4 ms·

> There should be no free money The video states that 60% of the wealth in the U.K. is inherited, which is essentially free money for the receiver. Why is it o

by max76 7y ago

> There should be no free money The video states that 60% of the wealth in the U.K. is inherited, which is essentially free money for the receiver. Why is it okay for rich people to receive free money but not everyday people?

raducu 7y ago
I guess because the rich are 1% of the population and if they play video games all day nothing bad happens, but if 99% of the population did the same, society would collapse. I'm not saying this is fair, not saying the parent post is right, but motivating people to do useful things for society after an UBI would be a concearn.
- max76 7y ago
  > but motivating people to do useful things for society after an UBI would be a concearn. None of the UBI experiments show people that receive UBI participate in the labor market at lower rates. This is not a data-driven concern. All date points to this not being a problem.
  - Simon_says 7y ago
    Has there ever been a UBI experiment? My understanding is that all experiments were time-limited and the participants knew that at the end of 5 years they would be on their own. Makes one approach life in the short run very differently.
  - danaur 7y ago
    But also I don't know of UBI experiments that don't have an end. The fact that the money will stop after some time is sure to affect people's behavior in a way that convolutes the study greatly, no?
    - geomark 7y ago
      I agree that this is a key difference between limited time UBI experiments and actual UBI.
autokad 7y ago
> "The video states that 60% of the wealth in the U.K. is inherited" I hate statements like this because they are completely misleading. other similar ones like "top 1 % controls ~50 % of wealth" etc. This goes by networth. Imagine this, there are about 20 million college students, nearly all of then have a negative net worth. By that logic, if you hand a homeless person a single $ bill, they 'control' the wealth of at least 20 million Americans. you can add in tons of americans who have a positive net worth to make up for all that negative net worth. Its an absurd way of thinking. its especially problematic since most net worth is paper net worth (stocks that not even the owners can really touch). Surely someone who just graduated college and has 100k negative net worth is far better off than a starving person in a desert, distended belly and all.
- max76 7y ago
  Are you really saying a statistic about wealth inequality shows exaggerated inequality because we have lots of people heavily in debt?
  - autokad 7y ago
    thats only one issue, there are many others. there are also a ton of people who just dont save/invest any of their money, even those making 100k a year. furthermore, we are in a bit of bull market for stocks, which networth overly focuses on. also networth is just a terrible metric. it ignores income streams, it ignores things that produce income like degrees, etc. it over inflates paper wealth as mentioned before.
    - max76 7y ago
      I understand that a person's networth isn't the same as their value. It's still a reasonable approximation of someone's current financial position.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Surely someone who just graduated college and has 100k negative net worth is far better off than a starving person in a desert, distended belly and all. And a big part of that is just the way we do the accounting. If you put the degree on the balance sheet as an asset it would change everything.
mantas 7y ago
Is it ok for parents to provide free roof and food for their kids?
- ido 7y ago
  the actual equivalent would be: is it ok for the government to provide free roof & food for kids in case their parents don't? I would say yes & generally (at least in wealthy countries) it is already the case with welfare services.
  - mantas 7y ago
    I think OP was trying to say that inheritance is "free money" which is on the same level as UBI "free money". I can't agree with that since it's slippery slope to saying that parents reading fairytales to kids is racist because it gives kid unfair advantage in life and all that BS.
jedmeyers 7y ago
> Why is it okay for rich people to receive free money but not everyday people? Because consent of the giving person is present in the inheritance case but not in case of the government redistribution?
koonsolo 7y ago
Because wealth is built over generations. You too can build wealth for your children and grandchildren. All my grandparents were farmers, and most of their grandchildren have university degrees and a very good wage. I'm sure our grandchildren will have the means to start companies. The western world is sometimes too focused on individuals, but make no mistake, wealth is build over generations. And I don't see the issue with that.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Because wealth is built over generations. By why should this be allowed? By what right does there exist more than a life estate in any property? Fee simple ownership is administratively simpler which clearly has short term benefits, but absent some corrective mechanism to mitigate generational wealth fee simple ownership is thanatocracy; rule by the dead. > The western world is sometimes too focused on individuals, but make no mistake, wealth is build over generations. And I don't see the issue with that. The inherent consequence of significant wealth (for a small minority) being built over generations is the inherited disadvantages of poverty for a larger number. Generational wealth and equality of opportunity are mutually incompatible.
  - koonsolo 7y ago
    > By why should this be allowed? Because I want my genes to have a higher chance to survive. It's pretty natural. > Generational wealth and equality of opportunity are mutually incompatible. That is true. But there are degrees in which you can enforce this. I'm very much a proponent of the European educational system, where there are more fair educational chances for everyone (compared to the US). This creates equality of opportunity on an educational level. But I don't agree with high taxes on inheritance. That's not possible anyway. Rich business owners have plenty of ways to pass on wealth to their children without it being considered as inheritance. When you would have high taxes, or even discard inheritance, then you would only hurt the middle class.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Ntrails 7y ago
Worth noting that there is a very significant tax on larger inheritances here, but in the end it is a drop in the ocean. Passing wealth down obviously drives inequality but i cannot see a sane proposal to mitigate the impact. The more difficult you make it the more likely it is that only the very wealthy are able to pass on wealth. It is also obviously very unpopular with parents to suggest they cannot provide for their children. Are there good ideas around?
- ido 7y ago
  50% inheritance tax. not just large ones, all inheritance with no loopholes.
  - mantas 7y ago
    You poor and living with your old parents? Your parents died? Well, fuck you, pay up for roof over your head!
    - ido 7y ago
      In the proposed scheme you will have money for a roof over your head even in that case.
      - mantas 7y ago
        What if you don't have 50% in cash on top of the supposed value of the housing?
        ido 7y ago
        Then you sell your parents' house that you inherited & live elsewhere with 50% of its value. Remember the context this is discussed at, the inheritance tax will not be the only change: the point is to make basics like housing affordable to everyone. You will still have 0.5 * house-value more than someone who had no inheritance & is supposedly also meant to afford housing.
IshKebab 7y ago
I don't think that is ok. But it is very difficult to stop.
RickJWagner 7y ago
Is inherited money much different than UBI money? Either way, the recipient didn't work for it. It spends the same.

by max76 7y ago

raducu 7y ago

I guess because the rich are 1% of the population and if they play video games all day nothing bad happens, but if 99% of the population did the same, society would collapse. I'm not saying this is fair, not saying the parent post is right, but motivating people to do useful things for society after an UBI would be a concearn.

max76 7y ago
> but motivating people to do useful things for society after an UBI would be a concearn. None of the UBI experiments show people that receive UBI participate in the labor market at lower rates. This is not a data-driven concern. All date points to this not being a problem.
- Simon_says 7y ago
  Has there ever been a UBI experiment? My understanding is that all experiments were time-limited and the participants knew that at the end of 5 years they would be on their own. Makes one approach life in the short run very differently.
- danaur 7y ago
  But also I don't know of UBI experiments that don't have an end. The fact that the money will stop after some time is sure to affect people's behavior in a way that convolutes the study greatly, no?
  - geomark 7y ago
    I agree that this is a key difference between limited time UBI experiments and actual UBI.

autokad 7y ago

> "The video states that 60% of the wealth in the U.K. is inherited" I hate statements like this because they are completely misleading. other similar ones like "top 1 % controls ~50 % of wealth" etc. This goes by networth. Imagine this, there are about 20 million college students, nearly all of then have a negative net worth. By that logic, if you hand a homeless person a single $ bill, they 'control' the wealth of at least 20 million Americans. you can add in tons of americans who have a positive net worth to make up for all that negative net worth. Its an absurd way of thinking. its especially problematic since most net worth is paper net worth (stocks that not even the owners can really touch). Surely someone who just graduated college and has 100k negative net worth is far better off than a starving person in a desert, distended belly and all.

max76 7y ago
Are you really saying a statistic about wealth inequality shows exaggerated inequality because we have lots of people heavily in debt?
- autokad 7y ago
  thats only one issue, there are many others. there are also a ton of people who just dont save/invest any of their money, even those making 100k a year. furthermore, we are in a bit of bull market for stocks, which networth overly focuses on. also networth is just a terrible metric. it ignores income streams, it ignores things that produce income like degrees, etc. it over inflates paper wealth as mentioned before.
  - max76 7y ago
    I understand that a person's networth isn't the same as their value. It's still a reasonable approximation of someone's current financial position.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Surely someone who just graduated college and has 100k negative net worth is far better off than a starving person in a desert, distended belly and all. And a big part of that is just the way we do the accounting. If you put the degree on the balance sheet as an asset it would change everything.

mantas 7y ago

Is it ok for parents to provide free roof and food for their kids?

ido 7y ago
the actual equivalent would be: is it ok for the government to provide free roof & food for kids in case their parents don't? I would say yes & generally (at least in wealthy countries) it is already the case with welfare services.
- mantas 7y ago
  I think OP was trying to say that inheritance is "free money" which is on the same level as UBI "free money". I can't agree with that since it's slippery slope to saying that parents reading fairytales to kids is racist because it gives kid unfair advantage in life and all that BS.

jedmeyers 7y ago

> Why is it okay for rich people to receive free money but not everyday people? Because consent of the giving person is present in the inheritance case but not in case of the government redistribution?

koonsolo 7y ago

Because wealth is built over generations. You too can build wealth for your children and grandchildren. All my grandparents were farmers, and most of their grandchildren have university degrees and a very good wage. I'm sure our grandchildren will have the means to start companies. The western world is sometimes too focused on individuals, but make no mistake, wealth is build over generations. And I don't see the issue with that.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Because wealth is built over generations. By why should this be allowed? By what right does there exist more than a life estate in any property? Fee simple ownership is administratively simpler which clearly has short term benefits, but absent some corrective mechanism to mitigate generational wealth fee simple ownership is thanatocracy; rule by the dead. > The western world is sometimes too focused on individuals, but make no mistake, wealth is build over generations. And I don't see the issue with that. The inherent consequence of significant wealth (for a small minority) being built over generations is the inherited disadvantages of poverty for a larger number. Generational wealth and equality of opportunity are mutually incompatible.
- koonsolo 7y ago
  > By why should this be allowed? Because I want my genes to have a higher chance to survive. It's pretty natural. > Generational wealth and equality of opportunity are mutually incompatible. That is true. But there are degrees in which you can enforce this. I'm very much a proponent of the European educational system, where there are more fair educational chances for everyone (compared to the US). This creates equality of opportunity on an educational level. But I don't agree with high taxes on inheritance. That's not possible anyway. Rich business owners have plenty of ways to pass on wealth to their children without it being considered as inheritance. When you would have high taxes, or even discard inheritance, then you would only hurt the middle class.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Ntrails 7y ago

Worth noting that there is a very significant tax on larger inheritances here, but in the end it is a drop in the ocean. Passing wealth down obviously drives inequality but i cannot see a sane proposal to mitigate the impact. The more difficult you make it the more likely it is that only the very wealthy are able to pass on wealth. It is also obviously very unpopular with parents to suggest they cannot provide for their children. Are there good ideas around?

ido 7y ago
50% inheritance tax. not just large ones, all inheritance with no loopholes.
- mantas 7y ago
  You poor and living with your old parents? Your parents died? Well, fuck you, pay up for roof over your head!
  - ido 7y ago
    In the proposed scheme you will have money for a roof over your head even in that case.
    - mantas 7y ago
      What if you don't have 50% in cash on top of the supposed value of the housing?
      - ido 7y ago
        Then you sell your parents' house that you inherited & live elsewhere with 50% of its value. Remember the context this is discussed at, the inheritance tax will not be the only change: the point is to make basics like housing affordable to everyone. You will still have 0.5 * house-value more than someone who had no inheritance & is supposedly also meant to afford housing.

IshKebab 7y ago

I don't think that is ok. But it is very difficult to stop.

RickJWagner 7y ago

Is inherited money much different than UBI money? Either way, the recipient didn't work for it. It spends the same.