Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[tshile]

He didn't support the brady bill but he does support banning "assault weapons"

 

As someone who supports the idea of owning guns, isn't against increasing gun control, but hates ideas that don't actually do anything... i cannot figure out the logic behind not being for increased background checks on handgun purchases, but being for banning "assault weapons"...

[PeterMP]

Paul's tax plan is the outline I want - flat tax, with no deductions - but implemented terribly.

 

The federal government needs more revenue not less. Until we fix our budget and get on track for managing our debt, decreasing revenue is dumb.

 

When I read it I was disappointed. Those percentages need about 10% added to them.

 

50k is about where I would have drawn the line too, so I was happy to see him and I are on the same page in that regard.

 

He's leaving in deductions for mortgages and charities (which primarily benefit the wealthy) and the EIC tax credit.

 

He's also leaving in essentially a child deduction ($50K for a family of 4, what is it for a family of 2?).

 

This is a big boon to the top % income earners, while still requiring a "tax industry" (everybody is still going to have to file income taxes and the such).

[tshile]

He's leaving in deductions for mortgages and charities (which primarily benefit the wealthy) and the EIC tax credit.

 

He's also leaving in essentially a child deduction ($50K for a family of 4, what is it for a family of 2?).

 

This is a big boon to the top % income earners, while still requiring a "tax industry" (everybody is still going to have to file income taxes and the such).

 

I'm not cool with any deductions. Deductions are just the way of the government encouraging behaviors it likes (the opposite of sin taxes), which would be fine except that corruption has led to it being used to benefit certain people; unsurprisingly people with the power to influence our government... I recognize why someone would identify mortgages and charities as being ok, but I'm not ok with it, but at the same time it doesn't make me absolutely against the idea (I think i'm in the minority in not wanting deductions for mortgages/charities)

 

EIC is for people making less than 50k a year, which his flat tax wouldn't apply to. http://www.irs.gov/Credits-&-Deductions/Individuals/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit/EITC-Income-Limits-Maximum-Credit-Amounts

Unless you're married, filing jointly, with 3 children, then the cap is 52k. Am I missing something?

 

I don't know how I feel about a deduction for kids. I'm ok with a deduction for having 1 kid, and after that you're on your own. I'm not married to that idea, I'm pretty flexible and/or indecisive on that part.

 

The whole "the wealthy benefit the most" is a little bit of BS isn't it? The only reason they "benefit the most" is because they're being put a set tax rate that is effectively lower than what they were required to pay before. So that 5% savings they get is significantly more because 5% of 1 million is ridiculously larger than 5% of 60k. But that's what a flat tax system is about - taxing everyone the same percentage, admitting that the actual dollars will swing much more (in either direction) for the wealth for obvious mathematical reasons.

 

In fact, that argument sounds exactly like the BS the republicans typically put out about our current tax system - that despite paying significantly lower rates the wealthy "contribute more" because 13.1% of 500 million dollars is a lot more than 22% of 55k. An argument most on the left would consider completely disingenuous to the actual subject matter...

 

Tax code is way out of my wheel house so if I'm missing something I would appreciate being corrected

[Larry]

I don't think this was posted, but I have Bernie fatigue in this thread so I figured why not. Rand Paul released his tax "plan."

There's a lot in that article. Touching on the tax cut proposals that three GOP candidates have made. (What a shock. All of them are campaigning on tax cuts.)

 

There's also things that I don't see.  Like, a link to what Ryan actually proposed.  Think I'll go and try to find it. 

[The Evil Genius]

I'm not cool with any deductions. Deductions are just the way of the government encouraging behaviors it likes (the opposite of sin taxes), which would be fine except that corruption has led to it being used to benefit certain people; unsurprisingly people with the power to influence our government... I recognize why someone would identify mortgages and charities as being ok, but I'm not ok with it, but at the same time it doesn't make me absolutely against the idea (I think i'm in the minority in not wanting deductions for mortgages/charities)

 

 

I think home ownership is still something to be encouraged. But limit it to one home mortgage and cap the deduction based on income levels. 

 

I would hate a flat tax without deductions, especially deductions for the lower tier earners.

 

A flat tax in itself is terribly regressive and would cripple the lower earners even more so than the current system (well..how the current system is supposed to work).  I know this is terribly simplistic..but when you taking away 15% of someone who earns $50k vs 15% of someone who earns $250k -- who do you think is impacted more?

[PeterMP]

The whole "the wealthy benefit the most" is a little bit of BS isn't it? The only reason they "benefit the most" is because they're being put a set tax rate that is effectively lower than what they were required to pay before.

 

He's simultaneously lowering their tax rates in and leaving in deductions that generally benefit them.  The end result is that they likely are going to pay significantly less taxes than they probably do now.

 

If you consider that BS, then it is BS.

[Larry]

I'm not cool with any deductions. Deductions are just the way of the government encouraging behaviors it likes . . .

I'll point out that there actually are other possible motives for a tax deduction, though. Another way of looking at is a recognition that "A person who has this income, but also has this bill, isn't as rich as a person who doesn't have that bill".

 

Does making kids deductible encourage having kids?  Or simply recognize that kids cost money? 

 

For a different example, I'll observe that, for several years, my parents had an annual taxable income of around $90K.  But Dad was in a nursing home, which was costing him $150K/year. 

 

Should they have been taxed the same as if they had an income of $80K, and no medical bills? 

 

EIC is for people making less than 50k a year, which his flat tax wouldn't apply to. http://www.irs.gov/Credits-&-Deductions/Individuals/Earned-Income-Tax-Credit/EITC-Income-Limits-Maximum-Credit-Amounts

Unless you're married, filing jointly, with 3 children, then the cap is 52k. Am I missing something?

 

I don't know how I feel about a deduction for kids. I'm ok with a deduction for having 1 kid, and after that you're on your own. I'm not married to that idea, I'm pretty flexible and/or indecisive on that part.

Possible theory to explain that disparity:

Maybe Ryan's plan taxes all income, but it includes the EIC, and therefore his claim that a family of four won;t pay taxes on $50K is really saying "A family of four won't pay taxes on $50K, because of the EIC". 

[tshile]

I think home ownership is still something to be encouraged. But limit it to one home mortgage and cap the deduction based on imcome levels. 

 

I would hate a flat tax without deductions, especially deductions for the lower tier earners.

 

A flat tax in itself is terribly regressive and would cripple the lower earners even more so than the current system (is supposed to work).  I know this is terribly simplistic..but when you taking away 15% of someone who earns $50k vs 15% of someone who earns $250k -- who do you think is impacted more?

 

Well, there's a few things going on here...

 

My anti-deductions stand point is to avoid a flat tax from being regressive. Deductions usually benefit you more the more you make, as making more money is required to use more deductions. Hard to get a mortgage deduction if you can't afford a mortgage.

 

If you're going to find a way to offer more deductions for the less you make, I'm all ears, but I fail to see how that's possible. Deductions are offered based on how you spend money, how are you going to offer deductions that benefit the lower end when they have the least to spend?

 

Which is why most flat tax advocates sugest, as Rand did and I did, that you set a limit underneath with you wouldn't even charge taxes (or you would have a progressive system, like we have now, with low rates up until that limit.) Rand picked 50k, that's the number I've often used, though I'm flexible. The flat tax rate wouldn't apply until you make at least 50k

 

As for 15% being more of someone's income at a lower rate - yes, what's the problem? I'd rather tax everyone the same rate, and have a simplified system that allows everyone to easily participate in a sensible discussion about adjusting taxes. Again, that's the point in seeing a lower bound for who the tax applies to, to avoid hurting the poor by taking income they don't have under the guise of "fairness." I'd argue don't tax income less than 50k, but it seems most people just want a very low, progressive tax scale for those under the limit.

 

Instead we have a system where making more = paying a higher rate (unless your income is through investments... which is BS imo) is done in a terrible attempt to combat the fact that our current system advantages you more the more you make. And now we have a system where no one, and I mean no one, understands it fully enough and 90% of the people in this country cannot participate in a conversation about how to adjust taxes because it's just that much of a mess that it's unrealistic to expect someone who's not an accountant/tax person to understand the entire ramifications of any one set of changes.

[tshile]

He's simultaneously lowering their tax rates in and leaving in deductions that generally benefit them.  The end result is that they likely are going to pay significantly less taxes than they probably do now.

 

If you consider that BS, then it is BS.

 

Hmm... most of what I read was focused on the rate discussion. Admittedly, my BS claim was based on what I've seen around the internet/media not just this thread. Like I said, I'm not cool with the deductions remaining.

 

But I see your point.

 

I'll point out that there actually are other possible motives for a tax deduction, though. Another way of looking at is a recognition that "A person who has this income, but also has this bill, isn't as rich as a person who doesn't have that bill".

 

Does making kids deductible encourage having kids?  Or simply recognize that kids cost money?

That's my point though. It should irrelevant that kids cost money. Its your decision to have kids, how much they cost should factor into your decision. I don't agree with sin taxes for the same reason I don't agree with this. The government should not be encouraging behavior because the government has a history of not being objective about things.

 

I get that there's things the government should encourage - having kids is one, home ownership is another. But given the extremes of a corrupt system creating deductions to benefit the wealthy, or a system with no deductions, I'll take the one with no deductions.

 

I'd rather having smart deductions, I just have no faith our government is capable of that.

 

I recognize the flaws of my view, and I don't blame anyone for thinking I'm wrong.

 

For a different example, I'll observe that, for several years, my parents had an annual taxable income of around $90K.  But Dad was in a nursing home, which was costing him $150K/year. 

 

Should they have been taxed the same as if they had an income of $80K, and no medical bills?

Heh. I don't think your dad should have to pay 150k/year to be in a nursing home that provides care at a quality you would deem appropriate. I find it sad that your family had to. I have a member in a similar situation, her care is ~6k a month. I understand what you're talking about.

 

Given the current system, yes, I'm ok with that factoring in. I definitely see your point.

 

But king tshile would make it so that wouldn't matter, along with implementing his flat tax no deduction system

[Larry]

He's simultaneously lowering their tax rates in and leaving in deductions that generally benefit them.  The end result is that they likely are going to pay significantly less taxes than they probably do now.

 

If you consider that BS, then it is BS.

Here's a link that I like to use, for data concerning income taxes.

I really don;t know if The Tax Foundation has a political agenda, because I don;t think I've ever read any articles on their site. But every year, they repost raw data from the IRS, concerning income tax collection.  And I certainly don't think the raw data is biased. 

 

Their latest posting is from December, 2013, and covers taxes for tax year 2011.  (The taxes that people paid on April 15th, 2012.)  I don't know why they don't have more recent data. 

 

Now, there are some notes, here: 

 

The data doesn't apply to people, but to returns.  A married couple filing jointly counts as 1.  This also means that people who had no income at all, but who had to file a return, count.  ((I've had to do that myself, some years, where I sold stock (so E-Trade generated a tax document for me), but I sold it at a loss (therefore I had zero income.))

 

And it's based on "Adjusted Gross Income", which is income before most deductions, but I don't think it's before all deductions. 

 

Any way. 

 

According to that data, for the most recent year (2011): 

 

The top 1% consisted of people (families) with income above $389K.  (Table 1).  And they actually paid 28.5% of their income, in income tax.  (Table 8). 

[PeterMP]

According to that data, for the most recent year (2011): 

 

The top 1% consisted of people (families) with income above $389K.  (Table 1).  And they actually paid 28.5% of their income, in income tax.  (Table 8). 

 

Then compared to 2011, that would seem to suggest that they are going to get a cut of at least 14% of their income under Paul's plan.

 

Yes?

[tshile]

I can't figure it out... i thought the most wealthy were acquiring their money via investments/capital gains which is taxed at 15%, and then that rate goes lower with deductions.

 

How did they come up with an average rate of 28% for the 1%? I don't understand.

[PeterMP]

I can't figure it out... i thought the most wealthy were acquiring their money via investments/capital gains which is taxed at 15%, and then that rate goes lower with deductions.

 

How did they come up with an average rate of 28% for the 1%? I don't understand.

 

It depends on where you fall in terms of your tax bracket and if it is short term or long term.

 

**EDIT**

And their data at the page is adjusted gross income (AGI).  That doesn't include tax free investments in things like munis.

 

Is Paul going to tax them too?

 

That would increase the tax rate of the top (I think good), but hurt municipalities ability to raise money (Most people agree bad).

 

Would it be retroactive to bonds already bought?

[PF Chang]

I can't figure it out... i thought the most wealthy were acquiring their money via investments/capital gains which is taxed at 15%, and then that rate goes lower with deductions.

 

How did they come up with an average rate of 28% for the 1%? I don't understand.

 

Short term (held for less than one year) investment gains are treated as ordinary income. 

 

Also, for example, the top tax bracket (39.6%) threshold is income over $406,751. But only income over that amount is taxed at 39.6% -- the first $9,075 is taxed at 10%. So the effective rate for someone earning $450,000 isn't 39.6%, it will be lower. 

[Larry]

I can't figure it out... i thought the most wealthy were acquiring their money via investments/capital gains which is taxed at 15%, and then that rate goes lower with deductions.

 

How did they come up with an average rate of 28% for the 1%? I don't understand.

 

Part of it depends on your definition (and your mental image) of "the wealthy". 

 

The top 1% starts at a bit below $300K. 

 

That includes the Mitt Romneys and Warren Buffets of the world.  But it also includes a lot of people who "earn" their income.  (I'm putting the word "earn" in quotes because I'm using it in the IRS sense of "earned income" being "salary from a job".  Not from any value judgement that Warren Buffet doesn't earn the capital gains income he gets.) 

 

That "top 1%" label, for example, includes Alfred Morris.  No doubt there's a lot of doctors and lawyers in that bracket.  No doubt there's at least a few plumbers, if by "plumber", you mean "plumbers who own their own company, and have 20 trucks." 

 

There's a lot more of them, than there are of Warren Buffet. 

 

It's one of the things to keep in mind, when you start getting into stereotypes and class warfare. 

 

Now, if you want a stereotype for "the really disgustingly rich", so to speak, I will point out: 

 

When Mitt Romney released his tax return, it showed that he was subject to a 4% tax rate, on his income of, I think it was in the 10s of millions. 

 

 

He listed a whole lot of deductions to which he was entitled.  And then intentionally didn't use all of those deductions, so that he could pay a 9% tax rate.  Romney had previously released a tax return that showed a 9% tax rate, and claimed that it was typical.  So, when he released the current one, he intentionally overpaid his taxes, to make it come out to 9%. 

 

It has been pointed out that, after he lost the election, he is allowed to file a revised return, and get back the money that he intentionally overpaid.

[PeterMP]

Beyond all of this, the biggest issue with the flat tax is it allows the super wealthy to simply hold their investments and borrow money.

 

In that situation, they pay essentially no taxes.

 

Especially in the context of leaving the mortgage deduction in place.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/10_tax_dodges_that_help_the_rich_get_richer_partner/

[tshile]

I got distracted by work (lol) but I wanted to follow up with you guys on the 1% taxable income.

First, I appreciate the responses, second I got what I was expecting but wanted to make sure before saying...

So it seems to me that the real problem with tax code is with the wealthiest of the wealthy. We've heard/read it all before. ie: Warren Buffet pays a significantly lower tax rate than his secretary.
 
So when I read the link Larry provided that the top 1% pays a ~28% rate, I was like: wat?
 
The feeling I had was that the people writing that report lumped the entire 1% together and by doing so masked the real problem because they can now say: "The top 1% pay the highest tax rate in the country"
 
When in reality the problem isn't with people making 300k, or 500k, or 600k a year and paying 28%. The problem is with people making 50 million a year paying 15% because they're amking their money off of investments and our tax system treats that income differently than it treats payroll income.
 
I assume the people who put together the analysis of that data understand:
- The context of the conversation is that the wealthy get away with low tax rates because of the classification of their income compared to the rest of us
- That by lumping the entire 1% together, they hide that fact.
 
So to me it seems like disingenuous analysis.
 
If I'm off the mark let me know.

 

Beyond all of this, the biggest issue with the flat tax is it allows the super wealthy to simply hold their investments and borrow money.
 
In that situation, they pay essentially no taxes.
 
Especially in the context of leaving the mortgage deduction in place.
 
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/10_tax_dodges_that_help_the_rich_get_richer_partner/

My god, I had no idea that was actually going on.

 

That sounds more like a banking/lending regulatory problem than a tax problem though?

[tshile]

By the way, reading that salon article produces a solid argument against incest.

 

You do not pay estate taxes when you leave money to your spouse.

 

So when your wife dies you could marry your daughter and pass money down the family line tax free.

 

(i think estate tax is stupid anyways, but i just thought that was funny because someone always brings up incest when discussing gay marriage)

[Larry]

I assume the people who put together the analysis of that data understand:

- The context of the conversation is that the wealthy get away with low tax rates because of the classification of their income compared to the rest of us

- That by lumping the entire 1% together, they hide that fact.

Not so sure that I'd jump to the conclusion that those brackets were chosen to push an agenda.

They were picked by the IRS (Heck. They may well have been picked by Congress.) And in 1980. (So, if they were picked to push an agenda, they were picked in 1980.)

Now, yes, I assume that the vast majority of people who cite those statistics are pushing an agenda.  It's a pretty much standard talking point of The Right, every year, to wail about "1% of the taxpayers pay 35% of the taxes!".  (While conveniently failing to mention that they receive 19% of the income.)  And that "47% pay ZERO income tax".  (While conveniently failing to mention that they receive 3% of the money, and that they pay either 8 or 15% of their income to the Feds, it's just not called income tax.) 

 

----------

 

And yes, I do think that it really needs to be pointed out: 

 

This year, my Mom will be paying me $1000 a month, to take care of her.  And I will pay a bit over 15% of that money, in federal taxes.  (I'm self employed, so I have to pay both halves of the payroll tax.  If I were getting the same pay from McDonald's, then I'd be paying 8% and McDonald's would be paying 8%.) 

 

Mitt Romney, with an income that I believe was around $40M, paid 4%. 

 

And many of the GOP want to cut Romney's taxes, to zero.  (I'm not certain if it's all of them, or not.  I do know that last election, Romney was the only one who didn't promise to eliminate his taxes.  He merely promised to cut them.) 

 

[Larry]

By the way, reading that salon article produces a solid argument against incest.

 

You do not pay estate taxes when you leave money to your spouse.

 

So when your wife dies you could marry your daughter and pass money down the family line tax free.

 

(i think estate tax is stupid anyways, but i just thought that was funny because someone always brings up incest when discussing gay marriage)

 

Actually, there's several interesting things about the estate tax, too. 

 

For one thing, I think that, right now, there's no estate tax on estates that are up to, I think it's $8M.  (So, when the Republicans announce that they want to repeal it, they want to repeal a tax that only applies to . . . ?) 

 

And there's no capital gains tax on assets that are inherited, in the form of said asset. 

 

Say Daddy buys some Apple stock for $1,000, way back when.  Today it's worth $20M. 

 

If he sells the stock, right now, then he has a capital gain od $20M.  (Technically, $19.999M.  The difference between the "cost basis", meaning "the amount you paid for it", and the price it was sold for.)  He'd have to pay 15% of $20M, in capital gains taxes. 

 

But suppose Daddy dies, and leaves the stock to me. 

 

Then the stock transfers to me, and I get $20M worth of stock.  There is no capital gains tax.  (Because the stock hasn't been sold.)  (Although, there will be inheritance tax, on a $20M asset.) 

 

But when I inherit it, the "cost basis" (the amount you paid for it) resets to whatever it's worth, when I inherit it.  If I hold it for a year, and sell it for $21M, then I have to pay capital gains on the $1M that it went up, while it was mine.  But the $19M that it went up, while it was Dad's, is never taxed. 

 

Your house works the same way, if it's transferred as a house.  (If the house gets sold, and then the heirs get cash, then the estate has to pay capital gains on the amount the house went up, and estate taxes, on the amount of the cash.) 

[PeterMP]

My god, I had no idea that was actually going on.

 

That sounds more like a banking/lending regulatory problem than a tax problem though?

 

The problem is that we tax labor, and we tax it at a pretty high rate, especially when you throw in taxes companies are paying based on labor costs.

 

Our tax code is very much against labor.

 

This is the argument for a federal sales tax.  People claim that it is regressive, but I think you can work around that.

 

You essentially get rid of the income tax and therefore most of the associated industry (good buy H&R Block, etc.).

 

You don't tax unprepared food (most states do that any way so you just copy them).  I'd tax all beverages, except milk (but that's a health thing).  Tax alcohol at a larger rate.  You don't tax mass transit.  You don't tax cars under some amount (e.g. 10K).

 

And for some products, you tax them on a gradient level.  5% on a car between 10-50K, 10% on a car between 50K-100K.

 

You tax stock transactions more (we already have some small transaction tax), which Sanders is actually talking about doing and this has to include stock splits (which I'm not sure he's going to do).

 

You have to maintain a tax on gifts, including inheritance.  If you've been gifted an inheritance, you have to file a gift tax return (but this realistically means I would have had to file an income tax one time in my life so far).

 

(Inheritance/gift/estate taxes are useful because they allow you to prevent inter generational wealth transfers, though the super wealthy are now avoiding that with trusts.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-27/romney-i-dig-it-trust-gives-heirs-triple-benefit

 

So it would be good to do away with them) 

 

You might still have to institute some sort of tax rebate for the poor that would require them to file a "tax return", but still, the vast majority of the middle class and wealthy wouldn't have to file one.

 

You also still have the problem of the super wealthy actually spending a lot of their money out of the US.  In theory, you can tax those things too, but that's harder to enforce.

 

It be like NJ trying to tax me on things I bought out of state (which they do on my income tax return).

[chipwhich]

This year, my Mom will be paying me $1000 a month, to take care of her.  And I will pay a bit over 15% of that money, in federal taxes.  (I'm self employed, so I have to pay both halves of the payroll tax.  If I were getting the same pay from McDonald's, then I'd be paying 8% and McDonald's would be paying 8%.) 

 

Mitt Romney, with an income that I believe was around $40M, paid 4%.

 

 

That is such an apples to oranges comparison.  I make a lot of money and would cheer from the mountain tops if I ever sniffed 15%.  Discussions should not be intermixed with payroll taxes and writeoffs/tax credit/etc.  Romney takes advantage of the IRS tax code.  Romney also gave $7 million to charity which affords him the ability to reduce his tax rate.

 

With regards to the 4%, can you post a link to that or are you just pulling yet another factoid out of your philly that you can't back up?

 

 

[tshile]

This is the argument for a federal sales tax.  People claim that it is regressive, but I think you can work around that.

....

(Inheritance/gift/estate taxes are useful because they allow you to prevent inter generational wealth transfers, though the super wealthy are now avoiding that with trusts.

 

I've always looked at a federal sales tax as fundamentally flawed. It requires spending money for the government to receive revenue. So, for example, a small group of super wealthy could simply avoid paying taxes by... not spending most of their money. Or, more nefariously, they could exercise control over the government by not spending money and harming the rest of us due to lack of revenue. I think taxing income has its on shortfalls, but the sales tax seems like a worse idea?

 

I fail to see why an inheritance tax is useful or good. The money was already taxes and is being left to a family member cause of a death. Why should any of that money be the governments? The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that a lot of people hate the idea that a wealthy person can pass their money down to their kid when they die, and that seems like jealousy to me, not sound policy.

[Larry]

My god, I had no idea that was actually going on.

 

That sounds more like a banking/lending regulatory problem than a tax problem though?

I recall some ES poster saying something about some Rich Dude who owned a pro sports team, a while back.

Dude had recently gone through a really messy divorce, with the result that the court had to go through Rich Guy's assets (and they became public record.

I recall that one of the things mentioned was that Rich Dude owned a 130 foot sail boat, with 13 cabins of various sizes, and which carried two smaller boats, a helicopter, and a submarine.

 

And the divorce court revealed that according to the man's tax returns, he had received zero income for the previous seven years. 

 

Seems that, whenever he wanted money, the corporation he owned would loan him 10 million dollars. 

[PeterMP]

I've always looked at a federal sales tax as fundamentally flawed. It requires spending money for the government to receive revenue. So, for example, a small group of super wealthy could simply avoid paying taxes by... not spending most of their money. Or, more nefariously, they could exercise control over the government by not spending money and harming the rest of us due to lack of revenue. I think taxing income has its on shortfalls, but the sales tax seems like a worse idea?

 

I fail to see why an inheritance tax is useful or good. The money was already taxes and is being left to a family member cause of a death. Why should any of that money be the governments? The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that a lot of people hate the idea that a wealthy person can pass their money down to their kid when they die, and that seems like jealousy to me, not sound policy.

 

I mean I guess its possible, but let's face it groups of the super wealthy control the government now through supporting election campaigns.

 

There are good reasons for not wanting to create a privileged class that spans generations beyond jealousy.  Intergenerational wealth transfers allow for class stratification.

 

Generally, we consider high economic mobility good.  However, today we understand that the US actually has lower economic mobility than much of Europe and Canada partly because of the ability to transfer wealth between generations.