Hypothetically...

He asked a question about specific thing and you sperged out like he was Marxing. Sounds more like paint chip pilled.

...

You didnt build that inheritance, your dad did. Should you be poor while someone else is rich because your had a poor dad and he had a rich dad?

Hes a faggot that needs to go back to trannypol just like you.

Or how about this, to light a fire under these assholes. The head of the company's net worth is only allowed to be so many times that of its poorest employee.

My direct family isn't rich and I won't be inheriting more than maybe 10k if it even that. I am well on my way with purchasing land planning for my future. I will make sure that my blue eyed children are given the world. Fuck off shit skin, you are not taking my success once i die.

>>/reddit/

Shit larp because the law is unenforceable. Richfags don’t have all their shit in a secret safe behind a false bookshelf. They have holdings in equities, businesses, real estate under myriad corporate and legal entities and trusts, distributed worldwide. Additionally, the dollar value of most of these assets can’t be accurately determined until they are sold to another investor. There’s a much better and simpler way to accomplish what you’re aiming at here, but I won’t spoon feed you any further.

Yes, and he built it so that his children and grand children could benefit from it.
Yes, because my ancestors were intelligent, contributed massively to society, and made good decisions. Sorry you had shitty parents who didn’t care enough about you to work hard and build up any wealth for you. Maybe now you’ll think ahead and do so for your own children.

This. We already get raped by the government for almost 50% of our earnings while we’re alive, and have to deal with estate tax when we’re dead. You really want more? Fuck you. Go back to Somalia.

Get your fucking ass back to lefty pol, you commie faggot.

...

testing

Iron pill is ns not capitalist, moshe.

So you're saying it's ideal that niggers get even more gibs at random simply because you're that salty about people who were good at life having money?

Strawman, but if you can come up with a better way to ensure that such a distribution is 'fair' (or at least passes for it), I'm all ears.

All this high-minded Alpha wolf brain thinking is well and good, but don't be surprised when it collides with reality where people don't give a fuck how honorably you made your money, all they know is you have most of it, much too much of it for them to ever have a chance of catching up, then vote in some socialist asshat like AOC who comes to take it from you in a way you really won't like.

How much of other people’s money do you feel entitled to steal before you consider it ‘fair’?
You’re a fucking coon. Kill yourself.

The only "fair" distribution system is following the will of what the deceased in question.
The only exception to that would be if some of the money was proven to have been acquired illegally, then that money would be confiscated and "redistributed" accordingly.

My problem with that is that's how you end up with the Rothschilds dynasty. I get that my original premise was kinda stupid now, though it was an interesting thought exercise.

Wealth Inequality isn’t a problem, only idiots and losers think it is. The real problem is the bottom. The mass of useless people who don’t produce any value, and consume more many multiples more than they produce, and STILL complain it’s unfair even though they are basically subsidised to live way outside their means by the productive. Unless they learn to produce a consumer surplus those people will always be poor, they will always be a burden on the productive, and no degree of ‘redistribution’ will ever solve that. If we had a real country those people would have starved to death thanks to natural selection, and we wouldn’t have to undermine our civilisation by facilitating their parasitic bullshit or give them a single fucking cent. Such people are no better than the Jews, they’re both parasites that contribute nothing of value to society.

It's better than what exists, but suboptimal. Check Georgisim or geolibertariansism for hints on a better way to solve for preventing concentration of wealth.

You'll need to solve for concentration of state wealth too though, otherwise kikes will just take over the gov't and try and "own" it all that way.

Thanks for the new reading, I'll give those a look.

>Give the wealth to the dumbest people so they "control" the country instead.
Terrible idea.

fuckin commies

That's downright dysgnics, nigger.

Fuck off the just argued for ultra money jewness, royalty/Monopoly of and by the rich
The poor often work very hard, producing vital resources certainly more so then Paris Hilton ya fuck

This. Fuck off OP with your shitty genes.

All that would do would be to make you split up your assets before you die

this already exists. often called "the death tax" and was severely reduced by asshole Bush. And, middle-class ppl freaked out and abolished it even though most of them wouldn't even be hit by it. welcome to america

...

This.

Asia is what would happen if we gave western autists gfs

Fuck off you communist fuck. It's not about preventing dynasties. Commies are so fucking stupid.

...

bad idea. if you take wealth away from all the genuine aristocratic families, everybody ends up poor and homeless except the banks.

have you ever wondered why low-quality american houses are only built to last around 30 years, i.e. the same duration as a 30 year mortgate note? hint: generational property transfer often happens approximately every 30 years via family member death & distribution of estate assets. split up the family home among multiple heirs, nobody actually owns the family home 100%, heirs sell the family home to the bank, bank sells the house to somebody else with 30 year mortgate note, cycle repeats with bank getting rich off of people dying and splitting up/selling their assets to the bank. the family and the bank do not own the house long-term and neither care much about house quality, hence the abundance of low-quality american houses.

have you ever wondered why some high-quality british homes are over 300 years old? hint: british primogeniture - some british families built their homes to last because they aimed to hold on to them for a long time. house passed from father to eldest son for generations, no banks/mortgages involved. because the family owns the house long-term, the family cares a lot about making their house high quality.

among other things, alexis de tocqueville argued that destroying the aristocracy and everybody being poor and landless/homeless was "good for democracy"

anncoulter.com/columns/2019-03-20.html

Recall that England's law of primogeniture was one of the best things that ever happened to this country. If you are a small island nation and want to keep land from being chopped up every generation, it makes sense to mandate that entire estates be bequeathed to the first-born son. But that left a lot of smart second-, third- and fourth-born sons – not to mention daughters – out in the cold.

The talented, but screwed, Brits responded by hopping on boats, sailing across the ocean and creating America!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

Arguments in favour

Primogeniture prevents the subdivision of estates and diminishes internal pressures to sell property (for example, if two children inherit a house and neither can afford to buy out the other's share).

In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, many younger sons of English aristocrats specifically chose to leave England for Virginia in the Colonies. Many of the early Virginians who were plantation owners were such younger sons who had left England fortuneless due to primogeniture laws. These Founding Fathers of the United States of America were nearly universally descended from the landed gentry of England.

Arguments against

The fact that the eldest son "scooped the pool" often led to ill-feeling amongst younger sons (and of course daughters). Through marriage, estates inherited by primogeniture were combined and some nobles achieved wealth and power sufficient to pose a threat even to the crown itself.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville argues that the abolition of the laws of primogeniture and entail in the law of inheritance of private property (as opposed to inheritance of a monarchy) result in the more rapid division of land, forcing landless people to seek wealth outside the family estate in order to maintain their previous standard of living, accelerating the death of the landed aristocracy and also quickening the shift to democracy.[7]

old.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/c46r6s/the_discreet_lives_of_the_superrich_2019_1_of/ervk9gp/?context=3

Inequality doesn’t strike me as inherently problematic. If they got there through exploiting people or something else immoral or unfair, sure. But chances are most of them got there because they themselves, or somebody in their family took a risk and built something through their own ingenuity. I think the ability in society for people to be able to do this through providing a valuable product or service improves our collective quality of life. So no, inequality is not inherently problematic - if anything it is an intended positive consequence of a free society.

Attached: british primogeniture house.jpg (720x387 2.01 MB, 55.98K)

It's appropriate. Make the threshold sufficiently large if you like, but dynasties and trust fund kids are not useful to an economy. They don't trickle down wealth effectively and the whole thing just self reinforces. Wealth is too concentrated right now, and times when it has not been were better for everyone. That said, it sets a bad precedent in that the reds think that it's open season on wealth and feel empowered to redistribute all of it.
Anyway, this has to be met with the curtailing or elimination of the global market. You can't have a balanced economy when citizens are competing with Chinese, Indian and other subhumans who work for a dollar a month. Naturally the money won't make it to Joe Normal in such a configuration.

I suppose a better question is "what do you do with the money once you have it?".

Hypothetically there's a race war. Good idea or bad idea?

Capitalists get the rope along with Communists.

Once it threatens the health of the State or the Volk as a whole. As in, it's not necessarily a fixed economic rule - we're not jews that need to play word games with laws rich people filled with loopholes. Is a family using it's wealth well & to the benefit of the whole nation? Yes, then they're worthy stewards of their fortune & leaders of the community. Let them continue. No - do they meddling in buying off politicians and distorting the wider economy? Then break them up or levy penalties on them.

There won't be a race war

None of this shit matters in the current state of things, no policy can correct whats going on. In an ideal natsoc scenario I wouldn't want this because like others have said the whole point of lfie is building up a legacy for your kids. You'd have decently high taxes on the rich and less of a need for welfare anyway.

Everyone keeps saying the point of life is to pass stuff to your kids. Source please? Plenty of people don't even have kids and find life meaningful. Plenty of people have kids they do love and don't pass the family business onto them for one reason or another.

Why do you say that?

sup leftypol

Attached: marx family.jpg (960x720 27.54 KB, 34.13K)

White kiked middle class needs to suffer.

WHAT RACE DOES THE LAW APPLY TO?

lmao at you asking for a source AND making claims with zero sources yourself.

Attached: 7.png (331x132, 30.15K)

Many white communities don't sit on currency, they sit on land and assets. The assets consist of livestock, firearms, jewelry, etc.. Only retards think that the federal dollariedoos hold real value. You are better off putting 800 bucks into some cheap firearms and sitting on them than putting into a safe or even a bank account. There is a reason why that faggot Beto went after farmers.

Your claim doesn't even hold merit either. Fuck off nigger.

Watch that law only stick to whites who will have money ripped from them after death while jews sit on cash from laundering money and fraud that just goes to there maggot offspring. Taxation is anti-white.

The only thing that matters is race and anti-leftard ideologies. Always kill the non-white rich, and always kill the champagne leftist rich. Following this rule
But applying direct and permanent punishment (death) to those that misuse their wealth.

nigger nigger nigger nigger