6 ms·

There are two extreme ways to remove the inheritance problem. One would be to forfeit personal property: you can't give what you don't own. The other would be t

by arkh 9y ago

There are two extreme ways to remove the inheritance problem. One would be to forfeit personal property: you can't give what you don't own. The other would be to remove the concept of family: when born you are placed in a communal system to be raised by professionals. People start with the same chances, the same level of social knowledge, network and vocabulary, you almost get to a pure meritocratic society (there are still those pesky genes). Let's not imagine the unwanted effects and just bask in the idea of those kind of perfect societies.

ataturk 9y ago
I think you're kidding, but just in case not: Communism never did any little guy any favors. I can't even imagine the amount of suffering that would go on for children "raised by professionals" given the amount of documented abuse that takes places in institutions like boarding schools, foster homes, and so forth. Nobody loves a kid like his/her own parents do. Not to say that many families don't abuse their kids, but the idea that society would care better for a child is a concept that has been thoroughly and completely debunked time and time again. As far as removal of private property, I don't think I like the living conditions in Venezuela, Cuba, or China very much, thanks. Again, nobody cares about property better than its owner, someone with a vested interest in maintaining it.
chillydawg 9y ago
We already have inheritance tax laws, they are just not very good. They need to target trusts and other ways that rich families get around it.
letsgetphysITal 9y ago
> you almost get to a pure meritocratic society (there are still those pesky genes). That's OK, we can use CRISPR tech to solve that problem. Brave New World in 3.. 2.. 1..
ramblerman 9y ago
There is a third (equally extreme) but much simpler way. Keep everything as is, but don't allow inheritance, or cap it at some number.
- arkh 9y ago
  You still benefit from your parent's network, you learn a lot more at a young age at home, you profit from their money while being raised. That's a huge difference between people from poor areas and those from even middle-class families. And that's something advantaged people don't like to think about when they use the meritocratic word: most of them benefited from huge advantages by being born in the right family. Or even just by being born in the right country. Nowadays you benefit from your inheritance when you are established and don't really need it anymore. What really helped you was the 100k-1 million 0% interest loan with no problem if you don't pay it back you got during your 20s from your parents. Or just knowing you could be attending a good college and knowing the most important you have to get out of there is the right network of people. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-language-gap-091213.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-langua... for an example of what having the right parents can help a long time before inheriting their property.
  - topmonk 9y ago
    Why shouldn't we concentrate most of our effort on those whos' parents succeeded? If the parents had the right mindset and the right genes to succeed, they would in all likelihood pass those onto their children. This mirrors the natural world to a great degree, and to me would seem to allow for a lot more beneficial outcomes then some arbitrary guideline of fairness. What is better, to give $100K in wealth to everyone, from idiots to geniuses, or concentrate our efforts on those that have more chance to succeed?
    - earthtolazlo 9y ago
      Social Darwinism was bullshit 100 years ago and it’s bullshit today.
      - topmonk 9y ago
        I looked up this term in wikipedia, and I don't know what you are trying to label me as. It seems to be just a buzz word. As quoted from "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics": Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist. Can you explain further?
carlob 9y ago
Or as Piketty proposed tax wealth as well as income. Right now some country implement some inheritance tax, but that's the only time when wealth is actually measured and taxed and there are so many loopholes (trust funds, donations, …) to make this incredibly ineffective especially on the richest.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  All these proposals about taxing more make me feel uneasy. The real issue i have with tax isn't how much i pay but how it is used. Before i need to pay even more tax i would like to see a concerted effort to automate civil service jobs out of existence (needing to queue at 5am in the morning to get anything done in Berlin is an inexcusable joke in 21st century) and two we need to destroy the unemployment welfare system and implement a basic income. If those two things don't happen as a minimum then i don't think anyone should pay another cent because Europeans are already getting shit value for money as it is.
  - carlob 9y ago
    The main problem is that right now we have absolutely no idea of where the wealth is. One of the most important consequences of the universal income tax was the production of a huge amount of data. There is no equivalent for wealth, even things like Forbes lists are mostly guesswork and handwaving.
    - fuzzfactor 9y ago
      >More than half of all private wealth has been inherited in most of Europe The only time that wasn't true in the USA was before income started being taxed. If you do the math, the only tax which is not destructive to working people is taxing commerce. That's the way the US federal government was funded when free enterprise was more available to a greaater percentage of citizens. Switching over to income taxes shifted the burden dramatically from the powerful to the relatively powerless. What more effectie way was there at the time to keep down the first freeborn decendandts of slaves after bondage ended? The most prominent feature of taxing income is its huge damping effect on upward mobility. That's OK, the ones who instituted income tax to begin with did so because as far as they were concerned enough citizens had moved up already, especially from the very bottom. That's the most important consequence. This is by design. It's probably best to try and look beyond conventional wisdom when invoking caca del toro.
raducu 9y ago
Not living with your family in you first ~7 years of life has disastrous effects on brain development and emotional health for the rest of your life.
- golergka 9y ago
  I don't think that the parent comment was actually suggesting implementing these things, quite the opposite.
- wz1000 9y ago
  I believe Israeli kibbutz had communal child rearing.
wz1000 9y ago
> There are two extreme ways to remove the inheritance problem. One would be to forfeit personal property: you can't give what you don't own. You are talking about private property. Personal property is distinct from private property.

by arkh 9y ago

ataturk 9y ago

I think you're kidding, but just in case not: Communism never did any little guy any favors. I can't even imagine the amount of suffering that would go on for children "raised by professionals" given the amount of documented abuse that takes places in institutions like boarding schools, foster homes, and so forth. Nobody loves a kid like his/her own parents do. Not to say that many families don't abuse their kids, but the idea that society would care better for a child is a concept that has been thoroughly and completely debunked time and time again. As far as removal of private property, I don't think I like the living conditions in Venezuela, Cuba, or China very much, thanks. Again, nobody cares about property better than its owner, someone with a vested interest in maintaining it.

chillydawg 9y ago

We already have inheritance tax laws, they are just not very good. They need to target trusts and other ways that rich families get around it.

letsgetphysITal 9y ago

> you almost get to a pure meritocratic society (there are still those pesky genes). That's OK, we can use CRISPR tech to solve that problem. Brave New World in 3.. 2.. 1..

ramblerman 9y ago

There is a third (equally extreme) but much simpler way. Keep everything as is, but don't allow inheritance, or cap it at some number.

arkh 9y ago
You still benefit from your parent's network, you learn a lot more at a young age at home, you profit from their money while being raised. That's a huge difference between people from poor areas and those from even middle-class families. And that's something advantaged people don't like to think about when they use the meritocratic word: most of them benefited from huge advantages by being born in the right family. Or even just by being born in the right country. Nowadays you benefit from your inheritance when you are established and don't really need it anymore. What really helped you was the 100k-1 million 0% interest loan with no problem if you don't pay it back you got during your 20s from your parents. Or just knowing you could be attending a good college and knowing the most important you have to get out of there is the right network of people. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-language-gap-091213.html https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/september/toddler-langua... for an example of what having the right parents can help a long time before inheriting their property.
- topmonk 9y ago
  Why shouldn't we concentrate most of our effort on those whos' parents succeeded? If the parents had the right mindset and the right genes to succeed, they would in all likelihood pass those onto their children. This mirrors the natural world to a great degree, and to me would seem to allow for a lot more beneficial outcomes then some arbitrary guideline of fairness. What is better, to give $100K in wealth to everyone, from idiots to geniuses, or concentrate our efforts on those that have more chance to succeed?
  - earthtolazlo 9y ago
    Social Darwinism was bullshit 100 years ago and it’s bullshit today.
    - topmonk 9y ago
      I looked up this term in wikipedia, and I don't know what you are trying to label me as. It seems to be just a buzz word. As quoted from "The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics": Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist. Can you explain further?

carlob 9y ago

Or as Piketty proposed tax wealth as well as income. Right now some country implement some inheritance tax, but that's the only time when wealth is actually measured and taxed and there are so many loopholes (trust funds, donations, …) to make this incredibly ineffective especially on the richest.

rorykoehler 9y ago
All these proposals about taxing more make me feel uneasy. The real issue i have with tax isn't how much i pay but how it is used. Before i need to pay even more tax i would like to see a concerted effort to automate civil service jobs out of existence (needing to queue at 5am in the morning to get anything done in Berlin is an inexcusable joke in 21st century) and two we need to destroy the unemployment welfare system and implement a basic income. If those two things don't happen as a minimum then i don't think anyone should pay another cent because Europeans are already getting shit value for money as it is.
- carlob 9y ago
  The main problem is that right now we have absolutely no idea of where the wealth is. One of the most important consequences of the universal income tax was the production of a huge amount of data. There is no equivalent for wealth, even things like Forbes lists are mostly guesswork and handwaving.
  - fuzzfactor 9y ago
    >More than half of all private wealth has been inherited in most of Europe The only time that wasn't true in the USA was before income started being taxed. If you do the math, the only tax which is not destructive to working people is taxing commerce. That's the way the US federal government was funded when free enterprise was more available to a greaater percentage of citizens. Switching over to income taxes shifted the burden dramatically from the powerful to the relatively powerless. What more effectie way was there at the time to keep down the first freeborn decendandts of slaves after bondage ended? The most prominent feature of taxing income is its huge damping effect on upward mobility. That's OK, the ones who instituted income tax to begin with did so because as far as they were concerned enough citizens had moved up already, especially from the very bottom. That's the most important consequence. This is by design. It's probably best to try and look beyond conventional wisdom when invoking caca del toro.

raducu 9y ago

Not living with your family in you first ~7 years of life has disastrous effects on brain development and emotional health for the rest of your life.

golergka 9y ago
I don't think that the parent comment was actually suggesting implementing these things, quite the opposite.
wz1000 9y ago
I believe Israeli kibbutz had communal child rearing.

wz1000 9y ago

> There are two extreme ways to remove the inheritance problem. One would be to forfeit personal property: you can't give what you don't own. You are talking about private property. Personal property is distinct from private property.