Long Term Care Crisis

[rdwight]

It could be, sure.

There's no good reason for the state to protect this money from costs incurred, however, and expecting that people cover their own non-medical costs until they are no longer able to do so in no way "vilifies success".

You might have overlooked my previous posts in here. I am with you on people covering their own long term care costs. I see no reason medicaid should cover those with the funds to do so themselves.

Why would you presume to know this?

I'm against inheritance. I think it would be better world if it just weren't a thing.

Obviously that will not be the outcome of ordinary political processes, because people are tribalistic, and I'm happy enough to compromise on it.

That doesn't dispose of the principled opposition, however.

My post was in response to darat, who has already opined that the UK system is better since it leaves some savings before covering care. So I don't presume, it was freely stated. For him.

I don't mind a principled stance even if I don't agree. Why place the timeframe specifically at death? Seems arbitrary.

 

[mumblethrax]

My post was in response to darat, who has already opined that the UK system is better since it leaves some savings before covering care. So I don't presume, it was freely stated. For him.

Our system also won't literally require you to get down to zero dollars and zero cents before you're eligible for Medicaid. Some assets are exempted. It doesn't follow from that that inheritance is good, or that it's why those assets are (or ought to be) exempted.

I don't mind a principled stance even if I don't agree. Why place the timeframe specifically at death? Seems arbitrary.

Because that's when your ability to claim that "this is my money and I earned it" ends, by virtue of your rather debilitating non-existence.

 

[rdwight]

Because that's when your ability to claim that "this is my money and I earned it" ends, by virtue of your rather debilitating non-existence.

This is silly and again arbitrary. I don't think you actually believe this either. If a single man with young children dies, does that entitle the government to his estate? They're minors so that's not a fair example right? Ok, so an 18 year old girl two months from graduation has her only parent die. Paid off house now belongs to the state, auctioned off as well as the retirement, daughter thrown on the streets.

I assume there are countless scenarios where your position changes. Explain how your stance can exist in the real world.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't think the state is entitled to seize assets unless the state is also providing for the needs of the persons who would otherwise receive them. If a parent dies and leaves a house behind, then the state can take the house...if the state also provides housing to the children left behind. The state can't have the cake and also refuse to feed the people: if it wants the pay it has to do the work, just like the people themselves.

I'd gladly trade my retirement investments in exchange for guaranteed housing, healthcare, living expenses, and needs paid for by the government when I retire. The whole reason I have to save and invest and make my own money is because the state doesn't offer those things, and I will go without unless I acquire them myself.

We can't have a welfare state that helps itself to the means to provide the welfare but doesn't actually provide the welfare.

 

[mumblethrax]

This is silly and again arbitrary.

It's not at all arbitrary, and I have no idea why you think it's silly. Death is a consequential event. Something important happens when people die. They cannot make the same claims on others that they can while alive. They cannot make claims at all.

I don't think you actually believe this either. If a single man with young children dies, does that entitle the government to his estate? They're minors so that's not a fair example right?

It's a fair example, but I'm going to reject the idea of entitlement altogether in this discussion, since I'm generally pointing out the lack of specific desert.

I do not see any reason, from a neutral point of view, why a society is better served by distributing wealth along family lines, rather than using that wealth to ensure that the needs of every child in a similar situation are met, irrespective of what their parents had.

Ok, so an 18 year old girl two months from graduation has her only parent die. Paid off house now belongs to the state, auctioned off as well as the retirement, daughter thrown on the streets.

The problem here is that you're assuming the state just seizes the property and then sets it on fire or something. Use the proceeds to, among other things, house people, including those who are "thrown on the street" because their parent was a renter, rather than a homeowner. This is just a better outcome.

I assume there are countless scenarios where your position changes. Explain how your stance can exist in the real world.

No, my position doesn't change. It's a bad way of redistributing wealth that produces huge inequalities, and no matter how tragic the situation, there will always be someone worse off because their parents died young with nothing. In fact, that will be the more common situation.

 

[Darat]

It's the traits that make a person build, maintain, and grow wealth. Those traits are not universally distributed, obviously.

Can you point me to those traits in King Charles?

 

[Darat]

Having money to leave to whoever someone feels like leaving it to is a success. This whole thread is premised on the idea, but with a cut off of what each poster believes is a reasonable amount to leave behind. It's my money, earned and taxed already. Where it goes should be my discretion, as I have earned that right.







Which is reasonable and is why wealth confiscating is not exactly on the table is it? Again, no one believes this when it comes to their own money. If I live life as a miser so that I can leave my family money, you believe my efforts should be ignored based on what?

You can do whatever you wish with your wealth, whilst it is yours.

 

[Darat]

You are not against inheritance so let's start there. You feel you should control at some level the amount. To someone with nothing, 100k is more than someone deserves. Why should the cut off be arbitrarily high? I don't agree with tax policy that people willfully exclude themselves from.

I am 100% against inheritance, we should start from there.

 

[Darat]

…snip…

Because that's when your ability to claim that "this is my money and I earned it" ends, by virtue of your rather debilitating non-existence.

That’s my philosophical objection, I don’t think ghosts should be considered in the tax code. I am happy to change my opinion about this if the ghosts want to get together and campaign for a change.

 

[Darat]

I don't think the state is entitled to seize assets unless the state is also providing for the needs of the persons who would otherwise receive them. If a parent dies and leaves a house behind, then the state can take the house...if the state also provides housing to the children left behind. The state can't have the cake and also refuse to feed the people: if it wants the pay it has to do the work, just like the people themselves.

I'd gladly trade my retirement investments in exchange for guaranteed housing, healthcare, living expenses, and needs paid for by the government when I retire. The whole reason I have to save and invest and make my own money is because the state doesn't offer those things, and I will go without unless I acquire them myself.

We can't have a welfare state that helps itself to the means to provide the welfare but doesn't actually provide the welfare.

In many of the wealthy countries the state does provide housing for those who can’t afford it. (I now know some states in the USA do this as well.) It seems “the state” i.e society i.e. people have decided people shouldn’t be homeless, should have access to good healthcare, good education and so on. Many countries already do what you think would be a requirement for “seizing assets” (of course the state wouldn’t be seizing assets from anyone, the person who owned the assets is no longer a person, they have retired to the fjords).

 

[Donal]

You literally started this thread because a friends mother had to pay for own healthcare and could not leave an inheritance.

Great, have yo uread any othe rpost?

Why do her children deserve that money based on your reasoning?

When did deserve ever have anything to do with wealth in the US?

I'm sure their basic needs are met. Since that's somehow where this convo lead in your mind. Why are they not greedy for expecting that money? You can't keep this reasoning consistent within this thread.

Whether or not they expected that money, this is one of the things the widens the gap between the rich and poor. It goes right next to red lining in terms of preventing social mobility among races. Rich folks can better weather this situation.

And besides, she already used up her savings and still needs to be i na facility. Now what? Do we just have tens of millions of Americans in faciltiies on Medicaid after depleting everyhting they worked for? This seems pretty damn predatory.

 

[Darat]

Great, have yo uread any othe rpost?



When did deserve ever have anything to do with wealth in the US?



Whether or not they expected that money, this is one of the things the widens the gap between the rich and poor. It goes right next to red lining in terms of preventing social mobility among races. Rich folks can better weather this situation.

And besides, she already used up her savings and still needs to be i na facility. Now what? Do we just have tens of millions of Americans in faciltiies on Medicaid after depleting everything they worked for? This seems pretty damn predatory.

That seems slightly strange to me - surely they worked to be able to afford their life? I'd have thought most of us earn money to spend on ourselves (as well as other people), end of life is still our life. I'm hoping I will have enough so I don't have to live on the minimum if I'm ever able to retire, I literally am planning to deplete everything I've worked for, that was one of the main goals! I do expect society to continue to provide whatever healthcare I need, and I expect to pay the rest of my living costs as I do today. If I run out of money I expect society to continue to let me continue to live a reasonable life, as it does/should do today for those that can't afford to do so from their own wealth.

 

[Donal]

Like I've said, inheritance, expecially a home, is one of the things that has historically provided social mobility to lower and middle class in the US. I get why a lot of people don't think it should be allowed, but its not that simple.

And it still doesn't address the fact that we have tens of millions of people nearing or already in long term care. that care is crazy expensive and there is a serious shortage of professionals to staff the facilities.

 

[rdwight]

It's not at all arbitrary, and I have no idea why you think it's silly. Death is a consequential event. Something important happens when people die. They cannot make the same claims on others that they can while alive. They cannot make claims at all.

Man on his death bed, minutes before taking his last breath, using his final burst of energy to hit the send button on a wire transfer. All good . All this does is push forward the act, and penalizes those without the means to properly protect their wealth. It is fundamentally regressive, and will not have your intended purpose. As well, we dont do this in any other type of law that I can think of. A contract does not become forfeit because of the death of one of the parties. A law doesnt stop being enforced because the people that wrote it died.

It's a fair example, but I'm going to reject the idea of entitlement altogether in this discussion, since I'm generally pointing out the lack of specific desert.

I do not see any reason, from a neutral point of view, why a society is better served by distributing wealth along family lines, rather than using that wealth to ensure that the needs of every child in a similar situation are met, irrespective of what their parents had.

Why start at death? Let's confiscate and distribute at its earned point. Surely it is better from a neutral point of view to do so immediately as opposed to waiting years. It just seems like we are discussing the merits of communism which is fine but maybe we should start a thread about that.

The problem here is that you're assuming the state just seizes the property and then sets it on fire or something. Use the proceeds to, among other things, house people, including those who are "thrown on the street" because their parent was a renter, rather than a homeowner. This is just a better outcome.

So throw people on the streets so we can better house people thrown on the streets. I get the idea but can you give a contemporary example of society doing this? And if it hasn't been tried, why do you think that is?

No, my position doesn't change. It's a bad way of redistributing wealth that produces huge inequalities, and no matter how tragic the situation, there will always be someone worse off because their parents died young with nothing. In fact, that will be the more common situation.

I reject the idea that inequality is inherently negative. It is reality. You have more than others. Why do you deserve any luxury or excess when others have less? Why is your diet not regiment to exactly the calories and nutrients you require to survive. Housing just needs protection from the elements, anything extra is increasing inequality. We can focus this to literally all aspects of life. At it's core, I do not accept that this is a honest belief, because no one that espouses it lives by the tenets.

 

[rdwight]

You can do whatever you wish with your wealth, whilst it is yours.

Did. Made a will that dictates how it will be distributed after taxes upon my death. What you want is a carve out for this specific contract to be ignored.

I am 100% against inheritance, we should start from there.

So all wrongful death suits against corporations and individuals are null and void since the aggrieved party is dead. Well surely that's not true so I guess the suits continue with the government being the beneficiary. But what about suits against the government? It will just sue itself and pay itself out. The dead have no standing if I read your correctly. Not to be flippant but I just don't understand this.

That’s my philosophical objection, I don’t think ghosts should be considered in the tax code. I am happy to change my opinion about this if the ghosts want to get together and campaign for a change.

Are there any other scenarios in which you feel contracts dissolve upon death? All? Laws? Can government confiscate bodies to do with as they please?

 

[mumblethrax]

Man on his death bed, minutes before taking his last breath, using his final burst of energy to hit the send button on a wire transfer. All good . All this does is push forward the act, and penalizes those without the means to properly protect their wealth.

If you have wealth, you have the means to protect wealth. Estate lawyers aren't that expensive.

Providing incentives for estate planning is a good thing, not a bad thing.

It is fundamentally regressive, and will not have your intended purpose.

How is shifting wealth down the economic ladder "fundamentally regressive"? And why will it not have my intended purpose?

As well, we dont do this in any other type of law that I can think of. A contract does not become forfeit because of the death of one of the parties. A law doesnt stop being enforced because the people that wrote it died.

You don't have to convince me that this would represent a break from tradition.

Why start at death? Let's confiscate and distribute at its earned point. Surely it is better from a neutral point of view to do so immediately as opposed to waiting years. It just seems like we are discussing the merits of communism which is fine but maybe we should start a thread about that.

Recall that I'm characterizing inheritance as anti-meritocratic, meritocracy being one of the underlying justifications of capitalism. Confiscating wealth at the point it is earned eliminates incentives that promote productivity.

Dead people don't respond to incentives.

You could probably characterize this as 'social inheritance' or something. It's very definitely not communism--it's rejection of feudalistic norms, not capitalism.

So throw people on the streets so we can better house people thrown on the streets. I get the idea but can you give a contemporary example of society doing this? And if it hasn't been tried, why do you think that is?

No, don't throw people on the streets in the first place--that's not a necessary step. I can give examples of countries that have decent job with social housing, yes.

I reject the idea that inequality is inherently negative. It is reality.

You're confusing ises and oughts here. And I'm not saying inequality is inherently negative, I'm saying extreme inequality is. And we live in a country with extreme inequality, where inheritance account for something like 60% of that inequality.

You have more than others. Why do you deserve any luxury or excess when others have less?

I wouldn't say that I do. But I think a system that gives more to some than others is plausibly justifiable, whether on the basis of their productivity in the labor market, or maybe even just the amount of effort they're willing to put in.

Why is your diet not regiment to exactly the calories and nutrients you require to survive. Housing just needs protection from the elements, anything extra is increasing inequality. We can focus this to literally all aspects of life. At it's core, I do not accept that this is a honest belief, because no one that espouses it lives by the tenets.

The problem is that you're just not understanding the critique. I'm not saying "Nobody should ever have anything more than the bare minimum necessary for survival.' I'm saying if you want more than the bare minimum, you should earn it. People who inherit wealth, crucially, cannot claim to have earned that wealth.

 

[mumblethrax]

Did. Made a will that dictates how it will be distributed after taxes upon my death. What you want is a carve out for this specific contract to be ignored.

A will is not a contract, and the law around intestacy demonstrates that inheritance is not simply about what dead people wanted, prior to death.

 

[rdwight]

If you have wealth, you have the means to protect wealth. Estate lawyers aren't that expensive.

Providing incentives for estate planning is a good thing, not a bad thing.

How is shifting wealth down the economic ladder "fundamentally regressive"? And why will it not have my intended purpose?

Because those you plan to target will not be affected by your proposed policy. It will hit those with lower means, and less immersion in the actions of those with money to leave behind.

Recall that I'm characterizing inheritance as anti-meritocratic, meritocracy being one of the underlying justifications of capitalism. Confiscating wealth at the point it is earned eliminates incentives that promote productivity.

Dead people don't respond to incentives.

You could probably characterize this as 'social inheritance' or something. It's very definitely not communism--it's rejection of feudalistic norms, not capitalism.

Why does this apply to inheritance but not health insurance. Or housing. Having less incentives for productivity because that baseline in provided seems counter to your position here.

No, don't throw people on the streets in the first place--that's not a necessary step. I can give examples of countries that have decent job with social housing, yes.

You literally said it was necessary to enforce this no inheritance stance in certain circumstances. But i guess you mean they will be transferred to a housing unit of the governments choice? Or to be most egalitarian, to the cheapest housing with no regard to location. Surely you can't be expected to live in more expensive places if we are trying to be efficient here.

You're confusing ises and oughts here. And I'm not saying inequality is inherently negative, I'm saying extreme inequality is. And we live in a country with extreme inequality, where inheritance account for something like 60% of that inequality.

Which leads to my original point, this always leads to some level of cut off at where wealth, based solely on the viewers perception, becomes to much.

The problem is that you're just not understanding the critique. I'm not saying "Nobody should ever have anything more than the bare minimum necessary for survival.' I'm saying if you want more than the bare minimum, you should earn it. People who inherit wealth, crucially, cannot claim to have earned that wealth.

We receive a myriad of unearned advantages just by being born US citizens. Should this apply to citizenship? Why should you inherit it just because your parents happen to be born in a certain location. Surely the value of that is far above any inheritance the average person ever receives.

A will is not a contract, and the law around intestacy demonstrates that inheritance is not simply about what dead people wanted, prior to death.

You can play with semantics but a will is a legal document, enforced by the state. Upon creation my contract is with the state to uphold it. Intestacy is simply how we governed have decided to deal with this situation with no specified designation of where assets go after death. Much like anything the government does, we citizens already came together and decided on this.

 

[mumblethrax]

Because those you plan to target will not be affected by your proposed policy. It will hit those with lower means, and less immersion in the actions of those with money to leave behind.

If this were true, the federal estate tax would already be bringing in $0 in revenue--it doesn't kick in until an estate is worth ~$13,000,000.

But despite only applying to ~2,500 estates per year, it brings in ~$15 billion per year. The ultra-rich are not as good at evading this tax as you imagine.

This isn't a persuasive argument in any case. The ultra-rich are pretty good at avoiding income tax. It doesn't follow that taxing the merely rich at a higher rate than those below them is therefore regressive.

Why does this apply to inheritance but not health insurance. Or housing. Having less incentives for productivity because that baseline in provided seems counter to your position here.

Because they're basic necessities.

But i guess you mean they will be transferred to a housing unit of the governments choice? Or to be most egalitarian, to the cheapest housing with no regard to location. Surely you can't be expected to live in more expensive places if we are trying to be efficient here.

I'm making an argument in principle. I don't really care about the particulars of who gets what housing and where for the purposes of this argument, provided that it's possible to do this in broad strokes, and it surely is. And I'll just say again that I'm not arguing for perfect equality. You're still misconstruing the critique.

Which leads to my original point, this always leads to some level of cut off at where wealth, based solely on the viewers perception, becomes to much.

This is both sophistical and irrelevant, because I am not arguing against the accumulation of wealth per se.

We receive a myriad of unearned advantages just by being born US citizens. Should this apply to citizenship?

Of course. Those unearned advantages are also impossible to justify on meritocratic grounds. If you want to defend citizenship as a concept, it will have to be on other grounds.

You can play with semantics but a will is a legal document, enforced by the state. Upon creation my contract is with the state to uphold it. Intestacy is simply how we governed have decided to deal with this situation with no specified designation of where assets go after death.

This is not a quibble. You were trying to argue for inconsistency in treatment of a particularly kind of contract. It's not a contract. It's also not a contract with the state. So there's no inconsistency.

Much like anything the government does, we citizens already came together and decided on this.

Then there's nothing to stop us from coming together and deciding differently.

All you're telling me here is "In order to do this, you would have to pass laws!" I'm aware.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nobody is saying that inheritance is evil, but the problem is that it stacks the deck in favor of those who are already likely to be doing better, and that's not just true of the ultra-rich. It's a major driver of inequality. The best predictor of whether you'll get an inheritance is how much money you make. It's really striking.

Children who have their college paid for will never have to worry about student debt, which means they're in a better position to pay for their children's college. Everyone in that lineage is now in a much better position to build wealth, but what did they do to earn that advantage? Nothing. (Unless there was foul play involved, in which case, tip of the hat.)

Generational wealth also recapitulates the injustices of the past. People who were denied a level playing field were much less likely to build wealth, which means their descendants today are much less likely to have it.

You have convinced me, medical bankruptcies are a good thing.