11 ms·
Equal opportunity. Not equal outcomes.
by ytNumbers 9y ago
Equal opportunity. Not equal outcomes.
- adrianN 9y agoHaving rich parents counts as equal opportunity?
- ytNumbers 9y agoIt sounds to me like unequal outcomes carrying on from one generation to the next. Despite that, everyone has the opportunity to improve or worsen their situation in life.
- zip1234 9y agoWealth generally dilutes over generations naturally through spending, mismanagement, splitting among more people, or just bad luck.
- splintercell 9y agoIt is the right of the parents to provide the best for their kids, not right of the kids to receive the best from their parents. If you put a 100% estate tax, then you're preventing people from working towards one of the biggest goals they work for, i.e. their kids. Also, if a parent doesn't wanna give his wealth to his kids, no court in America would force the estate to go to the kids. In other words, nobody is born rich, it's the rich individuals who make their kids rich.
- mod 9y agoSaid another way: The wealthy individuals are choosing to spend their money as they please. That happens to be by making wealthy some non-wealthy individuals. In the case of this argument it's parents/children, but it doesn't have to be. The parents choose of their own free will. And they can choose to spend the money instead. Many do. Most, probably.
- bobwaycott 9y agoThis doesn't actually answer the parent's question, though.
- conanbatt 9y agoEliminating the incentive to leave a legacy could also harm the interest in accumulating capital. If you are given a 100 dollar bill that expires tomorrow you will waste it.
- distances 9y agoThat would encourage spending, resulting in higher circulation of wealth. I think this could actually have a very positive effect on societies.
- conanbatt 9y agoClassic keynesian vs classical economics. Not all spending is good, and savings and investments can increase productivity. As I mentioned, the expiring bill would increase consumption but it would also be "wasteful". Someone unable to leave a business to a son might be tempted to build a huge gold statue in the middle of nowhere. Luxury goods would become a much more tempting market, even though the experiences they provide are of very limited value to society as a whole. Also, figure all the big companies that couldnt exist because there is no legacy, every business owner would sell his business in life and frivolously spend all that money. That is, if you were able to prevent people effectively from leaving money to their kids, which I assure you, its impossible.
- splintercell 9y agoSpending or 'circulation' of wealth does not create wealth. Spending is a goal, not means towards an end. Contrary to how people believe, you can't really 'hoard' money, when you hoard money, you merely invest in money itself, and like every investment, it gives society huge benefits (including, and especially the investor).
- cpursley 9y agoHaving the "state" decide counts as equal opportunity?
- clavalle 9y agoEqual opportunity leads to equal outcomes. Not for individuals but for the statistical whole. If you can place winning bets on how wealthy the parents were by how wealthy the children are long after the parents are gone, you are measuring unequal opportunity by the unequal outcomes. I think some (statistically) unequal outcomes are unavoidable but the graph from 1940 shows that that we are moving drastically in the wrong direction.
- eli_gottlieb 9y agoCan you cash that out into a specific set of policies and their moral justifications in terms of how they provide equal opportunities to everyone?