26 ms·
My attitude towards this is starkly different to yours. Suppose the data showed the opposite - that most wealthy people had inherited the bulk of their wealth.
by n4r9 8y ago
My attitude towards this is starkly different to yours. Suppose the data showed the opposite - that most wealthy people had inherited the bulk of their wealth. For me this would be an argument in favour of anti-inheritance laws. An entire class of society would have an inherent, non-meritocratic advantage in life.
- onion2k 8y agoThe children of rich people go to the best schools, have tutors, can afford to go to expensive universities without worrying about the cost, can afford to take unpaid internships, and have access to the capital to start their own ventures. All those things happen long before they inherit anything. This is why I'm in favour of very high levels inheritance tax. It would encourage rich people not to hoard their money and instead spend it on things that keep the economy moving (people spending money is what creates jobs). People being rich is great, but only if they actually spend their money. The other way for economies to keep moving is for poor people to borrow more, and we saw the long term effect of that in 2008.
- n4r9 8y agoI very much agree with you, with the caveat that one replaces "keep the economy moving" with "raise the quality of life for the worst-off in society". I find these measures don't always coincide although the first is admittedly easier to keep track of.