Lion of the Blogosphere

Rich kids vote Democratic, so I say raise their inheritance taxes!

Steve Sailer has a chart showing where rich parents send their children to college.

With the weird exception of Washington and Lee University which is well known as a politically conservative school (but probably Koch Brothers open-borders conservative) with a tiny undergraduate enrollment of only 1,890 students (smaller than a lot of high schools), all of the other schools on the list are hotbeds of liberal political activism, and where Republican-voting students are a small minority.

These are the kids who will inherit their parents’ money. Instead of voting for the party that has shamelessly been trying to eliminate the estate tax, they vote for the party that wants to raise the tax and thereby significantly reduce the amount of money that they will inherit.

Once again, this leads us to the conclusion about the stupidity of Republicans, who are hell-bent on lowering the taxes of people who hate them, people who by their voting patterns obviously want their taxes raised. They should raise those taxes and distribute the money to those working-class and middle-class people who vote Republican.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 3, 2017 at 8:52 am

Posted in Education, Wealth

43 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Won’t rich people find a way around estate taxes pretty easily? In fact, do we collect that much from estate taxes at their current rate, or are they just avoided?

    CamelCaseRob

    July 3, 2017 at 8:55 am

  2. No Lion, because redistribution of wealth leads inevitably to dysgenics, which is bad for everyone in the long run, regardless of class or race. Eugenics is in every group’s interests, therefore the party that does the least to subsidize low IQ people to have lots of kids is best for all.

    DataExplorer

    July 3, 2017 at 9:19 am

    • There’s no evidence that the top 1% will have more kids if you lower their estate taxes, a tax that doesn’t kick in until AFTER they are too old to have kids. Or that the top 1% even have the best genes compared to the top 10%.

      The best eugenic policy I can think of is free abortions for poor people.

      • But there is no political party that cares about both dysgenics and estate taxes. I.e. there is no party that will tax the inheritance of the top 1% whilst at the same time identifying and preventing dysgenic trends. So in the absence of that option existing, it is still in every single person’s best long term interests to vote for the party that is against more immigration and a large welfare state.

        DataExplorer

        July 3, 2017 at 12:22 pm

      • “The best eugenic policy I can think of is free abortions for poor people.”

        The best eugenic policy I can think of is voluntary sterilization of the lower orders.

        Lewis Medlock

        July 3, 2017 at 1:56 pm

      • I wouldn’t say that “a large welfare state” necessarily leads to dysgenics as opposed to a smaller welfare state. Many of the “smaller welfare state” proposals end up by taking benefits away from the poor who don’t have kids in order to “cut the welfare state” whiling keeping them for those who do, thereby encouraging more reproduction among the poor. Of course, it could easily go the other way, so with Democrats versus Chamber of Commerce Republicans I’d say it’s about a wash.

        jasonbayz

        July 3, 2017 at 6:54 pm

  3. Isn’t there a tax deduction for money given to charitable causes which offset the inheritance tax? The wealthy could create charities/foundations to skirt the tax. Then their heirs become the Toby Milsteins of the world who could create all kinds of creative charitable causes to their liking.

    JS

    July 3, 2017 at 9:41 am

    • I am strongly in favor of eliminating deductions for charitable giving.

      However, as a rich kid, I think I’d prefer having half a billion dollars of my own rather than having a cushy $100,000/year job working at a foundation that has a billion dollars.

      But then, I grew up too poor to understand the whole philanthropy thing.

      • It would be better for the Toby Milsteins of the world to engage in some form of creative work than to loaf around like a trust fund kid without any direction in life.

        JS

        July 3, 2017 at 9:53 am

      • Toby is the director of business development for a startup company, don’t you remember?

      • Remember that Princeton grad who killed his dad, because he reduced his allowance. Rich kids aren’t necessarily self-initiating.

        JS

        July 3, 2017 at 9:56 am

      • You have a point. Could it be that wealthy Jews are different from wealthy White gentiles? I have clients who are both, although not billionaires, but nevertheless they’re well off, and Jews seem more ambitious, more philanthropic and less hedonistic.

        JS

        July 3, 2017 at 10:11 am

  4. “this leads us to the conclusion .. Republicans .. are hell-bent on lowering the taxes of people who hate them, people who by their voting patterns obviously want their taxes raised.”

    We’ve previously agreed that both Dem and GOP billionaire donors tend to be liberal on social issues. Their only real difference is their position on taxes and regulations. As much as we may despise the Koch bros, we still need their money to fund GOP campaigns. Without their money we don’t win elections. Why would they continue to support the GOP if they lose the only issue for which they support it?

    That’s why we can’t raise taxes on the rich. And the GOP’s dependence on their money is why they’d never do it anyway,. He who pays the band calls the tune. Otherwise, I’d love to strip billionaires of their filthy lucre. Not because they’re rich but because I hate their leftist politics.

    “They should raise those taxes and distribute the money to those working-class and middle-class people who vote Republican.”

    That will never happen. That’s what Obamacare was supposed to do. But it didn’t. It just increased the cutoff for those receiving assistance from those below the poverty line to those making ~150% of the poverty line. Most working and middle class still get screwed. That’s why enrollments are lagging. When people go to sign up they realize they’ll actually end up paying more.

    I know you support Obamacare. So I’m not trying to get you riled up. I just want you to see that the government serves the rich and poor. Not the working and middle class. Otherwise, I agree with you. If I could hang Soros, Koch bros, etc upside down and beat them til candy comes out I would. But it’s not going to happen.

    destructure

    July 3, 2017 at 10:17 am

    • “As much as we may despise the Koch bros, we still need their money to fund GOP campaigns.”

      What good did all of their money do for Jeb Bush? This is overrated.

      • it resulted in the largest loss of Democrat seats from 2010- in history

        Lion o' the Turambar

        July 3, 2017 at 12:27 pm

      • Campaign contributions didn’t mean all that much to Trump, because he was already a well-known story, a genius at self-promotion, and did everything he could to keep the attention on him.

        Hell, in summer 2015, I thought the media was giving him so much attention so that he’d either eventually lose and make the Republican primaries seem like a clown show, or he’d win the primaries and then lose the general once they turned their guns on him. The WikiLeaks showed this was largely the case, though this scheme backfired on them.

        If you’re a conventional candidate running for Governor or Senator somewhere, however, campaign contributions are your lifeblood. End of story.

        So the Koch Brothers didn’t affect the presidential race of 2016 all that much, but countless legislators will beg for their money.

        Even so, I think the rich people who support Republicans are more than offset by those who do. So I support raising their taxes to make the Republican Party more clearly populist.

        Sid

        July 3, 2017 at 12:56 pm

  5. Screw all the tax rich stuff; how about NO WELFARE for the poor. Take the latest black criminal to be die in custody by the police. 36 years old and NINE kids!

    You think he ever spent on a dime on them? You think his fambly is going get millions from the ghetto lottery?

    We are all PAYING for this piece of scum to be a huge winner in the Darwinian war of survival! Every shmuck who who works and has no kids or just one or two, pays for Shitavius’ spawn with their time, sweat, and LIFE. It’s cuckoldry on a massive scale.

    I mean this 100%: if some piece of shit wants to have a dozen kids with a dozen whores, fine. But if he won’t pay for them, THEN LET THEM STARVE AND DIE from their *own* decisions and actions. That is justice. (I’m sure they’ll get food from some cuck church anyway.)

    Anything less is cruelty to the just, decent, and law abiding. The R-selected are knowingly taking advantage of the fucking spineless idiots of the K-selected.

    No more free health care for the jobless, the illegals, and the losers who keep ODing and force the paramedics to save them for the 10th time. LET THEM DIE from their *own* decisions and actions. It’s justice and anything less is injustice to the just.

    fakeemail

    July 3, 2017 at 10:57 am

    • why should children starve to death because they have bad parents?

      the solution is mandatory sterilization not social darwinism, which didn’t work even in the 19th c.

      the reason why africa’s TFR is out of control isn’t foreign aid.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      July 3, 2017 at 4:14 pm

      • “the solution is mandatory sterilization not social darwinism”

        I agree. Over 90% of people on welfare are single mothers. I wouldn’t let a kid starve, But it’s not right to demand that other people support their kids without taking steps to prevent more kids they can’t support. A B/C shot should be required to collect welfare.

        destructure

        July 3, 2017 at 5:57 pm

      • @ Beverly Hills Ninja

        There is no such thing as “should” outside of the context of civilized people who try to honor their agreements. We are well outside of that context here.

        If you accept the obligation to pay for the offspring of uncivilized, dishonorable people, that makes you a cuck. Whether the children starve is beside the point. That you would even mention it suggests cuckness.

        Lowe

        July 4, 2017 at 7:49 pm

      • @ destructure

        It’s not right to demand anyone take care of their kids, ever. The only person with any positive obligations toward those kids are their mother, and their deadbeat father.

        The mother’s rightful place is begging another man to accept her, and her bastard kid(s), or living on the charity of her community. If there is no man willing, or no charity, then she’s fucked, and it’s not your problem or mine.

        Sterilization in exchange for welfare is even more unrealistic than completely abolishing welfare, by the way.

        Lowe

        July 4, 2017 at 7:57 pm

  6. You took this Sailer article in a way I wasn’t expecting. Didn’t it give you some schadenfreude to see so many children from smug upper middle class families going to elite schools only to end up with working class pay? Surely that’s got to give you a sense of satisfaction to see how much more we make than they do.

    I’d love to twist the knife by stripping them of their inheritance, too. But changing estate taxes now would probably end up hurting our families. The gov should have raised estate taxes years ago not now.

    destructure

    July 3, 2017 at 11:10 am

    • the chart shows the exact opposite. median parents’ income is compared to individual income in the early 30s.

      so to adjust the income has to be multiplied by 2 or 1.5 or whatever and inflated to the average age of the parents.

      what the chart really shows is that there is very little opportunity in the US. it is the most rigidly stratified society in the developed world. only the UK compares.

      and considering that half of individual working americans make < $30k per year, $75k is far above "working class" in most places.

      it’s the stupidity stupid.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      July 3, 2017 at 4:23 pm

      • While I do enjoy reading your incessant ranting about the Anglo Prole Sphere’s lack of upward mobility, and I would agree, let me ask you, why do we need more frivolous consumption? Speaking of stupid, Meriprolestan’s citizens spend more of their money on eating out than they do learning a new language or a new craft. I think many of our elites think the average American is a shiftless moron with low aspirations, who lives a life of gigo (garbage in-garbage out).

        JS

        July 3, 2017 at 5:31 pm

      • Found this interesting piece: America has 2 types of elites, the prolier corporate elite and snooty-SWPL cultural elite. Trump belongs to the 1st group and he dislikes the 2nd group.

        This article would blow apart Fussell’s social class distinctions.

        stuff with logos no longer signals of social status for the cultural elite – they are too easy to obtain now. The cultural elite prefers “subtle expenditures that reveal status and knowledge” such as spending on branded universities and tony graduate degrees. It also includes purchasing organic apple sauce for their their children and subscriptions to the New Yorker for themselves – the kind of choices Currid-Halkett calls “inconspicuous consumption

        Basically, wealthy frat boys hate well to do professors and intellectuals.

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/22/new-york-city-elite-american-resentment

        But to me, most America’s cultural elites aren’t even culturally sophisticated.

        JS

        July 3, 2017 at 6:05 pm

      • According to this Forbes article, women’s incomes only increase 20% from age 30 to 39 peaking at $60K. And men’s incomes increase 45% from 30 to 48 peaking at $95K. Since these people are 32-34. their incomes won’t increase that much. Their median won’t be anywhere near their parents.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/01/13/your-high-earning-years-salary-secrets-for-your-20s-30s-and-40s/#131baec6201e

        destructure

        July 3, 2017 at 6:31 pm

      • we don’t. this is one of the points “the global economic consensus” does NOT get.

        economic growth and interest rates will not be “lower for longer”.

        they will be “lower for…ever”.

        life expectancy is the numeraire.

        status is fixed, like land. if you have more status, someone else has less. if it were possible to trade years of life expectancy and some unit of status…status would be super cheap.

        s italy and spain are poor compared to most americans but they live longer than white americans on average.

        being “poor” in the developed world isn’t really being poor most of the time.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        July 3, 2017 at 6:32 pm

      • Read a comment from that article — commenter makes an interesting comment — proles from middle america, resent the fact that NAMs and non-white immigrants get the privilege to live in NYC with all the amenities, and they don’t.

        This proves my point that basic income will not be arriving anytime soon in America, because of its geographical inequality!

        JS

        July 4, 2017 at 12:02 am

      • yeah but it depends on how many are working. two income households do make more on average than single income households. 50*1.2 + 50*1.45 = 132.5. wasn’t $50k the low end? there was some school in VT with a horrible wage though. in 2014 $75k per year was the 87th percentile for individual wages in the US. i think sailer is being misleading. but i wouldn’t trust the figures anyway.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        July 4, 2017 at 12:32 am

      • so the average of the medians for the kids is $65,404. multiply this by 2.65 using the forbes article and assuming both parents are working gives $173k. these people tend to marry people like themselves, and household income does in fact increase with number of people formally employed.

        the average of the parents’ median income was $179k. these calculations seem to confirm the overall US figure for “intergenerational earnings elasticity”, a fancy way of saying “how similar are parents’ and children’s incomes”. of course a lot of the difference between the US and europe in social mobility disappears at the city level. so boston isn’t much more class rigid than denmark believe it or not. but canada and australia are also big countries and they have far more mobility. i’ve never found figures by race for the country as a whole, but i do know that the south has the most rigid class structure in the US and it is equally rigid for whites and blacks. or so claimed david leonhardt.

        Beverly Hills Ninja

        July 4, 2017 at 12:54 am

      • Canada is a nicer country, with smarter and saner people. However much of its terrain is unlivable and it winters are far colder anything south of it. The summers are pretty short and the arrival of fall is cool like November in the Northeastern United States.

        America is far more hospitable when it comes to its climate…

        Blame America’s sh!tfest on the proles. They had every opportunity to take back their country and make it one of the greatest, but with short sighted imbeciles abound, it has been ruined forever.

        Then there’s the black problem coming from slavery, a perpetual one…karma perhaps, maybe!

        JS

        July 4, 2017 at 11:07 am

      • “using the forbes article and assuming both parents are working gives $173k. “

        That assumes they all get married, marry someone who went to a similar school, don’t divorce and the wife stays in the workforce. The percentage doing that is obviously much less than 100%. Whether that drops their household income 20K or 50K is anyone’s guess. But I think the final household income will be quite a bit lower than $173K.

        They still probably make about twice the national average. But I’m not comparing them to someone who works the deli counter at walmart. I’m talking about electrician, plumber, policeman, fireman, nurse, etc. I think a policeman or fireman who marries a nurse will be very close. Of course, this similarly assumes they get married, marry someone similar. don’t divorce and stay in the workforce.

        I know they won’t all do that, either. So the average will, indeed, be much lower. My point is that plenty of working class families will make as much or more than the children of upper middle class families. I’ve seen plenty of both for whom this is true.

        destructure

        July 4, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    • why would destructure misinterpret this chart? he’s said he himself is a rich kid.

      Beverly Hills Ninja

      July 3, 2017 at 4:24 pm

      • I wasn’t a rich kid. My parents didn’t make any real money until after I left home.

        destructure

        July 3, 2017 at 7:10 pm

  7. Sailer’s chart is interesting, but doesn’t really show rich kids that well. It seems like it mostly gives the impression of where the children of upper middle class professionals go to school. My university is on the list and there was a lot of cultural and background conformity (the most common undergrad was probably a jewess from NJ with a lawyer father). I contrast that with the local SEC school where there was much more economic diversity on both ends of the spectrum, but the median income is much lower.

    Aristippus

    July 3, 2017 at 11:39 am

    • > a jewess from NJ with a lawyer father

      I’m surrounded by them

      ScarletNumber

      July 3, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    • emory grad detected, lol

      renault

      July 4, 2017 at 9:02 pm

  8. Let us note that none of those libtarded voting rich people ever support a candidate to lower taxes on those doing the work. I think libtards along with conservatard pass policies that keep the middle class/working class poor.

    Someone

    July 3, 2017 at 4:33 pm

  9. Most kids lean Democrat in their college years. When they grow up a sizable amount become Republican including the rich ones. The chart is meaningless.

    B.T.D.T.

    July 3, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    • Ok, so the chart is meaningless, so what did many White Millennials choose Bernie over Hillary who had a significant larger NAM following and older voters? Better, why did many of them choose Trump over Hillary as the 2nd choice candidate?

      JS

      July 3, 2017 at 10:06 pm

  10. I think that estate taxes are sheer rapacious piracy, and I am strongly opposed to them. Anything left over in an estate has already been taxed (income tax, capital gains, property tax, whatever), and moreover is the product of careful planning and long-term investment. I don’t think the government should be involved to make things worse. Besides, any large estate will tend to dissipate over time, through several generations.

    But don’t most rich people tend to live in blue states with various high taxes? Perhaps we could look into eliminating the federal deduction for state income taxes? And I read elsewhere that Steve Bannon had recently suggested raising the top income tax rate, which could be a good populist move.

    Yankee

    July 3, 2017 at 6:39 pm

    • “Anything left over in an estate has already been taxed (income tax, capital gains, property tax, whatever)”

      That’s false, the estate may have billions of dollars of assets that haven’t been taxed, as in the case of wealthy founders of huge corporations who never sold any of their stock.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: