), would go completely through one ear and out the other with most Americans because of the current attitude towards taxes(they are constantly being robbed). The war in Ukraine has been shown as prodigal expenditure by the US government by  many conservatives, but it really doesn’t take public stage long simply because of how normal taxes are(your money being robbed form you and spent on useless crap). 

The first step in the nation as patrimony would be raising awareness about the governments wasteful tax use, towards more reasonable things; but in the end I think this would be taken and turned into an anti-tax sentiment defeating a goal of inheritance tax. Thus investing in genius by the government should have to be normalized, and the benefit proven without a doubt, to be seen as an important government funded project, in a country awakened to self intrest which would no doubt wish to restrict taxes.

anthony Wrote:Force it all to be funneled into something like education programs in which we can track results for money. Or make it even more direct. The state chooses someone it considers worthy and you can track their life to see if it was worth it. Like sponsoring some nigger child in Africa only they're a member of your national family and hopefully selected on promise rather than wretchedness.

I can’t tell if there’s too much overlap between my post and yours but I’m posting this anyway, great thread!

(06-13-2023, 05:40 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]The first step in the nation as patrimony would be raising awareness about the governments wasteful tax use, towards more reasonable things; but in the end I think this would be taken and turned into an anti-tax sentiment defeating a goal of inheritance tax. Thus investing in genius by the government should have to be normalized, and the benefit proven without a doubt, to be seen as an important government funded project, in a country awakened to self intrest which would no doubt wish to restrict taxes.

Thank you for the nice reply. This part I found particularly striking and want to draw attention towards. One could make the case that it's kind of strange to focus in on inheritances of all things in an age of such horrific waste and neglect as our own. Most people pay taxes, even rich ones. They're already contributing significantly to the greater common wealth of the society even if you think it's unfair how much they can currently favour their own blood. If one were to say that it's unfair to go for them before addressing general tax and spending issues I don't think there's a fair answer.

Do we have a kind of claim on all wealth and potential that exists within our own society? Arguably. But before we go correcting family fortunes we should address the fact that what is already supposed to go towards status correction and general provision of opportunities is horrifically exploited, abused, pilfered, and wasted. I think even if we try to be brutally realistic it's plausible to suggest that with current resources at the average first world state's disposal it'd be possible to rework education and the economy to provide good opportunities to all men of promise without even getting into the Tony Blair failson trusts.

If we were to prohibit Tony Blair from giving anything to his son and instead invest it generally in the promising youth of England, what then? We can't just dump it into the education system as it's a giant wasteful and ineffective scam. So we hit the above issue, which can be addressed with or without Tony Blair's money. It strikes me as far more essential. Without an effective reorientation of society towards human cultivation Tony Blair's money can't do much. And if society is reoriented towards human cultivation we're set. From that point Tony Blair's money would be nice but less essential. Should still probably be taken anyway.

Thank you for making this thread. I've been thinking about this quite a bit recently since Mikka has been harping on the issue alot, and it's a good opportunity to write my criticisms in a structured form publically to see what others think of them too. To make it clear from the beginning, I think that 100% inheritance taxes are a bad idea both in principle and in practice, and think that even if properly implemented (and I will only consider the best case scenario where the Meritocrats have established total control over the goverment) the products would be both undesirable and run against Mikkas stated goals (the production of a new elite, chosen entirely due to their superiority and nothing else, capable of planning far into the future).

For one, long term planning and generational continuity become impossible. An inheritance tax which would rob one's descendants of their wealth would be a very harsh punishment for anyone who plans on prudently saving and investing their money for the establishment of some aim which could transcend their death, or simply out of a desire to giving their children a higher baseline than they themselves had, allowing them to achieve more. In Mikkaworld, people are actively incentivized to spend all their money before they die so that their children can continue to compete in the same exam ratrace to achieve the same goverment given status only to consume whatever gains they make for the process to repeat itself again. No inheritance means nothing that takes more than 70-80 years becomes possible to accomplish.

If the main issue is that retarded people are using money they shouldnt have in the wrong ways, then the easiest way to remedy this is to simply change the ways in which people can make and use their money, so that it becomes impossible for the wrong people to acquire wealth and sustain it for even one generation. Civil rights legislation amongst other things has propped up entire industries and professions which have no organic demand, and which rely entirely on artificial market restrictions and goverment aid to sustain themselves. Simply abolishing these retarded laws and setting up preconditions for the acquisition of wealth (say, for treasanous or indecent transactions) would both make sure that these people could never make a dime and that the possible influence that makes their wealth so dangerous impossible to actualize without severe punishment. The pitfalls these sorts would fall into have been covered up in the modern world, and simply opening them up again for them to fall into would be more than enough to correct course. That, and change the mechanisms by which people obtain power over the state in the first place.

Another thing I want to criticize is the sort of suffocating state this would require, and the inevitable biases it would have. Total control over all inheritance would defacto abolish private property, as whatever possessions you own would be entirely dependent on the state finding your ownership to be meritorious. Likewise, activities which would be found to be unmeritorious would likewise have to be banned under the same logic which would forbid inheritance. Ultimately, what you would end up with is a state with total control over all aspects of society justified by its desire to protect the common good (though obviously put in different terms) with an entirely artifical elite who's status and wealth is purely a product of goverment recognition. How different is this from Mikka's desire to maximize individual freedom, embrace egoism and self interest? What genius could ever be produced in such a smothering state and how reprehensible would he find it?

Of course, whatever arm of the state responsible for such wealth transfers would obviously favour itself. This is a classical critique of socialist policies, and it applies to meritocracy too. All that has been achieved is that those who wish to pass on their inheritance will have to work in the state (where they most certainly will end up anyways since in a meritocracy all state positions will be given to the best in society) or be affiliated with it in order to do so. This means that the state will have to attempt to punish the constituency which it is dependent on for functioning, which would be an impossible feat to pull off. Nepotism will end up expressing itself one way or another.

I also take issue with your family allegory, because it implies that the state, like the father of the household, makes its own money and can therefore do with it what it pleases, when it only appropriates its wealth from others. Who is more capable of testing whether one's sons deserve their inheritance than oneself? Only you are capable of deciding the worth and rightful use of the wealth you have procured, and therefore only you are truly able to choose who is most worthy of it as well as the method by which you come to know of this worth. Who says that an IQ test is enough to discern the qualities you seek in your progeny? Outsourcing this to the state is simply just giving them an excuse to misuse your hard earned wealth and decide who gets to use it on their own terms. This isnt the basis for a national family, this is the basis of a national serf-landlord relationship.

It's not like we're in a situation where the goverment is lacking in funds anyways. The goverment is severely overfunded and bloated, and is in drastic need to be drastically reduced in scale. Nor has any healthy society made culture and elite production a state concern. It's a natural concequence of organic opportunities and paths to power being offered to the intelligent, an upper class prudent enough to employ their talents and a culture humble enough to submit to the greatness of exceptional men whenever they appear. Questions of funding the state are less important than questions of how to reduce the all encompassing power of the managerial state so that great men and private undergoings can take its place again.

I dislike the idea generally, because even bringing it up at a time like now only lends weight to what would cause even more trouble now.
As has been said, taxes do not go towards gainful causes at the moment, and there is no sign of that changing.
If things do change, then the discussion can easily be opened then.
Until then, mention, argument, even on pure idea-level, only lends credence to more taxation and aids confusion in its proliferation.

Now, let's move on to the actual discussion of it. Even in an expansionary regime, is inheritance tax important, necessary, desired? No. Because if you are waiting to collect until this time, then your system is already far too inefficient, and the funds should have been collected earlier.
Other concern: Resentment. Heir does not like this to be taken from him, especially if he (this is common) has been working for his father but keeping the money, gains (services rendered) within a company/trust pool.
If you have an expansionary regime (say empire, or space empire, etc.), then there are far better ways to collect necessary funds, prevent inefficiencies, focus citizenry's wealth, then inheritance tax. One such way? For an empire, conscription. Rich father will want to fund the army his son is fighting for. Another way? Bonds. Confident citizen will want to bet on the country/empire he is a part of. Etc.
Primarily, the idea comes up because we live in times where people see various inheritances squandered etc. and say "this is very bad!" But where else would those inheritances go? There's nothing to spend on.

It is a matter of how one ought to spend one's time. You can campaign for lower taxes so that immigrants dont get them, or you could campaign against immigrants. Since the latter are the root problem, and they cause many other problems, I think one ought to focus on that.

There is nothing greatly wrong with inheritance tax in principle. Its just another form of tax. Insofar as an inheritance is just one's estate at death, income tax and all other taxes are pre-inheritance taxes.

I don't know how useful the "now" vs "ideal circumstances" distinction really is. The bare minimum is that dispossesion of power, money and influence from THE CURRENT ELITES is not only justified but required. It's a seperate thing from inheritance tax, in principle, which will be used against whatever people exist in the world after the current leadership is totally routed and all their gains are extracted. I don't find the arguments in favor of it to be all that different logically from boomer bootstrap-ism which I oppose entirely. I don't think Mikka's polemic against it in terms of natural law to be compelling either. Yes, a dead person can't exercise force but this applies to anywhere a person physically isn't present as well. It honestly doesn't take much effort or infrastructure for a wealthy aging person to simply delegate friends or trusted people to defend their assets and distribute them using force or legal means after death under the agreement they will get a cut of it. To prevent this entirely would require far more unnatural means like digital banks, fiat currency, and a surveillance state. 

Genes themselves are of course a natural inheritance as well, so the appeal to fairness or justice scarcely works. You could theoretically extract slave labor from someone deemed "unworthy" of their own genes or a bad use of them, and it would largely be the same logic, but this seems contradictory to an important impulse of meritocracy, which is not to deprive the gifted of their gifts. In terms of succession, nepotism itself in jobs and positions is a far more damaging form of this, in fact it might even simply be better that some dysgenic good for nothing inherits a fat pile of money from their rich relative so they can stay out of the work force and leadership positions entirely. There's a much bigger cost to nullifying all generational transfers of wealth than simply allowing that to occur while combating nepotism more strictly. 

I find the most justified taxes to be ones on consumption and holding of property. These are things more directly enbled by actual positive contributions of a state, unlike progressive income tax and inheritance taxes which are pretty clear examples of the state extracting from a resource it did very little to create in the first place.

Inheritance tax in an ideal State, if it's put in place and afaik, shouldn't manifest in a significantly different direction from any other kind of tax. IOW, it's basically just a question of rate; ex: wealthier people tend to spend more, so say purchase taxes could fill the same role (Misers who refuse to spend raise an interesting exception, but they're rare and have nothing beyond purchasing power they refuse to do anything with as a matter of course. They should be taxed to shit).

The ostensible point of all taxation is to improve the State and the condition of its polity. The point of a State is to guarantee the protection of its polity. Whatever form tax takes isn't so much the issue as the accumulative rate and the route the funds go towards. The question of potential "Monopoly Families" is interesting - people better studied in economy could provide an answer here.

Property tax is very ugly. Under it, if you purchase property, then as long as you own it you're obliged to pay the State tax on auspices of "occupying their territory". The gov. can meanwhile tax you on other grounds, why should they sheer you just because you also purchased their land?

Anthony basically says it all in the OP: Inheritance looks very anti-meritocratic. Giving it to the state however is a way of funnelling means from the productive to the unproductive. That is clearly worse than the children of the rich (who have a above-average probability of being productive members of society) receiving it. We are not even considering loopholes that will allow the circumvention of such taxes.

The only important aspect underdiscussed in the thread so far is the psychological incentive of inheritance. One guest mentions it in terms of long term planning. It's usually one of the first things that gets mentioned in arguments against communist proposals, which an inheritance tax obviously is. People want to give their children an inheritance (on average, at least - I've heard many stories of American boomers who rather spend it on themselves). If you take this wealth away (or at least take a big part of it), people will see less reason to become wealthy.

I share the view of , basically, any tax is an inheritance tax because you can't give away what the state already took. So, this is more of a discussion of how much taxation do we approve. With the current recipients of taxes, I can't imagine any sensible man wanting to pay MORE to the state.

It's hard for me to understand how Mikka actually imagines a meritocratic state. In any case, merit is not earned without reason to do so, and taxes certainly take away incentive for effort.

Inheritance tax is Jewish kleptocracy.

The state ought not to be able to appropriate any part of one`s patrimony. A man`s inheritance is the culmination of all of his parents` work, and when they are gone, there is no reason for the state - which has benefited enough from other taxes paid by and the labor of both the inheritor and the testator from whom he inherited his property - to get a portion of that. This is true in both an ideal situation and the situation we presently find ourselves in. 

W.r.t. the former, it is a matter of principle - as said above, the state benefits enough from both the inheritor and the testator by taking taxes out of their wages, so why should it get anything else? Surely it can find better sources of income, and depriving the state of its ability to take from one`s inheritance will not harm it in any meaningful way, esp. in the instance of meager inheritances, from which it takes a sum of money that is essentially "pocket change" to it. Furthermore, there have likely been instances where a man who was to inherit some meager sum of money from his parents was seriously harmed by the state`s appropriation of a portion of his patrimony - to him, that sum of money could have been the difference between a life of squalor and upward socio-economic mobility, and in turn this may have prevented him from contributing as much as he could to society. Why should we want this to happen to SYM in KeyedWorld?

W.r.t. the latter situation, the reason for opposing inheritance tax has already been plainly stated - a portion of the money taken from a white man`s inheritance should NEVER have to go to niggers, aliens, etc., and that`s precisely where it does go.

(06-16-2023, 01:20 PM)GraalChud Wrote: [ -> ]The state ought not to be able to appropriate any part of one`s patrimony. A man`s inheritance is the culmination of all of his parents` work, and when they are gone, there is no reason for the state - which has benefited enough from other taxes paid by and the labor of both the inheritor and the testator from whom he inherited his property - to get a portion of that. This is true in both an ideal situation and the situation we presently find ourselves in. 

W.r.t. the former, it is a matter of principle - as said above, the state benefits enough from both the inheritor and the testator by taking taxes out of their wages, so why should it get anything else? Surely it can find better sources of income, and depriving the state of its ability to take from one`s inheritance will not harm it in any meaningful way, esp. in the instance of meager inheritances, from which it takes a sum of money that is essentially "pocket change" to it. Furthermore, there have likely been instances where a man who was to inherit some meager sum of money from his parents was seriously harmed by the state`s appropriation of a portion of his patrimony - to him, that sum of money could have been the difference between a life of squalor and upward socio-economic mobility, and in turn this may have prevented him from contributing as much as he could to society. Why should we want this to happen to SYM in KeyedWorld?

W.r.t. the latter situation, the reason for opposing inheritance tax has already been plainly stated - a portion of the money taken from a white man`s inheritance should NEVER have to go to niggers, aliens, etc., and that`s precisely where it does go.

I think something all of us have fallen into here is talking about how this benefits the state. In practice this is how it works. But our governments aren't actually pushing for this. The state benefits from taxes all our lives, so why should it get anything else? The state doesn't actually feel too entitled to this. It's not creative enough. Who's actually feeling entitled is libtards who tell themselves that inheritance is a conspiracy against the chronically poor. Awareness would run a spectrum from totally naive to vicious warfare, but the idea is still that white people have it too good. As far as I've seen anyway. I've only seen nigger communist goblins talking about this issue positively.

The drive is not governments wanting income. The drive is leftists wanting to destroy remaining good and functional families and social units.

People work and earn money to benefit themselves and their children,if someone cannot leave his inheritance to his descendants,then why would someone try to preserve his nation/race?.

We should have a 100% income tax. This way, the (enlightened, degeneration-proof) state can consult its Merit Index and give the Very Best Money to the Very Best Men. This eliminates the excesses of the awful patronage system whereby people are hired based on "connections" and "experience" and "social skills" rather than Raw Merit.

In fact, now that I think about it, we really ought to get rid of this Money stuff in the first place. Seems to engender Unmeritorious Persons....

In the pure abstract sense, I believe in Sired Ultimogeniture: that the youngest son who has become a father himself inherits everything. This encourages sons to start families or miss out, and keeps the wealth in a bloodline that will not die out. It also gives the most wealth possible to as young a man as possible who has nevertheless learned of responsibility and had to provide for his child already before inheriting, giving your wealth the best chance at continuing itself. There are other issues like spouses and children under the age of majority, but the lion's share should go to the youngest sired heir.
That said, there is another side of this, and that is that of the government's position on inheritance. I believe that a regime should calculate the average household income of a middle quintile family, and multiply that by some number. Say, 25. If you would inherit more than a quarter century's worth of wealth, your brothers should inherit say 10 years each worth of wealth, and if there is still some left over, that it should be auctioned off by a professional estate agent, placed into a trust, and paid out evenly to every other adult man of your race who has a child as a form of modest UBI. This is funded by private free market actors paying a fair price at auction for the estate items, and government doesn't take a cut. Spendthrifts spend their share quickly, and the money stimulates the creation of new millionaires.
The point being that generational wealth should not be a significant factor in the economy or the powerful of your country. Every powerful person with a lot of money should be there because he earned it by being a self made man. We can allow people to keep their family home or family farm, but we should not allow multimillionaires to inherit vast fortunes and status without having earned it.
Such an inheritance system would absolutely lock the spiritual successors of jews (since jews 1.0 will have been exterminated by this point) from ever niggering the wealth of a country out from under it ever again, and has numerous other benefits.
https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Saxrike#The_King
https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Saxrike#W...fare_State

The purpose of taxation into government coffers is not to fund anything the government wants to do, but rather to destroy the banknotes it collects. The entire purpose of government taxation is to drive demand for banknotes and give its fiat currency value. The idea that the government is using taxes for bad things like Israel handouts, free lunches for niggers, and bridges to nowhere is asinine. The real crime is that the government pretends it has to finance these things in order to take out loans from Jews and then pay them hundreds of billions in interest on those loans every year, when the government has no business taking out loans at all. The government taking out loans at the federal level should be prosecuted as a smoking gun of corruption and both the lender and borrower should be executed for treasonous conspiracy. You cannot eat a loaf of bread that does not yet exist and the future cannot nourish the present, as Bertrand Russel once wrote. All of the things that the government borrows for already exist, and the wealth of a nation is not its money or gold reserves but the skills and talents of its labor force and technicians, the factories and industries that produce things of value, the farms and minerals of its country, and all the items of worth that have been produced or traded for within that country from machines to furniture to clothing and the tools in your shed.
The government does not care about the wealth in people's possession so that it can give more funkopops to the pajeet orphan's fund. It can do that anyway. It can print money to give the endowment for the funkopop fund. It doesn't even need to do that much, it can do it with a keystroke and invent the money into its bank account from thin air. The government's role in taxing wealth is to prevent intergenerational wealth from billionaire families from accumulating and then being used privately for private inscrutable goals which might not be aligned with the best interests of the folk or the nation. I realize you guys are talking about what is perceived to be possible "right now," but what is "right now" is a fundamental misunderstanding of how taxation and government spending actually work, so it is kind of self defeating to speak of taxation of any sort in this way.

Carbide, you should critically look into georgism. Although a liberal democratic philosophy with enlarged versions of the same core blindspots, some of its advocates claimed that it would prevent absurd accumulation of inter-generational wealth with rules that are much simpler and broadly applied. The essential idea is that they want to try and prevent unfair leverage over scarce natural resources (any natural opportunities, from land to radio spectrum) from interfering with the efficiency of the market system. They plan to solve this by having only a tax on land (and etc) which either goes to fund public works or goes to fund a citizen's dividend much like the UBI you have suggested.

I don't like your rules because I can imagine campaigns to tweak them just a little bit here or there with no real counterargument that appeals to present objectivity of the constants involved. (25->35, 10->5, etc) Also, inheritance taxes suck for all sorts of reasons already outlined ITT. It just isn't an efficient opportunity to tax, even purely to prevent accumulation of wealth it has damaging incentives and weird side effects. You could even just tax income from investment dividends etc and that would cause way less distortion. Anytime during their lifetime the eminent lineage may prefer to spend their accumulating wealth even in a nonproductive capacity to ensure advantages for their descendants. In whatever roundabout way they launder money to their own kids if it is much more efficient than taking the tax then people will do it.

I think the most underrated aspect of statecraft for a high-IQ society is that it will not be more collectively rational or more involved in politics by default. If I had 30 more IQ points I would spend more time immersed in cool projects but I would not feel a sudden patriotic desire to investigate the truth behind some lobbyist campaign arguing that we need a higher tax on the income of group performer musicians to fund the maintenance of public music venues. The only salvation is that the majority of the population will be able to understand the reasoning behind the fundamental statecraft. If we can create a robust system that places fundamental limits on its mutation that will be very stable in a high-IQ society.

Finally, a culture that promotes post-primary son inheritance will bring stone cold psychos to eminence more frequently than other societies. https://archive.amarna-forum.net/natural_killers.pdf IDK if this is really a bad thing. If you choose the last born sons, you are optimizing for those with the highest mutational load from older more mutated sperm. Maybe that isn't so bad either if their mutations haven't stopped them from siring descendants. Novel mutations are the root of genetic progress after all.

---

(06-20-2023, 09:45 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ][SNIP]

Georgism/LVT is the only economic policy which effectively all economists of all persuasions (besides the very libertarian) agree with... It's a very odd thing that it's only been implemented in one state and only very recently. If any amarnites know the reason, I'd love to see an elaboratory post on this.

You should obviously do what is best to maximize your own freedom and your children’s success, which is to pass down all of your money. The only way Mikka’s plan works is for other people to have more money than Mikka but somehow convince or force them to give Mikka money. Which is unfeasible and can’t be universalized. If we are universalizing this and applying it to all citizens then clearly there should be no inheritance tax.

Sinple case of libertarians are always right imo, don’t have to go into eugenics or anything.

(06-20-2023, 09:45 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like your rules because I can imagine campaigns to tweak them just a little bit here or there with no real counterargument

Make it the equivalent of constitutional amendments that are very resistant to change.

Quote:It just isn't an efficient opportunity to tax

Auctions are very efficient.

Quote:pEoPlE wOuLd jUsT bReAk tHe lAw

Penalty is sterilization of the bloodline and confiscation of all wealth. ezPZ. Step to the government and get erased from the mortal coil. How it's always been.

Quote:Lobbyists will secretly nigger the laws and people won't notice because it's too hard to have watchdogs.

Don't have a democracy, and make it constitutionally resilient. It's not forever, all systems will get niggered by greedy retards eventually, but it will last a good 200-300 years.

Quote:Finally, a culture that promotes post-primary son inheritance will bring stone cold psychos to eminence more frequently than other societies. https://archive.amarna-forum.net/natural_killers.pdf IDK if this is really a bad thing. If you choose the last born sons, you are optimizing for those with the highest mutational load from older more mutated sperm. Maybe that isn't so bad either if their mutations haven't stopped them from siring descendants. Novel mutations are the root of genetic progress after all.

This is autistic. I've read posts like this that advocate for letting zoomers and alphas fuck all our women rather than having our own children because of this horse shit. Seems more like an excuse to be a cuckhold than actual reasoning. Take your autism pills, this isn't real.

(06-23-2023, 04:28 PM)Carbide Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:pEoPlE wOuLd jUsT bReAk tHe lAw

Penalty is sterilization of the bloodline and confiscation of all wealth. ezPZ. Step to the government and get erased from the mortal coil. How it's always been.

If you provide prosecutors with the ability to justify such a punishment, they will abuse it. The distortions of your inefficient policy are going to exist at a variety of magnitudes. People are going to be investing in whatever doesn't get counted, whether that is legacy entrance to elite universities like today or currying favor with the crime/politician families. The scope of any law against such behavior would encompass all human activity. All you are doing is denying a more efficient method of passing accumulated advantage on as a simple balance.

If your shit actually works, you are taxing the meritorious but unlucky when they can afford it least. Son of trillionaire genius orphaned in asteroid mining gone wrong, all he gets is a decade of welfare paid from his father's estate. Now he has to wage his way back up instead of directly contributing to the more aristocratic labors accorded to his pedigree. Risk taking should not be unduly taxed, and thus mortality should not be taxed.

(06-23-2023, 04:28 PM)Carbide Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Finally, a culture that promotes post-primary son inheritance will bring stone cold psychos to eminence more frequently than other societies. https://archive.amarna-forum.net/natural_killers.pdf IDK if this is really a bad thing. If you choose the last born sons, you are optimizing for those with the highest mutational load from older more mutated sperm. Maybe that isn't so bad either if their mutations haven't stopped them from siring descendants. Novel mutations are the root of genetic progress after all.

This is autistic. I've read posts like this that advocate for letting zoomers and alphas fuck all our women rather than having our own children because of this horse shit. Seems more like an excuse to be a cuckhold than actual reasoning. Take your autism pills, this isn't real.

[/quote]
Allow me to assure you that I am well versed in hypocrisy. As we are discussing standards to apply to society, I need not be a cuckold to advocate policies that would hurt me if they were enforceable against me.

But that isn't even applicable because you just hallucinated that I endorse something else you read somewhere. All those things I mentioned are real and it is no more autistic to apply them to statecraft according to their relevance, than to fixate on the youngest sired son.