8 ms·

Get rid of multi generational transfers of wealth. Make each generation start from scratch. I know it's easier said than done as not all assets are fungible or

Get rid of multi generational transfers of wealth. Make each generation start from scratch. I know it's easier said than done as not all assets are fungible or distributable (social networks, geography etc) but it would make a difference. I read recently that the same families that controlled most the wealth in Florence in the 1600 still control most the wealth now, that's probably not good for scrappy innovation.

avinium 8y ago
A death/inheritance tax seems an absolute no-brainer to me - and I consider myself fairly conservative. That doesn't mean increasing the overall tax burden, either - it could be introduced to offset income tax reductions. It seems much "fairer" to me.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  A fair tax is one that lands on someone else.
  - avinium 8y ago
    I'll assume you're being glib. One of the most attractive features of a death tax is that it applies to everybody. After all, nobody escapes death. Of course, that doesn't mean it'll be loved universally. Some people just hate taxes. Others don't like the idea of not being able to pass on their life's work to their children. But most reasonable people understand the need for taxation. It's a lot easier to stomach the tax man dipping into your wallet after you're gone than before.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      The problem is lack of control. The tax man (politicians, find managers) could make any number of appropriations instead of using the money for society and dead people cannot challenge him. Current living people have less of a stake to do that.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      > I'll assume you're being glib. The death tax doesn't apply to everybody, as hardly everybody leave behind a significant estate. Lots of people die with a negative net worth. The death tax is also often sold as "only affecting estates worth over $xx million", so it safely doesn't apply to the vast majority of voters, it only applies to those they are envious of.
    - Frqy3 8y ago
      Nobody escapes death, but the wealthy can still escape an inheritance tax using a trust fund.
- baud147258 8y ago
  An inheritance tax exists here in France, you'll get taxed like 25% of the value of an illiquid asset like an appartement. And it's in addition to all the taxes paid on the appartment paid during your life.
glerk 8y ago
What is the point of accumulating wealth over this short life if I can’t leave anything to my children?
- marssaxman 8y ago
  What is the point of accumulating wealth over this short life?
  - agent008t 8y ago
    For one, society benefits from it. You generally get wealthy by providing goods and services to others. The more you satisfy people's wants and needs, the wealthier you get. The wealth means that these people now owe you. If you accumulate wealth instead of consuming it, you never take them up on it. You are basically acting altruistically - instead you use their IOUs to provide even more goods and services for others (not yourself) by managing your wealth instead of consuming! I think it is actually an amazing feature of our civilisation. Wealthy people generally don't use their wealth to build massive monuments to themselves - they tend to invest it into economically productive enterprises that make society wealthier overall.
  - Kaiyou 8y ago
    Improving the life of your children, but not - and this is of utmost importance - improving the life of your neighbors children. Because life is a competition.
- dcow 8y ago
  Indeed, why even have children?
  - vixen99 8y ago
    If you haven't a positive answer for that then it's all to the good that perhaps you don't - have children, that is.
    - 8y ago
remarkEon 8y ago
>...it would make a difference. It sure would. If I wanted to design a system to throw society into abject chaos, basically permanently, I can’t think of a better way than a rule of “make it impossible to build something for your children”. That idea is anti-family, it’s anti-civil-society, and it’s anti-civilization.
- mullingitover 8y ago
  "My family won't receive huge amounts of my net worth. That doesn't mean they'll get nothing. My children have already received some money from me and Susie and will receive more. I still believe in the philosophy ... that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." - Warren Buffett I think progressive wealth transfer taxes are a perfectly good middle ground.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    I’m sure you’re a reasonable person and could come up with a reasonable tax rate on generational wealth, but I have zero faith that we will elect reasonable people to make these sorts of decisions.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      So what you're saying is that the cure will be worse than disease? If that's so, then I guess we agree there's a somewhat concavey-looking function of "limiting generational wealth transfer" -> "sustainable benefit to civilization". Which shifts the problem from "whether to do it at all" to "how to move towards maximum without screwing up". It's a harder problem, but civilization is essentially built of attempts to solve such problem. Here's to hope that maybe our descendants will learn how to do it right.
      - remarkEon 8y ago
        >It's a harder problem, but civilization is essentially built of attempts to solve such problem. I fundamentally, emphatically disagree with this. I think it's a weird rewriting of history to think that "Civilization was built by trying to stop wealth transfers within powerful families". Do I think a lot of wealth is trapped within a few families, and that might be a problem? Sure. Do I think that the ability to destroy generational wealth transfers is what made Civilization? No, and I think it's absolutely crazy to think so. It ignores every great family in history that did everything from win wars to build railroads.
ars 8y ago
> Make each generation start from scratch And how do you prevent people from giving gifts? Parents giving their children a gift of money? And trusts are a thing, so gift tax would not help as much as you would think.
- lovich 8y ago
  I'd find it much more acceptable if you gave your children your wealth during your lifetime. At least you have to actually give up something rather than passing on all your economic power after you no longer have use for it
  - lukevdp 8y ago
    Then people transfer their wealth just before they die?
    - gjm11 8y ago
      While there are ways to make sure that the wealth transfer happens "just before they die" (rather than them living on after giving it away), the law tends to frown upon them.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    And then you'd get laws that limits the wealth that can be given to childrens, like those in France. Yeah for taxes!
lurcio 8y ago
Why not cut inequality at the root: prevent children accruing socio-economic advantages from the moment of birth
dustingetz 8y ago
honest question when a rich person dies should we destroy all their buildings and companies too so the wealth can’t transfer?

avinium 8y ago

A death/inheritance tax seems an absolute no-brainer to me - and I consider myself fairly conservative. That doesn't mean increasing the overall tax burden, either - it could be introduced to offset income tax reductions. It seems much "fairer" to me.

skookumchuck 8y ago
A fair tax is one that lands on someone else.
- avinium 8y ago
  I'll assume you're being glib. One of the most attractive features of a death tax is that it applies to everybody. After all, nobody escapes death. Of course, that doesn't mean it'll be loved universally. Some people just hate taxes. Others don't like the idea of not being able to pass on their life's work to their children. But most reasonable people understand the need for taxation. It's a lot easier to stomach the tax man dipping into your wallet after you're gone than before.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    The problem is lack of control. The tax man (politicians, find managers) could make any number of appropriations instead of using the money for society and dead people cannot challenge him. Current living people have less of a stake to do that.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    > I'll assume you're being glib. The death tax doesn't apply to everybody, as hardly everybody leave behind a significant estate. Lots of people die with a negative net worth. The death tax is also often sold as "only affecting estates worth over $xx million", so it safely doesn't apply to the vast majority of voters, it only applies to those they are envious of.
  - Frqy3 8y ago
    Nobody escapes death, but the wealthy can still escape an inheritance tax using a trust fund.
baud147258 8y ago
An inheritance tax exists here in France, you'll get taxed like 25% of the value of an illiquid asset like an appartement. And it's in addition to all the taxes paid on the appartment paid during your life.

glerk 8y ago

What is the point of accumulating wealth over this short life if I can’t leave anything to my children?

marssaxman 8y ago
What is the point of accumulating wealth over this short life?
- agent008t 8y ago
  For one, society benefits from it. You generally get wealthy by providing goods and services to others. The more you satisfy people's wants and needs, the wealthier you get. The wealth means that these people now owe you. If you accumulate wealth instead of consuming it, you never take them up on it. You are basically acting altruistically - instead you use their IOUs to provide even more goods and services for others (not yourself) by managing your wealth instead of consuming! I think it is actually an amazing feature of our civilisation. Wealthy people generally don't use their wealth to build massive monuments to themselves - they tend to invest it into economically productive enterprises that make society wealthier overall.
- Kaiyou 8y ago
  Improving the life of your children, but not - and this is of utmost importance - improving the life of your neighbors children. Because life is a competition.
dcow 8y ago
Indeed, why even have children?
- vixen99 8y ago
  If you haven't a positive answer for that then it's all to the good that perhaps you don't - have children, that is.
  - 8y ago

remarkEon 8y ago

>...it would make a difference. It sure would. If I wanted to design a system to throw society into abject chaos, basically permanently, I can’t think of a better way than a rule of “make it impossible to build something for your children”. That idea is anti-family, it’s anti-civil-society, and it’s anti-civilization.

mullingitover 8y ago
"My family won't receive huge amounts of my net worth. That doesn't mean they'll get nothing. My children have already received some money from me and Susie and will receive more. I still believe in the philosophy ... that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." - Warren Buffett I think progressive wealth transfer taxes are a perfectly good middle ground.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  I’m sure you’re a reasonable person and could come up with a reasonable tax rate on generational wealth, but I have zero faith that we will elect reasonable people to make these sorts of decisions.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    So what you're saying is that the cure will be worse than disease? If that's so, then I guess we agree there's a somewhat concavey-looking function of "limiting generational wealth transfer" -> "sustainable benefit to civilization". Which shifts the problem from "whether to do it at all" to "how to move towards maximum without screwing up". It's a harder problem, but civilization is essentially built of attempts to solve such problem. Here's to hope that maybe our descendants will learn how to do it right.
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      >It's a harder problem, but civilization is essentially built of attempts to solve such problem. I fundamentally, emphatically disagree with this. I think it's a weird rewriting of history to think that "Civilization was built by trying to stop wealth transfers within powerful families". Do I think a lot of wealth is trapped within a few families, and that might be a problem? Sure. Do I think that the ability to destroy generational wealth transfers is what made Civilization? No, and I think it's absolutely crazy to think so. It ignores every great family in history that did everything from win wars to build railroads.

ars 8y ago

> Make each generation start from scratch And how do you prevent people from giving gifts? Parents giving their children a gift of money? And trusts are a thing, so gift tax would not help as much as you would think.

lovich 8y ago
I'd find it much more acceptable if you gave your children your wealth during your lifetime. At least you have to actually give up something rather than passing on all your economic power after you no longer have use for it
- lukevdp 8y ago
  Then people transfer their wealth just before they die?
  - gjm11 8y ago
    While there are ways to make sure that the wealth transfer happens "just before they die" (rather than them living on after giving it away), the law tends to frown upon them.
- baud147258 8y ago
  And then you'd get laws that limits the wealth that can be given to childrens, like those in France. Yeah for taxes!

lurcio 8y ago

Why not cut inequality at the root: prevent children accruing socio-economic advantages from the moment of birth

dustingetz 8y ago

honest question when a rich person dies should we destroy all their buildings and companies too so the wealth can’t transfer?