II have been thinking would it be fair to charge those that make over a million dollars high taxes while their alive if in the end under the Millionaire’s inheritance tax the State will take all. Shouldn’t there be some sort of compromise for wealthy people that agree to abide by Meritocracy’s Millionaire’s Inheritance Tax. This may even create an incentive for people within the wealthy class to sponsor our party. Or are we to burden the wealthy class with high taxes while their alive and still subject them with an inheritance tax?
Would 100 % millionaire's inheritance tax mean 0% living tax for the rich?
How is earning $250,000 instead of $500,000 a “burden”?
Cutting down on progressive taxes is taking a step backward. There are tons of loopholes that need to be closed for the Millionaire Estate Tax to be effective and that requires a meritocratic government that can respond quickly.
Also, what you earn during your lifetime is in most cases much higher than what you have left when you die. That’s lost revenue for the state and the social services millions of people rely on.
The super rich already hardly pay any tax, they don’t need our help.
1 Like
I agree with Roberto, though Manuel does have a point out not alienating the rich right across the board.
From the ‘sponsorship by the rich angle’ - perhaps offering free honourary Party membership to someone who makes a large donation and/or speaking highly of them and/or their companies ( but only if they operate in a way that’s in line with our principles ) in our public outlets, could attract the right-minded successful people who agree with our cause? Such a person would have to step forward first though, without us advertising for them.
eg - interview with ‘Dave X’ … Self-made millionaire Dave has done well within the system as it stands, but even he agrees the system needs to be overhauled. Dave discovered Meritocracy in year ---- and agrees with it in principle… Dave’s company Y Products treats its workers fairly & the company vision is… blah,blah,blah…
Though I can’t imagine there’s many ‘Dave X’s’ out there. Just thinking out loud…
How about simply having a salary cap? Once someone makes over a set amount in a given year, the rest goes to the government for social services. I think a salary cap along with the 100% inheritance tax may eliminate the need for at least most other forms of taxes
1 Like
A salary cap is definitely necessary and the reason for this is to ensure that the things that people do in life are not motivated by anti-social, and self-alienating life choices. When a person is propelled by money, this is often at the cost of all else. If it is art that they are interested in, then the creative process is directed onto itself but onto how to make money from art. If it’s resource based, it will generally not take the environment into account. Salary caps are very important for directing a person to their authentic self. Where a cap is put on monetary aspects, the Self becomes the unlimited aspect. This is how we ensure the balance between the individual and the community. This a very important principle.
In relation to this, I think that it is very important to consider that the government should not make any money. I’m not suggesting that they should live in poverty, but their must be some measure in place to ensure that the government contains people solely interested in the commonwealth.
1 Like
Yes. I think representatives should remain active in their respective fields and have that be their only income.
1 Like
One rather radical notion that I thought of is that politicians should earn what the poorest people in society earn. That would quickly change their relationship to how things are run!
1 Like