6 ms·

>...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 be

>...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.
      - digitaltrees 8y ago
        I think their argument was that civilization iterates on solutions to many social problems by adjusting policy over time so that human coordinated behavior is effective. The argument above isn’t focused on wealth transfer in particular. Civilization experiments with policy. At the extreme, there is a push towards consolidation and monopolies and this is counterbalanced by the rule of a unhappy mob. This causes policy to shift over time.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I think progressive wealth transfer taxes are a perfectly good middle ground. Wealth transfer is income, so progressive income tax without exempting wealth transfer from income tax would seem the most direct solution.
guelo 8y ago
Civilization has been a long struggle to prevent powerful people from passing on their wealth and power to their children. I mean, most of the history of civilization has indeed functioned the way you describe, but many of the achievements of the past few hundred years has been thanks to the monumental effort to strengthen meritocracy, rule of law and democracy in order to limit the transfer of power hereditarily.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  The exact opposite of this is true. Great leaps forward in Civilization have come from things like Empire, explicitly run by hereditary ruling classes, and technological advances. In today’s world the latter now eclipses the former. There’s no reason, in my mind, to think that that ratio will (or should) remain.
  - riffraff 8y ago
    and yet the largest improvements in life quality have occurred in the last century, when most of the great empires have fallen.
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      And you attribute this fact entirely - as in 100% - to the fall of Empires, and not the technological advancements that happened in parallel? I find it strikingly hard to believe that democracy, which is what I assume you’re referring to, is the actual imperative that caused this. If we had managed to avoid WWI it’s really difficult to imagine that we’d still be using a horse drawn buggy and a typewriter.
    - gph 8y ago
      Eh? Does the sun ever set on American military bases?
  - Gupie 8y ago
    "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp, they call empire; and where they make a desert they call peace."
agumonkey 8y ago
legacy is indeed primordial, that said I get the above idea, maybe make it an indirect asset to unlock after some threshold..
mnm1 8y ago
It might be anti your family while being pro 10, 100, or even 10,000 other families, depending on the wealth amassed. That sounds incredibly pro-civilization and pro-society.
- kolinko 8y ago
  Forbidding people from passing on wealth (or anything else) to their children seems inhumane - and wealthy people are still people with emotions and feelings. Personally, I would sooner accept 90% tax to the rich&living, than 100% tax upon death. Both are theoretical of course - there is no way to enforce them really without hurting overall society. There is also no need I think. A better solution is to make sure that wealth doesn't give too much unfair privilege, and that basic living conditions are guaranteed to everyone - we are getting closer to this every decade.
  - mnm1 8y ago
    To be practical, I would allow some transfer of wealth actually but put a marginal tax rate of 100% over say 5 to 10 million, gradually increasing from say 0% at 250k. That seems like a fair compromise. Sure, guaranteeing basic living conditions would be nice, but as we can clearly see right now, there isn't much support for it. This tax would provide plenty of money to get to that goal, however.
    - agent008t 8y ago
      Really bad idea. That would encourage people to consume wealth over 5 to 10 million during their lifetimes, i.e. destroy real wealth, instead of investing it in productive enterprises, i.e. building real wealth. You want a situation where wealthy people build a lot more wealth than they consume. The last thing you want is for them to consume their wealth, making themselves better off but the society overall much, much poorer.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Lots of rich people madly spending their wealth would be great for GDP. The luxury industries would prosper, and those who work in those industries would also accumulate wealth to spend madly. Those who truly have a vision for improving the world would still get to do that. Or, maybe... if there were less of an advantage to accumulating wealth, we wouldn't destroy ourselves and the environment quite so madly while doing so. Great fortunes would not be generated, because what would the point be? ISTM that a rich person who doesn't want her estate to be confiscated upon her death could just divide it among many heirs? If the progressive tax is not levied on the heir rather than the estate, then maybe it should be. Intentional division would destroy dynastic family wealth without wasting it on the frivolous spending of the state.
retsibsi 8y ago
That's not the full story, though. The legitimacy of our social structures is based in large part on claims of meritocracy and (imperfectly, but relatively) equal opportunity. Vast inequalities in hereditary wealth make this a very obvious fiction. People might be happy to overlook this when things are going well for them personally, or when they feel hopeful about the future. When that is no longer the case for a majority, though, the status quo could be just as 'anti-civilization' as extreme redistribution.
coldtea 8y ago
>That idea is anti-family, it’s anti-civil-society, and it’s anti-civilization. As if family is not about loving and preparing your kids for life (and being good citizens etc), but padding their bank accounts so they don't have to work...
- agent008t 8y ago
  If you do the latter, your family will not be wealthy within a few generations, just by dividing the wealth among your children.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
Inequality fueled the French revolution. Getting rid of aristocracy led to modern democracies. Most European countries have steep inheritance taxes to prevent going back to oligarchy.
- hutzlibu 8y ago
  "Most European countries have steep inheritance taxes to prevent going back to oligarchy." Which has the problem of course, that the really rich have ways of not beeing affected by those laws too much. Which is not too hard, when the tax-laws are ridiciously complicated with many exceptions for good connected lawyers and many countries on this planet who welcome any people and money as long as they get a small share.
  - jabl 8y ago
    That's unfortunately true, but doesn't mean we should just give up and let society slide back to aristocracy & serfs. It's perfectly possible to elect representatives that deal with various tax avoidance schemes (be it corporate or personal).
digitaltrees 8y ago
False. There are numerous examples of very high estate tax societies that didn’t descend in to chaos. Are you also for a landed gentry with inherited titles? If not why? Why is one type of property ok to pass down and not the other. The notion of the “idle rich” spoiled offspring exists for a reason. Nothing kills ambition more than unearned wealth. Obviously there are many counter examples with many wealthy heirs contributing significantly to society. But I would argue that they would behave the same if they inherited less. As Aristotle roughly said, the mean between extremes is often the right answer. You could completely eliminate any transfer of wealth without social collapse; just like you could have essentially unlimited transfer of wealth with out social collapse: you would just end up with an aristocratic system. The question is what do you want to create.

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.
    - digitaltrees 8y ago
      I think their argument was that civilization iterates on solutions to many social problems by adjusting policy over time so that human coordinated behavior is effective. The argument above isn’t focused on wealth transfer in particular. Civilization experiments with policy. At the extreme, there is a push towards consolidation and monopolies and this is counterbalanced by the rule of a unhappy mob. This causes policy to shift over time.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I think progressive wealth transfer taxes are a perfectly good middle ground. Wealth transfer is income, so progressive income tax without exempting wealth transfer from income tax would seem the most direct solution.

guelo 8y ago

Civilization has been a long struggle to prevent powerful people from passing on their wealth and power to their children. I mean, most of the history of civilization has indeed functioned the way you describe, but many of the achievements of the past few hundred years has been thanks to the monumental effort to strengthen meritocracy, rule of law and democracy in order to limit the transfer of power hereditarily.

remarkEon 8y ago
The exact opposite of this is true. Great leaps forward in Civilization have come from things like Empire, explicitly run by hereditary ruling classes, and technological advances. In today’s world the latter now eclipses the former. There’s no reason, in my mind, to think that that ratio will (or should) remain.
- riffraff 8y ago
  and yet the largest improvements in life quality have occurred in the last century, when most of the great empires have fallen.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    And you attribute this fact entirely - as in 100% - to the fall of Empires, and not the technological advancements that happened in parallel? I find it strikingly hard to believe that democracy, which is what I assume you’re referring to, is the actual imperative that caused this. If we had managed to avoid WWI it’s really difficult to imagine that we’d still be using a horse drawn buggy and a typewriter.
  - gph 8y ago
    Eh? Does the sun ever set on American military bases?
- Gupie 8y ago
  "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp, they call empire; and where they make a desert they call peace."

agumonkey 8y ago

legacy is indeed primordial, that said I get the above idea, maybe make it an indirect asset to unlock after some threshold..

mnm1 8y ago

It might be anti your family while being pro 10, 100, or even 10,000 other families, depending on the wealth amassed. That sounds incredibly pro-civilization and pro-society.

kolinko 8y ago
Forbidding people from passing on wealth (or anything else) to their children seems inhumane - and wealthy people are still people with emotions and feelings. Personally, I would sooner accept 90% tax to the rich&living, than 100% tax upon death. Both are theoretical of course - there is no way to enforce them really without hurting overall society. There is also no need I think. A better solution is to make sure that wealth doesn't give too much unfair privilege, and that basic living conditions are guaranteed to everyone - we are getting closer to this every decade.
- mnm1 8y ago
  To be practical, I would allow some transfer of wealth actually but put a marginal tax rate of 100% over say 5 to 10 million, gradually increasing from say 0% at 250k. That seems like a fair compromise. Sure, guaranteeing basic living conditions would be nice, but as we can clearly see right now, there isn't much support for it. This tax would provide plenty of money to get to that goal, however.
  - agent008t 8y ago
    Really bad idea. That would encourage people to consume wealth over 5 to 10 million during their lifetimes, i.e. destroy real wealth, instead of investing it in productive enterprises, i.e. building real wealth. You want a situation where wealthy people build a lot more wealth than they consume. The last thing you want is for them to consume their wealth, making themselves better off but the society overall much, much poorer.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Lots of rich people madly spending their wealth would be great for GDP. The luxury industries would prosper, and those who work in those industries would also accumulate wealth to spend madly. Those who truly have a vision for improving the world would still get to do that. Or, maybe... if there were less of an advantage to accumulating wealth, we wouldn't destroy ourselves and the environment quite so madly while doing so. Great fortunes would not be generated, because what would the point be? ISTM that a rich person who doesn't want her estate to be confiscated upon her death could just divide it among many heirs? If the progressive tax is not levied on the heir rather than the estate, then maybe it should be. Intentional division would destroy dynastic family wealth without wasting it on the frivolous spending of the state.

retsibsi 8y ago

That's not the full story, though. The legitimacy of our social structures is based in large part on claims of meritocracy and (imperfectly, but relatively) equal opportunity. Vast inequalities in hereditary wealth make this a very obvious fiction. People might be happy to overlook this when things are going well for them personally, or when they feel hopeful about the future. When that is no longer the case for a majority, though, the status quo could be just as 'anti-civilization' as extreme redistribution.

coldtea 8y ago

>That idea is anti-family, it’s anti-civil-society, and it’s anti-civilization. As if family is not about loving and preparing your kids for life (and being good citizens etc), but padding their bank accounts so they don't have to work...

agent008t 8y ago
If you do the latter, your family will not be wealthy within a few generations, just by dividing the wealth among your children.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

Inequality fueled the French revolution. Getting rid of aristocracy led to modern democracies. Most European countries have steep inheritance taxes to prevent going back to oligarchy.

hutzlibu 8y ago
"Most European countries have steep inheritance taxes to prevent going back to oligarchy." Which has the problem of course, that the really rich have ways of not beeing affected by those laws too much. Which is not too hard, when the tax-laws are ridiciously complicated with many exceptions for good connected lawyers and many countries on this planet who welcome any people and money as long as they get a small share.
- jabl 8y ago
  That's unfortunately true, but doesn't mean we should just give up and let society slide back to aristocracy & serfs. It's perfectly possible to elect representatives that deal with various tax avoidance schemes (be it corporate or personal).

digitaltrees 8y ago

False. There are numerous examples of very high estate tax societies that didn’t descend in to chaos. Are you also for a landed gentry with inherited titles? If not why? Why is one type of property ok to pass down and not the other. The notion of the “idle rich” spoiled offspring exists for a reason. Nothing kills ambition more than unearned wealth. Obviously there are many counter examples with many wealthy heirs contributing significantly to society. But I would argue that they would behave the same if they inherited less. As Aristotle roughly said, the mean between extremes is often the right answer. You could completely eliminate any transfer of wealth without social collapse; just like you could have essentially unlimited transfer of wealth with out social collapse: you would just end up with an aristocratic system. The question is what do you want to create.