4 ms·

> Won't the inheritance stop their children working so hard? Any evidence of the income from labor of children that came from wealthier family is very likely t

> Won't the inheritance stop their children working so hard? Any evidence of the income from labor of children that came from wealthier family is very likely to point that the highest income jobs go to people with richer parents. That points to the exact opposite: the inherited capital allows them to pursue higher education and more perfectioning of skills, even if they dont need that labor. But even if at some point of inheritance, people developed a significant dissuasive to work well paying jobs, it would be a drop in the bucket. The labor of the people who's inherited capital allows them to never work, and not only that but never for their children to work, is not a significant population and clearly, managing the capital is worth a lot more than their labor. But lets say that even then, we want to squeeze as much as possible. Why stop at life? Lets just confiscate everything at any point in a mans life: someone that IPO'd and made 50 millions by 30y-old is tempted to never work by that same assumption, shouldnt we tax it all away? Of course, we know that taxing in that way is not only not to the liking of many, but it has economic consequences. SAme with the inheritance tax. > Isn't spending better than hoarding for the economy? I need more context for this, im not sure i get it. Spending by itself is not good for the economy, its actually terrible. Frivolous spending is not good for the economy: it creates jobs that have limited use beyond basic wealth transfer. If you spend your money on maids and people to afford luxury to you, once the capital is spent, all that value goes with you when you die. But if that capital goes into something that lasts after you perish, the economy gets richer. For example, if you buy 200 cars, at least after you die ,there are more assets in the overall economy.

peteretep 10y ago
> the inherited capital allows > them to pursue higher education I suspect most people's education is complete by the time their parents die. > Why stop at life? Lets just > confiscate everything at any > point in a mans life Because I can assure you that once dead, you will maintain no further interest in your assets. While alive, I suspect you will. >> Isn't spending better than >> hoarding for the economy? > I need more context for this They were teaching it in highschool economics when I was a kid.
- tomhoward 10y ago
  > They were teaching it in high school economics when I was a kid. If you mean the Paradox of Thrift [1], I remember that class in macroeconomics. But it was quickly followed up with the point that funds that aren't spent are either (a) invested in capital which increases society's productive capacity, or (b) made available as loanable funds to others. So it's really not a paradox at all. Whether you're spending, investing or saving, you're still making an important contribution to the economy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift
- conanbatt 10y ago
  > I suspect most people's education is complete by the time their parents die. I guess it depends on how you define or implement inheritance tax. If you can afford your kids your entire capital while you are alive, the inheritance tax will only affect the unprepared. In argentina there is a sizable estate tax , so people transfer all their deeds to their children in their 60's. Of course such implementation would not render the kids unable to live without wages. > Because I can assure you that once dead, you will maintain no further interest in your assets. While alive, I suspect you will. I dont see how this follows what I said. I said that if the goal is to maximize the amount of labor in the system (adding inheritance tax so children of welathy people also have to work) then we could just ban wealthyness altogether and truly maximize the amount of people that work. by making it a necessity. I dont know what interest in assets means in this context. > They were teaching it in highschool economics when I was a kid. I dont know what model they taught you, but if spending by itself were the undisputable best use of capital, then we should collectively just ban savings from ever existing and reap the rewards.

peteretep 10y ago

> the inherited capital allows > them to pursue higher education I suspect most people's education is complete by the time their parents die. > Why stop at life? Lets just > confiscate everything at any > point in a mans life Because I can assure you that once dead, you will maintain no further interest in your assets. While alive, I suspect you will. >> Isn't spending better than >> hoarding for the economy? > I need more context for this They were teaching it in highschool economics when I was a kid.

tomhoward 10y ago
> They were teaching it in high school economics when I was a kid. If you mean the Paradox of Thrift [1], I remember that class in macroeconomics. But it was quickly followed up with the point that funds that aren't spent are either (a) invested in capital which increases society's productive capacity, or (b) made available as loanable funds to others. So it's really not a paradox at all. Whether you're spending, investing or saving, you're still making an important contribution to the economy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift
conanbatt 10y ago
> I suspect most people's education is complete by the time their parents die. I guess it depends on how you define or implement inheritance tax. If you can afford your kids your entire capital while you are alive, the inheritance tax will only affect the unprepared. In argentina there is a sizable estate tax , so people transfer all their deeds to their children in their 60's. Of course such implementation would not render the kids unable to live without wages. > Because I can assure you that once dead, you will maintain no further interest in your assets. While alive, I suspect you will. I dont see how this follows what I said. I said that if the goal is to maximize the amount of labor in the system (adding inheritance tax so children of welathy people also have to work) then we could just ban wealthyness altogether and truly maximize the amount of people that work. by making it a necessity. I dont know what interest in assets means in this context. > They were teaching it in highschool economics when I was a kid. I dont know what model they taught you, but if spending by itself were the undisputable best use of capital, then we should collectively just ban savings from ever existing and reap the rewards.