3 ms·

> the inherited capital allows > them to pursue higher education I suspect most people's education is complete by the time their parents die. > Why s

> 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.

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.