when byzantine emperors would die they would often declare a debt holiday and wipe out everyone's debt, but that was more for the new guy to get some cred
Date: September 11th, 2026 7:16 PM Author: light resort
So you think that someone who dies suddenly should be penalized in terms of property ownership rights vs. someone who knows they are going to die and can just give it all away to whoever they want? Also what about wills? Those are created before someone dies. Why should those pre-death instructions cease to take effect because someone says "property rights end at death"?
Date: September 11th, 2026 7:21 PM Author: light resort
non-responsive. regarding the will point, you would have to also say that no exercise of property rights may create effects after the owner's death, which is exactly the controversial claim you need to defend. and you are leaving the sudden death objection untouched.
Date: September 11th, 2026 9:16 PM Author: House-broken Deep Ape
it's the entire argument. It doesn't get more responsive than that. You haven't addressed the fact that dead people can't take their money with them into the afterlife. Furthermore death is permanent and final.
Date: September 11th, 2026 9:44 PM Author: light resort
You’re just assuming that no exercise of property rights may have effects after death, which is the very claim you need to defend. And you still haven’t answered why someone who knows they’re dying gets to give everything away, while someone who dies suddenly loses that power.
Date: September 11th, 2026 9:47 PM Author: light resort
That doesn’t answer the argument. Saying you’ve considered the incentives tells me you’ve thought about the consequences of your rule. It doesn’t explain why a living owner lacks the right to make a disposition that takes effect at death. What principle makes a will invalid while an otherwise identical gift made five minutes before death remains valid?
Date: September 11th, 2026 9:59 PM Author: light resort
Test: Jared has $10 million. At 11:59 PM he validly gives it to his daughter; at 12:01 AM he dies. Emilio also has $10 million but dies unexpectedly at 12:01 AM before making the same transfer. Why should Jared have the power to choose the recipient of his property while Emilio does not? And what principle makes a will executed while alive invalid merely because its transfer condition is death?
Date: September 11th, 2026 7:14 PM Author: House-broken Deep Ape
US citizens. Every year, the govt collects all the wealth from everyone who died that year, and it sends every US citizen an equal percentage of that amount in cash. Musk would get no special treatment: his wealth would go in the bucket with all the others. Buffet and Gates and Zuck go in the same bucket
Date: September 11th, 2026 9:22 PM Author: House-broken Deep Ape
Pop quiz: what if we held a referendum in America today? Would >50% of Americans support my proposal to redistribute Elon's money? Or would they overwhelmingly vote to preserve the status quo?
Date: September 11th, 2026 11:48 PM Author: Drunken Seedy Point
why would you want to remove incentive for an entrepreneur to create wealth for society? and what harm do you think dynastic wealth creates? in the vast majority of situations the family fritters it away in 2-3 generations anyway.
Date: September 12th, 2026 12:01 AM Author: rusted dead library
Is your position that people should be unable to give away their wealth (to their children, etc.) while they're alive? If so, that's a harder argument to counter. I'm not saying it's right; just that it's an argument for socialism and that's more complicated than can be hashed out in an xo thread started by a clearly retarded OP.
If your position is "no, transfers during life should be allowed; only bequests should be taxed away entirely or near-entirely by the state", then I might support it just for the hilariousness of the unfairness and immediate and obvious regressiveness that would result. The super-rich would immediately spread their wealth out among individuals who would still be contractually obligated to give it back to them for whatever purpose and whenever it was needed, just to have title formally away from any one potential decedent -- since the core incentive this hilarious rule creates is a hot-potato "don't have a person hold title to a given piece of property/wealth when they die unless you're okay parting with that particular property/wealth" rule -- while less financially sophisticated working-class, middle-class, and uneducated UMC types would get fucked up their tight little wagie assholes.
In a way, though, there's justice to it. Wagies get butt-fucked by the tax system already, paying FICA on top of 37% income tax, while the truly rich pay AT MOST a 15-20% cap gains tax. And in this world, natural justice means that the strong prey on the weak, and wagies' CUCKOLD behavior in allowing the political system to walk all over them for decades now means that they deserve to get tortured even more than they already are. They should also be forced to get down on their knees and thank their Job Creator masters for the opportunity to keep what little they're allowed to retain, and take videos of themselves saying "Thank you Mr. TRUMP for all you do" as a Buy-Borrow-Die'r (UHNW individuals could start firms renting themselves out for this service) ejaculates all over their face.
Date: September 12th, 2026 7:53 AM Author: House-broken Deep Ape
You can do whatever you want until you die. After you die the state takes all your wealth and redistributes it equally among the living. What's wrong with that?
My question was your answer. If it's worth doing at death, then it's worth doing on a nightly (or hourly, or every minute basis). If it's not, it's not.
Date: September 12th, 2026 3:08 PM Author: Richard Ames
Notwithstanding every other argument, the actual checks paid to everyone wouldn't even substantial. And given how illiquid most outsized wealth is, it would likely be far less than calculations suggest.