That doesn't provide international comparisons. Its results also aren't particularly appealing: "because inequality has risen, the consequences of the "birth lottery" - the parents to whom a child is born - are larger today than in the past"
It specifically spoke to mobility in the US. Don't care about mobility in Pakistan versus the US. There are millions of immigrant stories over the past 125 years, including today, in which people arrive in the US with almost nothing, and with hard work and determination, can eek out a life in the US, can start a business...all of them are upward mobility stories!
Only if poor course choices are made. Medicine, computer sciences, commerce, dentistry, pharmacy, engineering etc graduates get jobs, and well paid ones at that. Not so much the Bachelor of Arts.
It didn't show mobility improving, nor did it show that the US has higher mobility than other Western nations. Then why is social mobility so low compared to other developed countries?
You miss the point. Take Economists. With an increase in graduates, you then saw a significant increase in MSc investments as folk tried again to stand out. Demand-constraints for you
the estate tax is tax free unless your getting over 5 million when someone dies, think it raised recently to 10, but not sure
Nobody has addressed this sort of question: I cash my paycheck and give 80% of it to my wife or my child, should they pay taxes on that "income"?
Why do you suppose the US takes in the most immigrants each year...around one million? Do you think it's because their opportunities in the US are far better than other nations? The next nation takes in half of the US rate. All of them can give you mobility stories...
All Western nations have significant issues on immigration. That of course reflects the international divides in income. Show me that the US has higher social mobility than European countries. Good luck! Immigration actually should induce greater mobility (as initially we would expect human capital to be incompatible with local labour markets)
Most heirs inherit the wealth they inherit by demonstrating the hard work and effort of being born of the right womb.
Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you here but that would mean that everything we give our kids would be taxable income on their part. Is that what you're suggesting?
If the goal is a meritocracy as opposed to a feudalistic system where status is based on family, then it makes no sense why a child of a privileged family should get money a tax free while a kid from a poorer family who gets the same money from the same guy is taxed as income simply because he had the industry to work for it instead of accepting a gift. Why does it make sense that the kid whose dad can't afford to give him $20 goes out and works for it mowing the rich guy's lawn is taxed, while the kid who is the same of the same guy gets $20, and its tax free? In this situation, you are penalizing the meritorious, and simply rewarding the person of privilege based solely on familial relationship, not anything meritorious he did. Now, having said that, there are arguments for a modest exemption from inter-generational monetary transfers, including encouraging families, progressive tax structure, and eliminating bookkeeping hassles for modest estates. And our law currently does that -- I think you can give up to about $30k per child per year without it invoking tax consequences. I'm ok with that. If your goal is a feudalistic type system that is designed to preserve the wealth and status of richer families at the expense of regularly working folk, then yes, it makes sense to get rid of inheritance taxes and tax working people more instead. But if we aspire to be a system based on meritocracy, I can see no reason why we would penalize harder the poorer kid who goes out and hustles for that $20 so that the privilege kids gets a special tax free status.
Those are some interesting thoughts, but you didn't answer the question I asked: If I give my kid $20, should that be considered as taxable income he has received?
I'm OK with the modest exemption described. The kid who makes $20 mowing the law probably isn't going to pay taxes on it because of exemptions (unless he mows a *lot* of lawns and I don't have a problem with the son not paying taxes on $20 either. Now that I answered your questions, are you going to answer mine?
I answered your question. Are you not going to answer mine? Or is this one of your "discussions" where you think only you get to answer questions?
You didn't answer the question of why do you consider it okay to give your child $30,000 in a year but not $30,001? But, whatever. What was your question? I'll answer it.
You are not your son. When your money goes to him it is going from one person to another and that is taxable income. The real discussion here is whether or not inheritors should be exempt from taxes on the income they inherit. When a business earns money they pay taxes in it. Then when they use that money to pay salaries it gets taxed again. There's really no difference here except in inheritance the recipient is presumably the familial heir, which matters why? There is no double taxation. It's money getting taxed when earned and then taxed again when it changes hands. This is normal and happens every day to all of us.
So when my wife has a baby, and we give him food, shelter, and other consumer goods, you're saying that he should be taxed for that because it's taxable income?
No for a number of reasons. First he is a minor and has a different status than someone in their majority. Second, you are not giving him cash you are purchasing goods for him.
Goods are income, according to the IRS So how about if I go to work, cash my paycheck, and hand over 75% of the cash to my wife? That be considered taxable income for her?
