The Death Tax
What is your take on an inheritance tax upon death? Say anything over 5MM gets hit at 100%. I personally am aligned with Adam Smith's view on concentrated inherited wealth, which drives my view on the tax.
Trending Content
| +95 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 4h | |
| +37 | Interviews Are So Fake | 24 | 4h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 15h | |
| +29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 10h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 6d | |
| +24 | Non-Competes Banned | 16 | 1h | |
| +22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
| +20 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 3d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 1d | |
| +17 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 6h |
Career Resources
I could get on board for something along these lines as long as the money wasn't just given to the government to do whatever with. It should be put into some type of fund that goes directly to small business loans or something along those lines.
This is reasonable. The government will either squander it or ultimately just redistribute it to the ultra wealthy, who already have a legion of accountants to find all of the loopholes to avoid paying the tax in the first place.
The growing wealth gap is certainly something that needs to be addressed but a death tax isn't the way to do it.
You really trust the government to do that and be responsible with your money?
Sure, they’ll earmark the money for a “small business fund” when they implement the tax… and then 5 years later they’ll change it and send that money to whatever bullshit pet project they come with next. Or they’ll cut small business funding elsewhere and divert that money to their stupid pet projects.
Call me cynical but even in the best case scenario of what you described, the federal government would probably end up giving most of that money to “black lesbian female owned businesses” instead of actual innovative and economically viable companies.
I agree that is the most likely scenario if this were a real thing considering the governments track record. That’s why I said “if.”
I wouldn’t actually vote for one because of those exact reasons. Just speaking hypothetically.
I am fiscally conservative but in favor of a high estate tax. Anyone who believes in a meritocracy should support this.
EXACTLY. The money was already taxed when earned; why would I have to get taxed twice? Its a slap in the face.
No taxes while you live, 100% taxes on the estate when you die seems like the best solution to your concern. No double taxation in that scenario.
I somewhat agree with this. As dumb as 2nd generation money is, government money is possibly dumber.
If I earned the money and want to pass it on to my family, why the fuck should you or the govt get some say in that matter? Income gets taxed, consumption gets taxed, and now passing of assets gets an additional layer of tax.
If our society has deemed that the value of our labor to society is not enough to keep all the money earned through that labor, and that the government needs to take an additional amount to make it right, then surely, someone doing absolutely nothing then receiving funds is a taxable event.
For the most part, I do not agree with an estate tax because some of your wealth has already been taxed. It would be fine to tax the unrealized portion but this would probably be complicated. It probably does not even matter whether or not there is an estate tax because super affluent people will find a way to avoid a good portion of the tax.
That's such a defeatist attitude. I have every faith and confidence that our IRS with an additional army of CPA's would find a way to extract it from even Bezos once he croaks.
Yes because everyone knows the best CPAs in America are lining up to work for the gov't and not billionaires....
Dude... you have to be trolling. Have you never heard of HNW tax lawyers?
Ideal scenario would be no taxes while you live, 100% tax on your estate when you die :)
No double taxation in that scenario.
Completely idiotic, there would still be a ton of "loopholes" to get around this plus people would just rush to distribute assets while they're on their death bed. The assets they're distributing wouldn't even be taxed. I mean I guess its a good idea if your goal is just to not have anybody pay any taxes
Any kind of tax period is theft. With that said death tax is the second dumbest idea after wealth taxes. All these taxes do is dilute capital concentrations, which regardless of what idiots will tell you are absolutely required to create wealth and prosperiety on a large scale. People who are pro taxes of this type are those who are at the bottom of the meritocracy.
Idiots getting massive sums of money aren't a problem, they are likely to lose it very quickly. After all generational money is usually gone by the 4th generation. That even accounts for the incredible compounding efffect we have had for the past 140 years.
Are you seriously suggesting all tax is theft? You're probably one of those people who thinks all regulation is bad, right?
All tax is by its very definition theft. The government steals your money at the force of a gun. Pretty straight forward. That being true, doesn't mean that citizens do not receive benefits for their tax dollars.
You pay taxes in exchange for some services. Granted governments are bad at doing a lot of stuff, but you can’t do all of what a government does for you. Can you maintain your own police, firefighter, military and roads? It’s understandable to argue how much to tax, but it is simply selfish and arrogant to say tax is stealing/robbery. I’m sure you can move to Antarctica and live by fishing and nobody is gonna tax you. You can make so much money partly because of the government. Also, I support this kind of tax, but I’m pretty sure I’m quite high on the meritocratic ladder.
The value one receives from taxes isn't relevant to the reality that taxation is theft. If I decide tomorrow that you make too much money and just waltz into your home and steal a bunch of stuff from you then I turn around and spend that value on things like parks does that make me a theif? Or does that make me a moral actor?
It is amazing to me that people who view an individual doing that view it as a moral negative, but then turn around and openly support an organization that does it with impunity. Not only do they do it with impunity but much of the value that is stolen from individuals goes to predominately benefit a small minority of individuals and companies.
I personally don't think I shouldn't pay any taxes, I just think that the idea that taxation is morally just is a joke.
I agree with a wealth tax, but idk at 100%, and I don’t think the government can responsibly distribute it. Yeah the parent earned the money, but no wealth tax would lead to an even bigger wealth gap between rich and poor, as we all know it “takes money to make money”
This is another issue that isn’t so black and white.
I mean, I would hardly call 5MM nothing.
you assume that on average people actually keep wealth for multiple generations. that's where you're wrong
you could raise more revenue in so many ways
1. treat all income as income, no more favoritism for carried interest, RE, etc.
2. no more deductions. you read that right. none for charity (people will still be charitable), none for depreciation, none for amortization, none for interest (seriously, incentivizing leverage? FOH), none for SALT, none for business expenses (aside from wages which are taxed at individual level), and on and on
3. disallow securities based lending (you want Elon and Bezos to pay? this is how you do it)
you guys are missing the forest through the trees. adding additional taxes just makes CPAs and estate attorneys (and financial planners) more valuable. loopholes will be found, so until you change the entirety of the system, you'll be playing whack a mole
Spot on, as usual
Seriously, as a CPA it always makes me laugh to see people thinking whatever tax law scenario they've thought up will get the billionaires to pay.
you get it. I worked for 2 UHNW families, they have their "succession" plan squared away. They will not be paying any estate tax, it is all in trusts and life insurance.
Good stuff.
I'm big on eliminating the mortgage interest deduction. It's a way to incentivize home ownership over renting, and it's a market distortion that favors those wealthy enough to be homeowners. It's regressive tax policy at best.
Also, for businesses - eliminating the deduction for employee health insurance. It's the only reason private health insurance runs through employers.
Down with deductions!
100% agree. I doubt I'll ever enter politics (I could be easily doxxed between jail, drug use, off-color comments made on WSO, etc.), but if I did, my tax policies would in effect ruin many CPA, CFP, and tax attorneys' businesses. eliminate deductions, I believe our system will be more robust, and I don't shed a tear for people whose jobs would be lost because they simply help business owners write off the company car
I realize this would negatively affect me, I'd have to pay for conferences, client trips and lunches out of pocket, but I think that's a good thing, it'd cause people to focus on what's really important, not just make a purchase because it's tax deductible. baloney.
(not specific to you Layne) and as radical as my ideas sound, they're remarkably capitalistic, you want a free market without subsidies? eliminate ALL deductions, makes the market freer, think on that.
The only reason health insurance exists is becuase the government outlawed pay hikes in the late 30s and 40s so businesses had to get creative to incentivize thes best employees. So government run health care is a solution to fix a problem that government created. Much like every government solution is.
Your assumption that "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves" is always true is misplaced. American wealth dynasts pop up all the time (Waltons, Rockefellers, Kochs, Mars, etc.).
If you tax income so little that real (not nominal) economic wealth grows from generation to generation, then ultimately you will have an aristocracy of some sort, which is likely undesirable. If you tax regular income progressively enough to thwart this, then you have constructively established an estate tax. So either your policy is tantamount to a estate tax or it lacks the teeth to prevent the establishment of a real American aristocracy.
Disallowing securities based lending is not a separate provision from your #2. If you disallow the deduction of interest, then Musk and Bezos cannot avoid taxes by using securities based interest.
1. I never said always true, I said on average, read it again
2. I don't know what the right rate of income tax is, my idea is if the govt wants to raise revenue, equal treatment of all income is a way to do it. if you want to prevent an american aristocracy you change estate law and disallow certain legal structures, that's separate from tax law, I was focused on raising revenues in my original reply
3. I think you misunderstand what I'm talking about. what these guys do is avoid capital gains taxes on their concentrated company stock positions by pledging those securities as collateral, living off of those LOCs for day to day expenses, never selling, and when they die there's a step up in basis so no cap gains tax is ever collected. interest on these LOCs has never been deductible and it's almost never actually paid, just gets added to the loan and since these loans have no term, elon and bezos and the like in theory can do this forever
"2. no more deductions. you read that right. none for charity (people will still be charitable), none for depreciation, none for amortization, none for interest (seriously, incentivizing leverage? FOH), none for SALT, none for business expenses (aside from wages which are taxed at individual level), and on and on"
You've kind of lost me here. What's the benefit of taxing at gross revenues versus allowing for ordinary and necessary deductions? Imagine you have a widget maker (Company A) and a SaaS company (Company B) with the following financials under a top-line tax:
Company A
Gross Revenue: $100M
COGS (inc capex): -$80M
Taxes (20% for easy math): -$20M
Net Income (Loss): $0
Company B
Gross Revenue: $100M
COGS (personnel salary + playground for employees' dogs): -$30M
Taxes (20%): -$20M
Net Income (Loss): $50M
So although both companies are equally "rich" on paper, one is keeping significantly less than the other. I get this might not be your exact point, but the general point I'm trying to make is certain deductions exist for a reason and aren't all completely arbitrary. Disallowing depreciation, for example, I'd imagine would lead to much less infrastructure/capex investment and would make already capital intensive companies even more difficult to start-up/fund, which would cause other negative externalities.
Am I missing something here?
great question, perhaps I need to expand upon my general theme - business expenses should not be subsidized by government by way of tax breaks, in my opinion. I have to make decisions on personal expenses based upon their intrinsic merits and get no tax breaks when I buy a new car, when I hire somebody to do some work for me (not within my firm), when I have to do maintenance on my house, car, etc., so why tf should a business owner be allowed to write off things that they should decide to do only on their merits? often times, the rebuttal is "well business owners create jobs that stimulate the economy" I say fine, income is taxed at the individual level, so owners shouldn't have monies that get paid out as wages taxed at their level, and since we're a consumer spending driven economy, I doubt this has as much of a negative effect as people posit
another thing about my hairbrained ideas - I would prefer stability over unadulterated growth. I'm willing to accept less in the way of CAGR, GDP growth, etc., if it means we're more resilient
feel free to follow up if anything needs clarifying, good Q
I love it. The money should go towards an investment seed fund everyone gets at birth that gets invested in some sort of basket and that they can't touch until they are 18. There would need to be some sort of revamping in terms of what donations are tax-deductible, could definitely see people donating to asinine causes (or non-profits in name only) out of spite to avoid this.
This is an interesting idea.
To me it seems useless and unenforceable. Everyone has the right to give their money to other people, so why can't the parents give their money to their kids a few months before death to bypass the law? Or give it to someone else to give to this kids?
That's actually not true. The gift tax threshold is like super low, it's like 15K. Otherwise money laundering would be super easy.
Gifts made that close to death are included in a decedent's estate, and taxable anyway. Also HNW estate tax returns have a very high audit rate.
I think the government wants to tax it not because they care about us already being taxed. But they just want to keep the flow of money in the economy going. And not being held in a bank account for keepsake.
The crux of this issue here is separating the personification from the societal element. When people think myopically about how it impacts them, which to a degree is fair, it neglects the broader implications. From a societal perspective, large sums of inherited with are not the best way to create a stable nation. Of course this is not novel, but capital vastly out paces income and thus as we are seeing society starts breaking down when the gaps become to large. Its single order thinking to just think about how it will impact your heirs. Not to mention, no one is stopping you from spending the money while you live - that's a choice. Its one thing to debate the number where taxes kick in, but there should unquestionable be a level that it does so. If "what the government" does is a concern, donate it to the charities of your choosing while alive. Its pretty basic. Easy to get up in arms about things versus thinking about them one a deeper level.
Least not forget, people with real money create all these crazy tax structures anyway, which essentially eliminates taxes while alive and dead.
This is a well thought our response, thanks.
How exactly would you tax wealth that's in the form of private business and real estate at 100%. It's not like wealthy people are 100% liquid. Are you going to make the family sell off all of the assets when they're dealing with the death of a loved one? Is the government going to seize the family's portfolio of real estate assets, even if there are other outside investors. The lenders might have a problem with this. Try taxing an irrevocable family trust when one member dies, good luck. The concept of a 100% death tax is idiotic.
government will fully own these businesses and real estate if it's taxed at 100%
we're not talking about communism, we're talking about a 100% death tax.
There is a flawed premise to your underlying point - just because its difficult is not an excuse for it to not be done, that is absurd.
It is not that difficult to think of mechanisms / payment plans etc to not create fire sales. I'm fairly certain many of these concepts have already been discussed as part of the implementation process. Its not as if one is "dealing with the death of a loved one" while simultaneously being forced to liquidate an asset.
Are you joking? Take this for example "Mr. Bezos found dead in home" What happens next? A sane structured sell off of the assets? No, a fear driven mob will run to their computers and dump their entire Amazon holdings causing adverse effects for not only Bezos's family but also for millions of other stockholders. The idea is stupid, it is wildly impractical, creates nothing but opportunity for more insider trading to happen, etc.
Ok, so now my kids will have to make payments to the government while they waste time out of their already busy schedules to liquidate my estate and pay it all to the government without compensation? my underlaying point wasn't just that it would be difficult, but also that it would be wrong.
It’s inaccurate to call it the death tax. Call it YT Tax. We know who’s paying it. All those drug lords with their cash in the hood of the car ain’t paying for dem suburban boi’s MLK history textbooks and welfare rolls in Darien.
You’re racist but in like a private school 7th grader kinda way. No wonder you couldn’t get into a T10 law school
When did I say I didn’t get into a T10 law school? At no point, if my memory doesn’t fail me, did I state my admissions options. Also, it is T6 or T13 as the distinctions. Saying T10 is a desperate play for prestige. A lot of retards going to “T10” schools paid full freight to work at V50 firms, very fourth tier as far as corporate life goes.
And yes, tons of AAVE speaking thugs from bed stuy are paying the death tax. And they’re all super smart and contribute to this country’s economic and social life in profound ways, buoying up those Westchester/Main Line failures.
The premise is flawed. We don't have concentrated wealth in America. Concentrated wealth was a problem in Europe when the eldest son would inherit all of his father's estate. Now a wealthy family with 3 kids has the wealth split 3 ways. If each of those kids averages 2.5 kids, by the third generation wealth is now split 7.5 times. There are, of course, a handful of exceptions.
I saw this with the wealthy family I worked for. The patriarch was still alive (at 92). He was worth (it's hard to pinpoint exactly) about $500 million. His great-grandkids were getting, like, $40,000 annual payouts from their trust funds to supplement their lives. Super nice, but hardly 18th century Great Britain.
The most ironic part of those who claim that wealth concentration is a problem seem to forget that evenly splitting the wealth actually extends the span at which the wealth is likely to propagate. It is a weird concept because on average it reduces the time the wealth exists while also increases the probability that it will exist for longer.
If this guy had 4 kids + 16 grandkids + 64 great-grandkids = 84 descendants, and he willed his wealth evenly across all of them, when he croaks they each get $6M
Yeah, in his case it's probably closer to $12 million with around 40 descendants. But it definitely isn't purely proportioned. One of his sons had no kids so his large portion will go to the state or charity.
$12 million is a very nice nest egg, but hardly wealth concentration. The patriarch became rich around 30 years ago. Within 70 years his family wealth will be so dispersed that it would be hard to track.
I may add more to this post when I have time, but for now, I'd like for you all to read about Frank Luntz, a political strategist who has advocated for the use of the term "death tax" over "estate tax." Semantics are so important.
Whatever I inherit: 0%
Anything above that: 100%
I can see both sides. On the one hand, you get taxed all your life, so why should you pay a second time? On the other... I think society should have a vested interest in preventing vast agglomerations of wealth.
Certainly an estate tax at 50% of the value of the estate seems absurd. Maybe a 20% tax? I don't know. I don't agree with a wealth tax either, but I do hear the anger from people who say "well Jeff Bezos is never going to be taxed on his earnings in that case," and that resonates. Maybe tax loans against property? Lot of pitfalls there, too.
I don't like the idea that at some point you become so wealthy that the tax code no longer applies to you and you pay, essentially, nothing. I don't have a good solution, though, and I haven't heard one proposed.
We have little actual proof that weath accumulates like that in America. We had zero estate tax for most of the history of the country. It wasn't a problem before the wealth tax was established. Also the idea that growth and innovation is dead is an idiotic idea. We merely just have a jaded and warped view because there have been vast fortunes that have sprung up incredibly rapidly in the most recent history. When in reality the conentration of those fortunes is far less static than it has ever been in our history. The average life of a F500 company is a third of what it was 100 years ago. So fortunes are actually growing and collapsing faster than ever.
The estate tax dates back to the founding of the country, in the form of a stamp tax on bequests. The modern form has existed since 1916. In other words, nearly half the history of the United States. So telling me that we had "zero estate tax" is wrong. Second, prior to that, we had a major problem with wealth accumulation. This is a lesson that right wing idiots in this country refuse to learn (to be fair, so would left wing idiots, but they're pro tax to begin with) - when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it gets reversed, sometimes violently. The literal and figurative violence of the Progressive Era was born out resentment of the massive accumulated fortunes of the Gilded Age. In other words, give an inch now in terms of taxation to save yourself a yard tomorrow (and, perhaps, your actual head).
The last time we had huge fortunes spring up in this manner, with the attendant "let them eat cake" attitude that you embody so nicely, we ended up with the imposition of a permanent income and estate tax. And then the time after than, we ended up with marginal tax rates that skyrocketed, during the Depression. If you can't learn the lesson the history of this country is so clearly trying to teach you, then I doubt you'll ever have a fortune large enough for the estate tax to matter.
Please, read a book. Learn a little bit about the history of this country before Reagan. All of what you take for granted as a god given right, isn't. If your fellow citizens decide that they've had enough of toiling so that folks like Jeff Bezos can take joyrides into space, they'll just take it from him. And you, and me. And they won't be wrong, and they won't be acting illegally.
Wouldn't the most direct solution be to eliminate tax deductions above a certain threshold (say 10MM+) and force those people to pay the flat rate?
That's a solution.
But look at Jeff Bezos, the whipping boy of the day. He's astronomically wealthy, but all of it is tied up in his ownership of Amazon stock. All well and good - putting aside arguments of working conditions/pay, he should absolutely enjoy his wealth, since he created the damn company. But you can't tax that in life, as I don't think a wealth tax is ethical either. But he doesn't have to actually spend or liquidate his stock in order to monetize it; he can borrow against it, and at stupidly low rates, on which he won't be taxed. I don't think loan proceeds should be taxed either, because most of the time it's a slippery slope, but now your staring down the barrel of a situation in which the wealthiest person in human history doesn't really pay any taxes and won't ever be compelled to (assuming no estate tax). That doesn't sit right with me, at all. Mr Bezos is only wealthy because his fellow citizens and those that came before them created the preconditions for him to build Amazon. Good roads and infrastructure, a standard of living which allows for the kind of consumerism which fuels his business... no man is an island. I think Mr Bezos has an ethical obligation to pay that forward and maintain those conditions so others can take advantage of them; that's one plank of the entire philosophical underpinning for taxation! And as of right now, he doesn't and won't.
Again, I don't have a great answer to that.
I don't care cause I'll spend all my money.
But to answer your question theoretically, inheritance is basically income so it should be taxed at the same rates as income.
It was the wishes of the person who left the money to give it to his relatives. If you support this, you're saying that someone should be taxed 100% for wanting give their kids or grandkids money, but you don't believe they should be taxed for buying 10 Ferarris, millions in hookers and coke, or blowing their money on OnlyFans....as long as they do it before they die. Kind of dumb.
Well buying a bunch of ferraris would be a taxable event, so you're wrong right off the bat. Also, even if it was blown on hookers and drugs, the person would be recirculating the money and creating economic activity, which is better than what the gov would do with the money.
Certainly not taxable at 100%. My main point is that death tax seems to be a tax on a particular kind of spending which is leaving money to your kids, but what is so horrible about that in comparison to taxing other wasteful/frivilous forms of spending?
Setting aside whether or not the concept of double taxation is good or bad, the vast majority of material family wealth is via appreciated unrealized capital gains that haven't yet paid taxes. So typically there is not a whole lot of double taxation going on.
Death taxes / double taxation / etc are all well designed catch phrases that trigger emotional responses.
Well yeah, but who wants to talk about high net worth illiquid inheritance taxation. Sounds pretty lame.
I support estate and death taxes in theory, but I'm very suspicious of how they'd be implemented. Right now there is a fuckload of baby boomer wealth (much of it land) that is going to be up for being inherited as they die, and assuming the inheritors are taxed out of it, it just seems like an awfully convenient way for BlackRock to swoop in and scoop up more.
People talk about the U.S having an individual society - in reality it's a family society. If you take away people's ability to distribute their wealth to their families, you've destroyed the primary incentive to be productive in the first place. Also, by the time that someone dies, the money that they're passing on has already been taxed 2-3 times. Call me crazy, but triple taxing ppl's wealth so that it can fund government boondoggles (i.e., every single government program) instead of distributed to their heirs is one of the dumbest ideas ever conceived.
Also, who gives a fuck if a useless heir receives a large ineritance. Don't envy a worthless heir, their fortune isn't yours and you'd have done no better with it. Every dollar I've earned, I earned specifically so that me and my family could have it. I couldn't give a good fuck about someone who wants my money - let them earn something rather than loot the wealth of the productive. And yes, Rand is right on this topic. If you disagree, I admire your confidence in being incorrect.
"let them earn something rather than loot the wealth of the productive."
Would you share this advice with those that are positioned to inherit wealth?
I've built considerable wealth and no one else in my family amounted to anything. I was born barely middle class. While I'll be happy to put my kids in private schools, they won't be inheriting anything from me. I'm going to do a philanthropy YOLO when I die. To your point, my kids should earn something, not loot my wealth.
Unless your kids are planning to take their inheritance, or lobby to have their inheritance taken, from you at gun-point, they wouldn't be looting anything. Huge and important distinction between voluntarily giving something to someone and having that thing seized. Leaving an inheritance is like giving a waiter a $20 tip, having that inheritance confiscated is like the waiter mugging you for $20 on your way back to the car.
As usual, Limousine Liberals wanting to stick their hands into the cookie jar to retrieve what isn’t theirs to begin with, all under the guise of “muh society” and “da greater good”. Why should taxed money that has been rightfully and legally earned be taxed again if I want to pass it on to my descendants? It shouldn’t.
This is not an example of “limousine liberals” in the slightest lol
The biggest issue to me is the step-up basis. If we correct that portion of the tax law then the estate tax makes much more sense. It is absurd that an individual can depreciate a building they own fully, pass it down, and then that next individual can depreciate the building down fully again.
I don't get the "it's already been taxed" argument at all. It's a tax on a transfer of money from party A to party B. All money has already been taxed in a sense, several times. Why would a tax on a transfer of $ that involves productive work (i.e. earned wage income) be OK but a tax on an unearned / gifted transfer not be ok?
This is one of those issues that the GOP donor class cares about but doesn't impact the average person at all. The fact that the GOP will fight tooth and nail to defend this hill but will barely lift a finger on immigration shows you who dominates the party.
In case of such taxes - what's stopping the wealthy from just transferring their wealth to families / (shill) charitable organizations / etc. before death? (Which is already the case for many rich folks)
Large transfers to family members are still taxable. Charitable organizations have significant limits on where they can spend money, and their tax returns are public so that's a little brazen, bit I'm sure it does happen.
anything over 10k rich o' poh
This idea that you can tax transfers of wealth from father or grandfather to son at 100% without any negative distortions or effects is ludicrous. Ask your self the question, "could we tax income at a marginal rate of 100%"? I don't know about your family, but many parents care more about the future consumption of their children more than their own.You are playing a dangerous game. I hope for the sake of everyone, rich to poor, that something like this never gets signed into law. If lawmakers could play the role of God and had access to unlimited information and could control behavior than I would be in favor of some form of communism, but that's not the reality we live in.Look this is just my opinion and feel free to disagree, but I do think your proposal is insane.
Deserunt nostrum accusantium labore eos eos. Consequatur quod esse repellendus enim. Corrupti ea voluptas est aut aspernatur tempora sed. Reprehenderit magni ipsam exercitationem eligendi minima dolores aut natus.
Maiores qui aut dolorum aut. Voluptatibus officiis qui molestiae molestiae. Qui voluptas qui quis laboriosam repudiandae id nesciunt. Libero est aut aut et quisquam iusto similique. Odit perferendis dolorem occaecati. Non quo quisquam aut sit consequatur placeat praesentium.
Rerum sit hic est a totam consectetur tempore sint. Ducimus dignissimos culpa reprehenderit deleniti. Tempora et delectus aut voluptatem velit sed et molestiae. Voluptas repudiandae necessitatibus sunt ad. Itaque hic quas aut nihil. Incidunt incidunt rerum consequuntur aperiam blanditiis aspernatur. A perferendis vel labore aperiam adipisci.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Cupiditate consequatur aut at nisi. Minus tenetur autem rerum eligendi quo omnis ut. Sed quam quas qui nam.
Aut quo eos quibusdam animi non. Aut delectus voluptatem optio ipsum. Debitis nobis autem debitis impedit repudiandae.
Ad qui qui placeat voluptatem ut maxime. Illum corporis earum laboriosam blanditiis qui. Nihil nostrum aut autem pariatur.
Dolor praesentium alias quasi exercitationem quos. Tempore assumenda sunt pariatur et. Ducimus exercitationem occaecati corporis autem accusamus quia facere. Veniam dignissimos error sapiente dolor ratione.
Dolore temporibus quae sed sunt repudiandae. Vitae voluptatibus iusto hic cupiditate atque nihil. Quia ea distinctio non modi maxime aliquid quidem est.
Velit doloribus ipsum tenetur totam aspernatur. Voluptatem sit inventore harum.
Et nisi ipsa quam. Possimus ex illo harum nostrum quisquam sunt corrupti. Minima illo ut ut officia non vitae provident voluptas.
Quaerat iste illo tempore dolores quam vero. Laudantium et nobis nemo culpa id iusto. Est autem quo id et. Pariatur suscipit magni aut provident quia aliquid. Aliquid et harum qui velit. Excepturi sed eos unde tempore incidunt.
Earum aperiam occaecati est sed. Cupiditate voluptas reprehenderit quibusdam atque aliquid.
Minus perspiciatis eum incidunt aut. Quia voluptate totam voluptas consectetur veritatis aliquid. Alias iusto incidunt magni. Consequatur ab nam ut nemo nisi maxime dolor. Debitis sequi earum harum magnam tempore inventore adipisci.
Vitae quibusdam qui est dolore rerum sit. Asperiores saepe illo laboriosam optio id. Enim quis doloremque voluptas odio eum ut voluptatum. Neque nam unde doloribus quis. Nemo non sapiente soluta enim nobis. Non deserunt corporis enim unde suscipit aspernatur mollitia facilis.