4 ms·

I agree - dynasties are a huge problem. I always find it ironic too how much tax there is on capital gains, but how little there is when estate is transferred

by kylnew 11y ago

I agree - dynasties are a huge problem. I always find it ironic too how much tax there is on capital gains, but how little there is when estate is transferred after someone passes away. One was earned and the was inherited. If we forced people to give back most of their money on passing it would it work in favor of better wealth distribution.

yeukhon 11y ago
If my son is lazy and live on my $45B fortune after I pass away, he alone can't effect Joe's living cost. So how would giving my money back to the society end up helping Mr. Joe? If I make $80 per hour today, and my CEO makes $1000 per hour, are you suggesting that putting all that $45B back will eventually turn a similar me salary to $200 per hour, while the CEO continues to stay at $1000, so closing the wealth gap, 60 years from now.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If my son is lazy and live on my $45B fortune after I pass away, he alone can't effect Joe's living cost. Yes, he can. For a fairly extreme case, he could expend a substantial fraction of the recurring proceeds generated by the investment of that fortune buying up some good or combination of goods which whose production competes with that of basic necessities that Joe needs in terms of some of the needed production inputs, by so doing he drives up the manufacturing costs of those necessities (and, thus, their market clearing price, by affecting the supply curve for those goods), and increases Joe's living costs.
- kylnew 11y ago
  Well it might change the way taxation and government spending work if there was a steadier flow from people after they died. If the government has more money to put towards everyone's ability to live a healthy and happy life then I call that improving wealth. EDIT: Not to mention the jobs that government can directly create with more money to spend. That's an even more direct example of wealth distribution, really.

by kylnew 11y ago

yeukhon 11y ago

If my son is lazy and live on my $45B fortune after I pass away, he alone can't effect Joe's living cost. So how would giving my money back to the society end up helping Mr. Joe? If I make $80 per hour today, and my CEO makes $1000 per hour, are you suggesting that putting all that $45B back will eventually turn a similar me salary to $200 per hour, while the CEO continues to stay at $1000, so closing the wealth gap, 60 years from now.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> If my son is lazy and live on my $45B fortune after I pass away, he alone can't effect Joe's living cost. Yes, he can. For a fairly extreme case, he could expend a substantial fraction of the recurring proceeds generated by the investment of that fortune buying up some good or combination of goods which whose production competes with that of basic necessities that Joe needs in terms of some of the needed production inputs, by so doing he drives up the manufacturing costs of those necessities (and, thus, their market clearing price, by affecting the supply curve for those goods), and increases Joe's living costs.
kylnew 11y ago
Well it might change the way taxation and government spending work if there was a steadier flow from people after they died. If the government has more money to put towards everyone's ability to live a healthy and happy life then I call that improving wealth. EDIT: Not to mention the jobs that government can directly create with more money to spend. That's an even more direct example of wealth distribution, really.