7 ms·

I think it sad that there is only one word for wealth. It does not distinguish how a person attained that wealth. Was it inherited? Was the wealth created? Or w

by jostmey 10y ago

I think it sad that there is only one word for wealth. It does not distinguish how a person attained that wealth. Was it inherited? Was the wealth created? Or was it taken at the expense of others? How society treats and taxes the wealthy should depend on how the wealth is attained.

api 10y ago
Capitalism should have as many words for wealth as the Inuit purportedly have for snow.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  We do. We also have as many words for snow as the inuit did. Just of the top of my head for frozen water that falls from the sky: snow, sleet, powder, crusty, ice, slush, hail, wet, thick, dusting, etc... And for wealth : cash, money, asset, value, income, revenue, etc
kansface 10y ago
| Was it inherited? old money | Was the wealth created? nouveau riche | Or was it taken at the expense of others? plutocrat/oligarch
forinti 10y ago
Indeed, for an economic system that supposedly rewards merit, why should Capitalism even have the institution of heritage?
- ed_balls 10y ago
  because that's one of the greatest incentives for people to create wealth. Why would I work and create wealth if I can't give it to my children or to charity that I created? Let's consume all of it.
  - jhbadger 10y ago
    A lot of notable scientists have given up all patent rights to their discoveries because they were motivated to help the world. And to be fair, be famous and respected too.
  - forinti 10y ago
    I can understand that for the first few million, but an inheritance of hundreds of million or even billions doesn't really do society much good.
    - ed_balls 10y ago
      Depends what he/she does with the money. There are many things that government won't do and there is no market for it e.g. Polio vaccine. You have to have wealthy individuals to fund these ideas. Never mind that. You cannot design the system to force people to give you the money. They would move with the capital abroad. What do you do then? Start a war? Wealth is not a problem. Corruption and poverty are.
      - johnsonjo 10y ago
        I agree wealth is not a problem, but corruption can be particularly devious in the hands of the wealthy. Wealthy people also have a greater benefit to the world than the average person when they are benevolent. I think both facts are the same with a wealthy government.
      - jack9 10y ago
        > Depends what he/she does with the money No, it doesn't. Justifying the choice is good after it turns out good as some sort of moral strategy. The choice (of how to use absurd wealth) is now subject to not-society. So any benefit is accidental, at best. It can easily be lit on fire and that is just as bad because society gets no say in it.
      - wstrange 10y ago
        > There are many things that government won't do and there is no market for it e.g. Polio vaccine From my reading of [1], the Polio Vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#History
jhbadger 10y ago
The problem is in the definition of "created". A CEO of a company may say he "created" the wealth of the company through his decision to create a new gizmo. The engineers may say they created the wealth because they designed the gizmo. The workers who built the gizmo can also say the created the wealth in the most literal sense. Capitalism, technocracy, and socialism disagree on the importance of the three types of creation.
- mancerayder 10y ago
  I believe in classical economics the terms are Production and Distribution, the latter being in reference of profit, or value-add. I totally agree that the ambiguity you described is an issue. It's unfortunate that common political parlance isn't in a habit of defining its terms as a step 1a before proceeding in a discussion.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- jostmey 10y ago
  Of course it is hard to define how wealth is attained. But does that mean we should not try? What is worse? Giving up or finding a partially satisfactory solution? There may never exist a precise test for how wealth is created, but it would be better than nothing.
cityhall 10y ago
The problem is we don't tax wealth directly, only when it's transferred. A large portion of government spending is to protect the value of capital, but we fund it largely with taxes on incomes.
- jaggederest 10y ago
  We could replace most federal taxation with a 150 basis point tax on all assets. It'd be an interesting way to pay for a government.
xyzzy4 10y ago
It's usually created by one frugal couple not spending much of their income their entire life, and then passing on the savings. Money that isn't spent generates even more money passively.
- chadgeidel 10y ago
  Hard to tell if you are serious. My mother and father are going to leave me a bit of cash from their business earnings (I wish they wouldn't). That doesn't make me a Rothschild or a Hearst. Not to mention regal dynasties or modern tech entrepreneurs which are in another category entirely.
  - ryanx435 10y ago
    Why do you wish they wouldnt? To value signal to anonymous commenter on hacker news that you are not "elite"?
    - chadgeidel 10y ago
      I suppose you could say that, although by US standards I'm far from "elite". Generally I think people should focus on maximizing their "life happiness". It's not my parents responsibility to scrimp and save to make my life better after they have passed. I would much prefer they spend their time and money enjoying their time here. I'm not suggesting they spend zero on me, I'm just saying they should not be unnecessarily frugal their entire life for my benefit. Obviously there are trade-offs. They have helped me in many ways (as parents do) which has contributed to my high quality of life. I'm suggesting that they enjoy the remainder of their lives as they wish.
    - EliRivers 10y ago
      While I can't speak for him, in my case it's because I want my predecessors to reap the benefits of their labours and spend their money on themselves before they die. As I say to them (and others), you only get one life and there are no prizes for checking out with money left in the bank.
alexbecker 10y ago
Bill Gates makes a similar point in his review of Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capital-in-21st-Century-Review https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capi...
- sologoub 10y ago
  From Gates: >Take a look at the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. About half the people on the list are entrepreneurs whose companies did very well (thanks to hard work as well as a lot of luck). Contrary to Piketty’s rentier hypothesis, I don’t see anyone on the list whose ancestors bought a great parcel of land in 1780 and have been accumulating family wealth by collecting rents ever since. In America, that old money is long gone—through instability, inflation, taxes, philanthropy, and spending. This is exactly why I don't buy the "rentier class" argument. Even the mega-wealthy families of the robber-baron era are not that well represented in these lists. The other take on the wealth that is rarely discussed is the incentive that the ability to secure the lives of ones offspring provides - it is a very powerful drive. I suspect a large number of very talented individuals would accelerate their retirement if they were not able to pass their wealth on to their kids. While I heavily rely on my skills/labor for income, even I would make very different choices if I had no hope of passing on at least something. Fair or not, it's a pretty primal instinct.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    I don't agree with Piketty, but do note that he's looking at things from a mainly European perspective. Europe probably has a lot more old money + there is still some (very) wealthy aristocracy around. I in fact personally know a family that still owns land they somehow acquired in the 1700s. But they're not the billionaires or hundred millionaires that roam todays capitalistic system. They're.. well off? I would call it FU money, but given they (sort of) have to pass it down the generations for forever, they definitely spend a lot less of it and enjoy it less.
  - kamaal 10y ago
    >>Even the mega-wealthy families of the robber-baron era are not that well represented in these lists. May be because bulk of that wealth is locked in Trusts. And passed on through Trusts. The Bezos, Zuckerberg's and Gates will leave behind Trusts which their descendants will inherit. You won't find their names in the richest person list in the next few decades. Their descendants will almost be as rich as the richest guy of their times. They will just be rich through a proxy.

by jostmey 10y ago

api 10y ago

Capitalism should have as many words for wealth as the Inuit purportedly have for snow.

ryanx435 10y ago
We do. We also have as many words for snow as the inuit did. Just of the top of my head for frozen water that falls from the sky: snow, sleet, powder, crusty, ice, slush, hail, wet, thick, dusting, etc... And for wealth : cash, money, asset, value, income, revenue, etc

kansface 10y ago

| Was it inherited? old money | Was the wealth created? nouveau riche | Or was it taken at the expense of others? plutocrat/oligarch

forinti 10y ago

Indeed, for an economic system that supposedly rewards merit, why should Capitalism even have the institution of heritage?

ed_balls 10y ago
because that's one of the greatest incentives for people to create wealth. Why would I work and create wealth if I can't give it to my children or to charity that I created? Let's consume all of it.
- jhbadger 10y ago
  A lot of notable scientists have given up all patent rights to their discoveries because they were motivated to help the world. And to be fair, be famous and respected too.
- forinti 10y ago
  I can understand that for the first few million, but an inheritance of hundreds of million or even billions doesn't really do society much good.
  - ed_balls 10y ago
    Depends what he/she does with the money. There are many things that government won't do and there is no market for it e.g. Polio vaccine. You have to have wealthy individuals to fund these ideas. Never mind that. You cannot design the system to force people to give you the money. They would move with the capital abroad. What do you do then? Start a war? Wealth is not a problem. Corruption and poverty are.
    - johnsonjo 10y ago
      I agree wealth is not a problem, but corruption can be particularly devious in the hands of the wealthy. Wealthy people also have a greater benefit to the world than the average person when they are benevolent. I think both facts are the same with a wealthy government.
    - jack9 10y ago
      > Depends what he/she does with the money No, it doesn't. Justifying the choice is good after it turns out good as some sort of moral strategy. The choice (of how to use absurd wealth) is now subject to not-society. So any benefit is accidental, at best. It can easily be lit on fire and that is just as bad because society gets no say in it.
    - wstrange 10y ago
      > There are many things that government won't do and there is no market for it e.g. Polio vaccine From my reading of [1], the Polio Vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk at the University of Pittsburgh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#History

jhbadger 10y ago

The problem is in the definition of "created". A CEO of a company may say he "created" the wealth of the company through his decision to create a new gizmo. The engineers may say they created the wealth because they designed the gizmo. The workers who built the gizmo can also say the created the wealth in the most literal sense. Capitalism, technocracy, and socialism disagree on the importance of the three types of creation.

mancerayder 10y ago
I believe in classical economics the terms are Production and Distribution, the latter being in reference of profit, or value-add. I totally agree that the ambiguity you described is an issue. It's unfortunate that common political parlance isn't in a habit of defining its terms as a step 1a before proceeding in a discussion.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jostmey 10y ago
Of course it is hard to define how wealth is attained. But does that mean we should not try? What is worse? Giving up or finding a partially satisfactory solution? There may never exist a precise test for how wealth is created, but it would be better than nothing.

cityhall 10y ago

The problem is we don't tax wealth directly, only when it's transferred. A large portion of government spending is to protect the value of capital, but we fund it largely with taxes on incomes.

jaggederest 10y ago
We could replace most federal taxation with a 150 basis point tax on all assets. It'd be an interesting way to pay for a government.

xyzzy4 10y ago

It's usually created by one frugal couple not spending much of their income their entire life, and then passing on the savings. Money that isn't spent generates even more money passively.

chadgeidel 10y ago
Hard to tell if you are serious. My mother and father are going to leave me a bit of cash from their business earnings (I wish they wouldn't). That doesn't make me a Rothschild or a Hearst. Not to mention regal dynasties or modern tech entrepreneurs which are in another category entirely.
- ryanx435 10y ago
  Why do you wish they wouldnt? To value signal to anonymous commenter on hacker news that you are not "elite"?
  - chadgeidel 10y ago
    I suppose you could say that, although by US standards I'm far from "elite". Generally I think people should focus on maximizing their "life happiness". It's not my parents responsibility to scrimp and save to make my life better after they have passed. I would much prefer they spend their time and money enjoying their time here. I'm not suggesting they spend zero on me, I'm just saying they should not be unnecessarily frugal their entire life for my benefit. Obviously there are trade-offs. They have helped me in many ways (as parents do) which has contributed to my high quality of life. I'm suggesting that they enjoy the remainder of their lives as they wish.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    While I can't speak for him, in my case it's because I want my predecessors to reap the benefits of their labours and spend their money on themselves before they die. As I say to them (and others), you only get one life and there are no prizes for checking out with money left in the bank.

alexbecker 10y ago

Bill Gates makes a similar point in his review of Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century: https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capital-in-21st-Century-Review https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capi...

sologoub 10y ago
From Gates: >Take a look at the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans. About half the people on the list are entrepreneurs whose companies did very well (thanks to hard work as well as a lot of luck). Contrary to Piketty’s rentier hypothesis, I don’t see anyone on the list whose ancestors bought a great parcel of land in 1780 and have been accumulating family wealth by collecting rents ever since. In America, that old money is long gone—through instability, inflation, taxes, philanthropy, and spending. This is exactly why I don't buy the "rentier class" argument. Even the mega-wealthy families of the robber-baron era are not that well represented in these lists. The other take on the wealth that is rarely discussed is the incentive that the ability to secure the lives of ones offspring provides - it is a very powerful drive. I suspect a large number of very talented individuals would accelerate their retirement if they were not able to pass their wealth on to their kids. While I heavily rely on my skills/labor for income, even I would make very different choices if I had no hope of passing on at least something. Fair or not, it's a pretty primal instinct.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  I don't agree with Piketty, but do note that he's looking at things from a mainly European perspective. Europe probably has a lot more old money + there is still some (very) wealthy aristocracy around. I in fact personally know a family that still owns land they somehow acquired in the 1700s. But they're not the billionaires or hundred millionaires that roam todays capitalistic system. They're.. well off? I would call it FU money, but given they (sort of) have to pass it down the generations for forever, they definitely spend a lot less of it and enjoy it less.
- kamaal 10y ago
  >>Even the mega-wealthy families of the robber-baron era are not that well represented in these lists. May be because bulk of that wealth is locked in Trusts. And passed on through Trusts. The Bezos, Zuckerberg's and Gates will leave behind Trusts which their descendants will inherit. You won't find their names in the richest person list in the next few decades. Their descendants will almost be as rich as the richest guy of their times. They will just be rich through a proxy.