Anonymous wrote:Vomit. Sure you can because instead of paving your own way you're still relying on your parents.

This is ridiculous. OP can pay her own way - what she is asking about is whether she can afford to pay a house that is big enough for her family AND her mother. She probably can without her mother's contribution.

However, if I had to buy a house that could accommodate my mother - my mother would have to pay her own way and contribute to the down payment and mortgage. That's just reality. Although my mother came from nothing - she worked hard, saved and at this point in time is wealthier than I am. This is not my situation, but I could see if my father died my mother wanting to come and live with me. The only way that could happen is if I moved to a significantly larger space (and my mother's living standards at this point in her life are a lot higher than mine.) Any money transfer that makes this possible is not a disgusting wealth transfer or about my not being able to pay my way (I'm perfectly happy in my 500sqft apartment but even if I squeezed an extra bed for her that would not be good enough for a variety of reasons) but rather a retirement choice that she would be making and it is reasonable for her to use her assets to do so.

It's bizarre to me this insistence on everyone maintaining a separate household versus pooling resources as a family to meet the needs of everyone. My uncle and aunt lived with my grandparents their whole lives. Not sure how household expenses were divided but my uncle who worked in construction made improvements to the house, etc. I'm sure both my uncle and grandparents benefited from the arrangement at different times in their lives. My uncle probably benefiting more when he was younger and starting a family and my grandparents when they were older since my aunt (in law) ended up doing arrangements for in home care, etc.

Bottom line is the OP can afford it, particularly if she lives reasonably frugally. Even if she ran into hard times (loss of income, mother needing expensive care.) she has considerable savings as a cushion. It's likely she will also have a good inheritance (even if taxed) so an emergency dipping into savings (if at all needed) is unlikely to hurt her retirement at the end of the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People all butt hurt about their mom contributing 2k but how is that any different than your parents gifting you the 15k annual exclusion, paying for grandkids college or private school, or ultimately inheriting their money when they die.

I don’t get why people frown on parents choosing to provide their adult children with money while they can enjoy. I would much rather be given money no while I’m raising a family than inherit millions when I’m already retired (assuming parents live into their 80s).

Total aside but I feel compelled to respond to this absurd comment.

I’m sure this is not any different than all of the other wealth transfer mechanisms you listed, but 1) MOST people do not receive ANY of those things, and 2) it is disgusting to me because until recently I was still laboring under the delusion that we are living in a meritocracy.

We need SERIOUS tax reform in this country. It should not be possible in the land of opportunity for this obscene family wealth hoarding to occur. If parents want to give their adult children tons of money fine, but those adult children should pay at least as high if not higher tax rate than us poor serfs who actually go out and EARN our money.

Your logic scares me. What gives you the right (entitlement) to someone else’s money? If my grandparents, parents or whoever, EARNED wealth, paid taxes on those assets, and planned according to current tax laws, what gives you the right to feel that these assets should be taxed even more. My grandparents
Were dirt poor, built a business and accumulated significant wealth through the good old American dream. So they pay for my college or kids college, help
With down payment..How is that not fair?

Stop being jealous and earn your wealth. If you want to give your kids 15k a year each, good for you! If you want to donate it to Uncle Sam, please be my guest.

DP, but lol at “scares me”.

Even setting egalitarianism aside for a moment, what you describe is an incredibly inefficient use of resources. Wealth hoarding hurts all of society by limiting education and advancement opportunities for the vast majority of people so that the very wealthy can feel marginally more secure or comfortable. OP is basically debating between a 1.3m house and a 1.8m house. Her children’s (fully private) education is paid for. She has an enormous safety net in her savings. And you are upset about the idea that she might be made to pay taxes on massive lump sums of cash from her mom? It “scares” you? Does it also scare you that those taxes could be used to pay for other people’s kids to get educations and become functional, contributing members of society who ALSO pay taxes? Is that terrifying? A functional, interdependent society in which we all benefit from one another’s success and have a vested interest in helping one another? That frightens you?

I personally am more afraid of the current system where a small percentage of the population sits on giant piles of cash and watches the rest of the world burn.

Why do other people’s choices have anything to do with you? OP’s parents didn’t steal that money, they earned it.

Anyway, I’m a dp and not the least “scared” of you, I feel bad for people that are so envious of others. But our system is not going to radically change. Not ona country where the carried interest exemption has existed for decades.

Sure. And they can keep it if they like. But when they earn income on it, that income is taxed. And when they transfer it, it is taxed in virtually all situations. And this can't be said enough, when OP's parents give her money, i is a transfer. So why should it get preferential tax treatment?

For one, it is an incentive to save and invest, and work hard. You say you want a meritocracy, but than you want to double tax the most successful.

Op a freeloader. Always trying to get more $$ out of others including mom.

Anonymous wrote:The PP who is anti-inheritance does not seem to understand human nature.

One of the main reasons people work hard and thereby contribute to productivity of the economy is to provide for their children. This may be during their lifetime or after they die. This is a deeply ingrained instinct in the human race.

If the state overly limits transfer of wealth to children (or to charity as another poster has raised), many people simply would not exert the additional effort and simply rest on their laurels once they had enough money to see themselves comfortably to death.

Stymieing the energy and productivity of these people in this way would lower the overall productivity of the economy. The extra money would not go to educate disadvantaged children or provide other government services as PP thinks because there would be no extra money.

I understand both human nature and the tax code. (I also understand how to use the quote function, but that's another matter.)

No one is talking about confiscating entire estates. (Well, I'm not anyway). But why can't estates be taxed as ordinary income, with progressive rates?

Also, the notion that people (i) only have one motivation, and (ii) will just sit with their feet up on the sofa if if they aren't permitted to pass along millions to their children seems . . . well, I'll be nice and say overly simplistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP who is anti-inheritance does not seem to understand human nature.

One of the main reasons people work hard and thereby contribute to productivity of the economy is to provide for their children. This may be during their lifetime or after they die. This is a deeply ingrained instinct in the human race.

If the state overly limits transfer of wealth to children (or to charity as another poster has raised), many people simply would not exert the additional effort and simply rest on their laurels once they had enough money to see themselves comfortably to death.

Stymieing the energy and productivity of these people in this way would lower the overall productivity of the economy. The extra money would not go to educate disadvantaged children or provide other government services as PP thinks because there would be no extra money.

The instinct is to ensure your children are safe and healthy. That's the deeply ingrained instinct and we should encourage and protect it.

People also instinctively want to give their children an advantage over others, to ensure their absolute comfort and keep them from ever experiencing pain or hardship. Those instincts are actually kind of bad and counterproductive. Think of how people react to intense helicopter parents. Think of all the people who become entitled jerks unable to tolerate even minimal discomfort because their parents shielded them from anything unpleasant. Why should we encourage that via money.

Sorry, but I don't think here is a societal interest in ensuring that OP and her husband can afford a 1.8m house so that her DH can have a short commute (versus living slightly further out in a 1.3m house that they could easily afford while paying taxes on her mother's "contribution" to their income). OP is not in danger. Her children are not in danger. Quite the opposite. Why are we still protecting her mother's "right" to give her money?

Plus her mother obviously has so much money she doesn't know what to do with it, as she's offering to pay the cost of a 2-bedroom condo to her daughter as "rent" for living in a room in her home.

None of these people would miss the taxes they'd pay on these transfers. At all. They would all be fine without it. They would still benefit greatly from the wealth amassed from their incomes. So would their children and grandchildren. No one would suffer by just *paying some taxes*. Which could then be used to fund Covid relief, public education, roads and bridges, etc. -- things everyone, including OP and her family -- benefit from.

You may think those instincts are bad are counterproductive. But it is human nature and a society never wins by fighting against nature. Society is best off with incentive compatible laws and regulations that take into account natural human instincts for the sake of most efficiently getting to the greater good.

As they said in Juraissic Park: Nature will find a way.

PS Do you think helicoptered kids really have an advantage in the long run?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what’s better for society?

Wealthy person A donates $50M to establish a school for underrepresented minorities to learn STEM, internships, etc OR paying $50M in estate taxes.

You can’t possibly imagine the government will be more efficient with those funds.

I agree there should be some estate tax, but the problem with society isn’t the families with 10-100m, it’s the families with tens of billions of more.

I would argue it’s more efficient for the government to incentivize charitable giving more than they currently do from a tax/estate plan. Congress is inept, thanks to Trump, its only gotten worse.

Yes, the government is more efficient with those funds. The government has a built in infrastructure to provide people with education, healthcare, and other social services. OF COURSE it is more efficient for the government to provide those services than for wealthy people to just build new services from scratch every time they want to put their names on something.

Even rich people get this, which is why they are much, much more likely to just give large lump sums to hospitals or schools or other services than to try to build something from scratch.

Plus, if it's taxes, it's something we all do together and thus everyone has equal access. When wealthy people create services, they inevitably feel like they own them even if it's charitable. If you don't understand this, you haven't worked in charitable giving. These rich people create foundations for charitable giving, and then meddle endlessly in these organizations that they have given money to, regardless of whether they have the skills or knowledge to know how the money would be best spent. It is not efficient at all.

Taxes are a much more efficient way to provide services than charitable giving. Charitable giving is just a way for the very wealthy to launder their reputations in order to continue to justify paying so little in taxes.

Bold 1: You must not live in DC.

Bold 2: Notably, those are private not government hospitals, schools, or social service organizations.

Anonymous wrote:So what’s better for society?

Wealthy person A donates $50M to establish a school for underrepresented minorities to learn STEM, internships, etc OR paying $50M in estate taxes.

You can’t possibly imagine the government will be more efficient with those funds.

I agree there should be some estate tax, but the problem with society isn’t the families with 10-100m, it’s the families with tens of billions of more.

I would argue it’s more efficient for the government to incentivize charitable giving more than they currently do from a tax/estate plan. Congress is inept, thanks to Trump, its only gotten worse.

Yes, the government is more efficient with those funds. The government has a built in infrastructure to provide people with education, healthcare, and other social services. OF COURSE it is more efficient for the government to provide those services than for wealthy people to just build new services from scratch every time they want to put their names on something.

Even rich people get this, which is why they are much, much more likely to just give large lump sums to hospitals or schools or other services than to try to build something from scratch.

Plus, if it's taxes, it's something we all do together and thus everyone has equal access. When wealthy people create services, they inevitably feel like they own them even if it's charitable. If you don't understand this, you haven't worked in charitable giving. These rich people create foundations for charitable giving, and then meddle endlessly in these organizations that they have given money to, regardless of whether they have the skills or knowledge to know how the money would be best spent. It is not efficient at all.

Taxes are a much more efficient way to provide services than charitable giving. Charitable giving is just a way for the very wealthy to launder their reputations in order to continue to justify paying so little in taxes.

Anonymous wrote:The PP who is anti-inheritance does not seem to understand human nature.

One of the main reasons people work hard and thereby contribute to productivity of the economy is to provide for their children. This may be during their lifetime or after they die. This is a deeply ingrained instinct in the human race.

If the state overly limits transfer of wealth to children (or to charity as another poster has raised), many people simply would not exert the additional effort and simply rest on their laurels once they had enough money to see themselves comfortably to death.

Stymieing the energy and productivity of these people in this way would lower the overall productivity of the economy. The extra money would not go to educate disadvantaged children or provide other government services as PP thinks because there would be no extra money.

The instinct is to ensure your children are safe and healthy. That's the deeply ingrained instinct and we should encourage and protect it.

People also instinctively want to give their children an advantage over others, to ensure their absolute comfort and keep them from ever experiencing pain or hardship. Those instincts are actually kind of bad and counterproductive. Think of how people react to intense helicopter parents. Think of all the people who become entitled jerks unable to tolerate even minimal discomfort because their parents shielded them from anything unpleasant. Why should we encourage that via money.

Sorry, but I don't think here is a societal interest in ensuring that OP and her husband can afford a 1.8m house so that her DH can have a short commute (versus living slightly further out in a 1.3m house that they could easily afford while paying taxes on her mother's "contribution" to their income). OP is not in danger. Her children are not in danger. Quite the opposite. Why are we still protecting her mother's "right" to give her money?

Plus her mother obviously has so much money she doesn't know what to do with it, as she's offering to pay the cost of a 2-bedroom condo to her daughter as "rent" for living in a room in her home.

None of these people would miss the taxes they'd pay on these transfers. At all. They would all be fine without it. They would still benefit greatly from the wealth amassed from their incomes. So would their children and grandchildren. No one would suffer by just *paying some taxes*. Which could then be used to fund Covid relief, public education, roads and bridges, etc. -- things everyone, including OP and her family -- benefit from.

Anonymous wrote:Your logic scares me. What gives you the right (entitlement) to someone else’s money? If my grandparents, parents or whoever, EARNED wealth, paid taxes on those assets, and planned according to current tax laws, what gives you the right to feel that these assets should be taxed even more. My grandparents
Were dirt poor, built a business and accumulated significant wealth through the good old American dream. So they pay for my college or kids college, help
With down payment..How is that not fair?

Stop being jealous and earn your wealth. If you want to give your kids 15k a year each, good for you! If you want to donate it to Uncle Sam, please be my guest.

Thomas Jefferson argued that there is only one natural law, “that the earth belongs . . . to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.”

Jefferson took care to note that a child who inherits his father’s property “takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People all butt hurt about their mom contributing 2k but how is that any different than your parents gifting you the 15k annual exclusion, paying for grandkids college or private school, or ultimately inheriting their money when they die.

I don’t get why people frown on parents choosing to provide their adult children with money while they can enjoy. I would much rather be given money no while I’m raising a family than inherit millions when I’m already retired (assuming parents live into their 80s).

Total aside but I feel compelled to respond to this absurd comment.

I’m sure this is not any different than all of the other wealth transfer mechanisms you listed, but 1) MOST people do not receive ANY of those things, and 2) it is disgusting to me because until recently I was still laboring under the delusion that we are living in a meritocracy.

We need SERIOUS tax reform in this country. It should not be possible in the land of opportunity for this obscene family wealth hoarding to occur. If parents want to give their adult children tons of money fine, but those adult children should pay at least as high if not higher tax rate than us poor serfs who actually go out and EARN our money.

Your logic scares me. What gives you the right (entitlement) to someone else’s money? If my grandparents, parents or whoever, EARNED wealth, paid taxes on those assets, and planned according to current tax laws, what gives you the right to feel that these assets should be taxed even more. My grandparents
Were dirt poor, built a business and accumulated significant wealth through the good old American dream. So they pay for my college or kids college, help
With down payment..How is that not fair?

Stop being jealous and earn your wealth. If you want to give your kids 15k a year each, good for you! If you want to donate it to Uncle Sam, please be my guest.

The PP is not suggesting a sua sponte tax on assets. She is saying that any time there is a significant transfer of wealth, it should be taxes. Most transfers *are* taxed - your paycheck is taxed as income, if you buy something, the amount you pay is taxed as income to the retailer or service provider. But for some reason, we as a society have decided against taxing the vast majority of intra-family wealth transfers - inheritance and gifts. She is simply arguing that we eliminate that exception.

As you said, your parents planned according to current tax laws. But those are, and always have been, subject to change. There's nothing nefarious suggested here.

And your admonition to "earn your own wealth" is so idiotic it's almost difficult to describe. At the end of a long screed where you argue for your right to money *you* did not earn free of any taxes, you tell someone else to earn their own money? The lack of self-awareness is stunning.

I was that PP and THANK YOU! I am glad that at least someone gets it.

For all the other posters inexplicably talking about envy and whether or not their parents/grandparents earned their money... it matters because the pie really IS finite. For example, all these young trust funders are only able to afford these houses in close-in locations BECAUSE of their unearned family wealth... it stands to reason that this therefore drives up prices (real estate, school tuition, etc.) and shuts out the people who are NOT part of this modern aristocracy. To me, this isn’t right, not in a country that pretends we don’t want a permanent ruling class.

The PP who is anti-inheritance does not seem to understand human nature.

One of the main reasons people work hard and thereby contribute to productivity of the economy is to provide for their children. This may be during their lifetime or after they die. This is a deeply ingrained instinct in the human race.

If the state overly limits transfer of wealth to children (or to charity as another poster has raised), many people simply would not exert the additional effort and simply rest on their laurels once they had enough money to see themselves comfortably to death.

Stymieing the energy and productivity of these people in this way would lower the overall productivity of the economy. The extra money would not go to educate disadvantaged children or provide other government services as PP thinks because there would be no extra money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People all butt hurt about their mom contributing 2k but how is that any different than your parents gifting you the 15k annual exclusion, paying for grandkids college or private school, or ultimately inheriting their money when they die.

I don’t get why people frown on parents choosing to provide their adult children with money while they can enjoy. I would much rather be given money no while I’m raising a family than inherit millions when I’m already retired (assuming parents live into their 80s).

Total aside but I feel compelled to respond to this absurd comment.

I’m sure this is not any different than all of the other wealth transfer mechanisms you listed, but 1) MOST people do not receive ANY of those things, and 2) it is disgusting to me because until recently I was still laboring under the delusion that we are living in a meritocracy.

We need SERIOUS tax reform in this country. It should not be possible in the land of opportunity for this obscene family wealth hoarding to occur. If parents want to give their adult children tons of money fine, but those adult children should pay at least as high if not higher tax rate than us poor serfs who actually go out and EARN our money.

Your logic scares me. What gives you the right (entitlement) to someone else’s money? If my grandparents, parents or whoever, EARNED wealth, paid taxes on those assets, and planned according to current tax laws, what gives you the right to feel that these assets should be taxed even more. My grandparents
Were dirt poor, built a business and accumulated significant wealth through the good old American dream. So they pay for my college or kids college, help
With down payment..How is that not fair?

Stop being jealous and earn your wealth. If you want to give your kids 15k a year each, good for you! If you want to donate it to Uncle Sam, please be my guest.

DP, but lol at “scares me”.

Even setting egalitarianism aside for a moment, what you describe is an incredibly inefficient use of resources. Wealth hoarding hurts all of society by limiting education and advancement opportunities for the vast majority of people so that the very wealthy can feel marginally more secure or comfortable. OP is basically debating between a 1.3m house and a 1.8m house. Her children’s (fully private) education is paid for. She has an enormous safety net in her savings. And you are upset about the idea that she might be made to pay taxes on massive lump sums of cash from her mom? It “scares” you? Does it also scare you that those taxes could be used to pay for other people’s kids to get educations and become functional, contributing members of society who ALSO pay taxes? Is that terrifying? A functional, interdependent society in which we all benefit from one another’s success and have a vested interest in helping one another? That frightens you?

I personally am more afraid of the current system where a small percentage of the population sits on giant piles of cash and watches the rest of the world burn.

Why do other people’s choices have anything to do with you? OP’s parents didn’t steal that money, they earned it.

Anyway, I’m a dp and not the least “scared” of you, I feel bad for people that are so envious of others. But our system is not going to radically change. Not ona country where the carried interest exemption has existed for decades.

Sure. And they can keep it if they like. But when they earn income on it, that income is taxed. And when they transfer it, it is taxed in virtually all situations. And this can't be said enough, when OP's parents give her money, i is a transfer. So why should it get preferential tax treatment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People all butt hurt about their mom contributing 2k but how is that any different than your parents gifting you the 15k annual exclusion, paying for grandkids college or private school, or ultimately inheriting their money when they die.

I don’t get why people frown on parents choosing to provide their adult children with money while they can enjoy. I would much rather be given money no while I’m raising a family than inherit millions when I’m already retired (assuming parents live into their 80s).

Total aside but I feel compelled to respond to this absurd comment.

I’m sure this is not any different than all of the other wealth transfer mechanisms you listed, but 1) MOST people do not receive ANY of those things, and 2) it is disgusting to me because until recently I was still laboring under the delusion that we are living in a meritocracy.

We need SERIOUS tax reform in this country. It should not be possible in the land of opportunity for this obscene family wealth hoarding to occur. If parents want to give their adult children tons of money fine, but those adult children should pay at least as high if not higher tax rate than us poor serfs who actually go out and EARN our money.

Your logic scares me. What gives you the right (entitlement) to someone else’s money? If my grandparents, parents or whoever, EARNED wealth, paid taxes on those assets, and planned according to current tax laws, what gives you the right to feel that these assets should be taxed even more. My grandparents
Were dirt poor, built a business and accumulated significant wealth through the good old American dream. So they pay for my college or kids college, help
With down payment..How is that not fair?

Stop being jealous and earn your wealth. If you want to give your kids 15k a year each, good for you! If you want to donate it to Uncle Sam, please be my guest.

DP, but lol at “scares me”.

Even setting egalitarianism aside for a moment, what you describe is an incredibly inefficient use of resources. Wealth hoarding hurts all of society by limiting education and advancement opportunities for the vast majority of people so that the very wealthy can feel marginally more secure or comfortable. OP is basically debating between a 1.3m house and a 1.8m house. Her children’s (fully private) education is paid for. She has an enormous safety net in her savings. And you are upset about the idea that she might be made to pay taxes on massive lump sums of cash from her mom? It “scares” you? Does it also scare you that those taxes could be used to pay for other people’s kids to get educations and become functional, contributing members of society who ALSO pay taxes? Is that terrifying? A functional, interdependent society in which we all benefit from one another’s success and have a vested interest in helping one another? That frightens you?

I personally am more afraid of the current system where a small percentage of the population sits on giant piles of cash and watches the rest of the world burn.

Why do other people’s choices have anything to do with you? OP’s parents didn’t steal that money, they earned it.

Anyway, I’m a dp and not the least “scared” of you, I feel bad for people that are so envious of others. But our system is not going to radically change. Not ona country where the carried interest exemption has existed for decades.

Not in a country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People all butt hurt about their mom contributing 2k but how is that any different than your parents gifting you the 15k annual exclusion, paying for grandkids college or private school, or ultimately inheriting their money when they die.

I don’t get why people frown on parents choosing to provide their adult children with money while they can enjoy. I would much rather be given money no while I’m raising a family than inherit millions when I’m already retired (assuming parents live into their 80s).

Total aside but I feel compelled to respond to this absurd comment.

I’m sure this is not any different than all of the other wealth transfer mechanisms you listed, but 1) MOST people do not receive ANY of those things, and 2) it is disgusting to me because until recently I was still laboring under the delusion that we are living in a meritocracy.

We need SERIOUS tax reform in this country. It should not be possible in the land of opportunity for this obscene family wealth hoarding to occur. If parents want to give their adult children tons of money fine, but those adult children should pay at least as high if not higher tax rate than us poor serfs who actually go out and EARN our money.

Your logic scares me. What gives you the right (entitlement) to someone else’s money? If my grandparents, parents or whoever, EARNED wealth, paid taxes on those assets, and planned according to current tax laws, what gives you the right to feel that these assets should be taxed even more. My grandparents
Were dirt poor, built a business and accumulated significant wealth through the good old American dream. So they pay for my college or kids college, help
With down payment..How is that not fair?

Stop being jealous and earn your wealth. If you want to give your kids 15k a year each, good for you! If you want to donate it to Uncle Sam, please be my guest.

DP, but lol at “scares me”.

Even setting egalitarianism aside for a moment, what you describe is an incredibly inefficient use of resources. Wealth hoarding hurts all of society by limiting education and advancement opportunities for the vast majority of people so that the very wealthy can feel marginally more secure or comfortable. OP is basically debating between a 1.3m house and a 1.8m house. Her children’s (fully private) education is paid for. She has an enormous safety net in her savings. And you are upset about the idea that she might be made to pay taxes on massive lump sums of cash from her mom? It “scares” you? Does it also scare you that those taxes could be used to pay for other people’s kids to get educations and become functional, contributing members of society who ALSO pay taxes? Is that terrifying? A functional, interdependent society in which we all benefit from one another’s success and have a vested interest in helping one another? That frightens you?

I personally am more afraid of the current system where a small percentage of the population sits on giant piles of cash and watches the rest of the world burn.

Why do other people’s choices have anything to do with you? OP’s parents didn’t steal that money, they earned it.

Anyway, I’m a dp and not the least “scared” of you, I feel bad for people that are so envious of others. But our system is not going to radically change. Not ona country where the carried interest exemption has existed for decades.

Anonymous wrote:Well that is the issue.

You’re arguing for more estate tax, I’m arguing to provide more
Incentives for the wealthy to donate heir wealth vs uncle taking it in the form of estate tax.

If they don’t want to be charitable then sure, tax em. Without the wealthy, many of the greatest social joys we love participating in - museums, education, etc would not function.

Dave Rubenstein is a great example of what I’m in favor of. A man who started a business, worth billions and gives back significantly to his local community (and the country for that matter). Dave r is hardly the problem in society.

It's a huge tangent from the previous discussion (which was itself a tangent) - but I'm curious. What incentives do you suggest?