3 ms·
Right now the only thing that somewhat limits the accumulation of wealth by the wealthiest in our society is that they eventually die. Even if they pass it on t
by eloff 9y ago
Right now the only thing that somewhat limits the accumulation of wealth by the wealthiest in our society is that they eventually die. Even if they pass it on to their offspring, those offspring are often ill-equipped to run their parent's business empire. Eventually the dynastic wealth fades away and others can take their place. If people could live forever there would be no limits on how much wealth individuals could concentrate in their hands. It would be like the meths in Altered Carbon. I don't want to live in a world where Jeff Bezos possesses more wealth than the bottom 90% of the planet.
Our laws and economic system currently lead to extreme inequality. That would have to seriously change to allow for immortality.
- Omnus 9y agoSure, but you have to balance the potential bad with the fact that humans have an inborn drive to continue existing, and that death has profoundly negative effects that induce unnecessary suffering. If Jeff Bezos was your son and he was afflicted with a terminal disease, you'd have a very different outlook on his potential death, no matter what views you held at a high level societal perspective.
- 3pt14159 9y agoUltimately, we should just have a redistributive, progressive wealth tax with a basic income and optional state provision of staples like Healthcare. It's the only longterm stable system that sets incentives correctly. We should also completely ban negative things that cause feedback loops, like high net worth individuals subverting the political process via money. But if Steve Jobs clone 2.0 is 400 years old and still turning over his $200b at 10% per year, and 9% of that is getting redistributed while the average person is generating 1% then that's still ultimately better for humanity. The reason it needs to be a progressive wealth tax is to limit power accumulation.
- eloff 9y agoThat is part of the solution, but you're dreaming if you think you can tax people at 90% and expect them to continue to produce. I've packed up and relocated for less. I've also turned down work that I otherwise would have accepted, just because I know the government will take half. There would have been no Steve Jobs (at least not in the US) at 90% marginal tax rates.
- 3pt14159 9y agoI don't want to tax income, I want to tax wealth. And we need better international coordination. In this future scenario the super rich that take their marbles and go home will be banned from travelling into the countries that co-operate. The super rich act like they gain nothing of value from our social safety nets, but they do. Happy liberal cities cost money. I don't want a world where the Koch Brothers can leisurely enjoy a city like Toronto, Paris, or Tokyo without contributing a dime to the others around them that made them rich.
- erikpukinskis 9y agoThe other huge check on older wealthy players is “the world moves on”. Often the latter phase of their life they are collecting rent on outdated business models. That is profitable for many years, but not forever. Later generations often switch to a forward thinking competitor. Combined with cognitive decline, that makes it hard for 150 year old tycoons to grow new revenue... Although under capitalism (property law) rent-based revenues will typically grow large scale holdings even without smart development. Not sure if/how those two forces add up.