10 ms·

But if you throw out meritocracy because an advantageous position is partially inherited, what do you replace it with?

arcticbull 7y ago
Well, an estate tax helps level the playing field over time. You earn money in your life, you get to spend it in your life. You die, and your children get some, but will have to earn a lavish lifestyle based on their merits. Exponential decay of wealth from generation to generation will resolve the advantaged starting position in time, and the proceeds obtained can be used to raise the remaining folks up to a level of relative competitiveness. This satisfies the idea that outsized reward should be available to those who create outsize value, but also ensures that this doesn't pass on to the idiot children.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Even that only works to a certain level. Just for illustration: say you have a 50% estate tax on anything over $10M. That would still leave a heir that receives a $100M inheritance with $55M to start with. You can easily double your money in your lifetime. And that money would land in the states' pockets, it won't be distributed in a way that further levels the playing field.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Exactly why I think returning to an 80% top estate tax is fair, which is what we had in the US for the bulk of the 20th century [1]. It's only after Raegan that the rates dropped. And not surprisingly, that's exactly when wealth inequality started to skyrocket. IMO 80% on anything over the first $500K-1M indexed to inflation is totally reasonable. Money in state pockets is de facto distributed to every citizen. Once it's in the state coffers, citizens can vote on its' use. You can't do that when Bezos' hypothetical idiot child has it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Top_Estate_Tax_Rate.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_State...
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Money that the state collects is more evenly distributed across the population than money billionaires collect.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    It appears to me that you're calculating on only one child per generation. That's possible, but it isn't the norm.
- not_a_cop75 7y ago
  How does this help when generally only the poor don't have estate planning to escape these taxes?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    A floor of $500K-1M indexed to inflation will ensure the poor don't have to plan their estates at all. These don't have to be hard questions.
    - not_a_cop75 7y ago
      So this generation, the upper middle class and higher will be affected, and next generation everyone above the extreme poor will be affected.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        I picked a totally arbitrary number. If we sat down for more than the 30s it took me to make this reasonable sounding number up, I'm sure we could find a satisfactory system :)
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Any satisfactory system will be alterable by (a) inflationary practices (b) those scheming to take advantage of loopholes in 10 or less years.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        Unless you (a) index it to inflation and (b) make an attempt to close loopholes, rather than surrendering at the starting line ^_^
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        I like your optimism, but I've failed to witness a law that has never been twisted into some gross contorted display of what it was normally used for at least once.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- khawkins 7y ago
  I think spending money on your children shouldn't be culled. There's a good amount of benefit to society in entrepreneurs investing fiscally in their families. Sure, it might not be fair from a cosmic level, but creating new businesses and expanding the private sector is better than feeding the bloated government bureaucracies. This is especially true because the social bonds and exchange of values and information that happen between someone who is successful and their family is more likely to be successful than the average person. In other words, while it might seem like nepotism from an outward perspective, it could be merit in actuality. Instead, I'd support very high luxury taxes. Tax heavily lavish private jets, yachts, and mansions. These are the types of goods that will rapidly drain the funds of a rich trust fund kid who offers little to society. Don't take their startup investment.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ip26 7y ago
    A wealth tax doesn't prevent spending money on your children, it attenuates it. For a toy example, imagine a logarithmic estate tax. If you make ten times as much as everybody else, you can give your kids twice as much as everybody else. You're still giving them a big leg up, but for the dynasty to continue they have to make something of themselves.
    - gnicholas 7y ago
      A wealth tax encourages spending, for example on private school tuition, SAT tutors, and other things that can help your kids. It only hits the money/assets you have left at the end of the year. It's also likely unconstitutional in the US (despite being backed by an HLS professor, who you'd think would know better). Andrew Yang is backing a heavy consumption tax, which would be used to give cash to all adult Americans. This would have the opposite effect, since it would encourage savings over spending.
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        To my knowledge just giving people who need it money doesn’t encourage them to save it, but rather to spend it on what they need, which actually stimulates the economy. This is far more beneficial than leaving it as idle capital or in a savings account.
mikepurvis 7y ago
One hopes a system where it is possible for everyone to achieve a basically acceptable standard of living, even if that means a cap on what is possible to achieve for the most advantaged (whether that be in connections, social skills, intelligence, or something else).
danharaj 7y ago
We never had it, so it isn't there to replace. You might consider what it would take to approximate the ideals of meritocracy, but paradoxically you may find that calling anything real a meritocracy gets in the way of that goal.
dahart 7y ago
I honestly don't know, the idea that merit specifically might be a sham is brand new to me. But why does it need to be replaced, and what is the goal? We know that social advantage is hugely inherited, evidence for that abounds. Since, according to some, merit is a way to justify the riches of the rich as being deserving, then replacing merit for them means using a different rationalization to justify being rich. Maybe for people who aren't rich, the idea of replacing meritocracy with something else doesn't even seem like a good idea.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  If I'm poor or middle class, I can aspire to have merit, and thereby to rise in the world - if "merit" really means merit, not "connections" or "money". But if I'm poor (including in social capital) and have talent, effort, and ambition, but the key to making it is connections rather than merit, I'm just locked out, and there's nothing I can do. I think those on the outside would prefer merit.
  - dahart 7y ago
    I’d agree, when the only choice is between having a way to achieve social mobility versus no way to achieve it. Personally, I think those on the outside would prefer more choices than two bad ones. We can certainly imagine economic systems that prevent people from being locked out by design, rather than allow people with talent and effort that statistically only comes from having financial advantage. Like, I think last week I might have argued exactly what you’re saying, that there’s some idea of merit that measures and reflects innate talent & effort and can be disconnected from connections and money. But is that really true? Can you actually separate them? Are you sure - certain - that talent isn’t, on average, statistically, something that you have the resources to develop only if you have a support system of money/family/friends that allows you to spend time on it? The problem with merit for the poor and the middle class is that “merit” means you have to work much much harder than someone who’s rich to have the same merit. Hard enough that it’s rare, and we fetishize the few people who do while ignoring the fact that the net effect of the system really keeps the poor poor. What if providing truly equal opportunity actually requires not judging people by talent, because pure talent is itself severely biased by money?
khawkins 7y ago
They have no idea: >What would a post-meritocratic world look like? Markovits doesn’t know, and neither did Marx know what a post-capitalist world would be like. There will be less alienation and inauthenticity (as Marx believed, too); other than that, we can’t really imagine a post-meritocratic world, because the élite has made its own values everyone’s. Really says everything you need to know about the article and the book. Taking a hard-line stance against merit as a value is foolish. You can argue the metrics are wrong or the game is rigged or that playing by the rules doesn't guarantee success, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater only guarantees more of the problems you're trying to fix.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  It's not just that the elite made their values the values that everyone else holds. Everyone else valued competence in the elite even without the elite "making its own values everyone's". Competence among the elite is something the elite claim, but it's something the non-elite want, for their own good.
jimbokun 7y ago
With an actual meritocracy. Did you see the recent college admissions scandal? All of these institutions present a facade of being merit based, while in reality admitting people who have money, power, connections, are good at gaming the system, or multiple of the above.

Well, an estate tax helps level the playing field over time. You earn money in your life, you get to spend it in your life. You die, and your children get some, but will have to earn a lavish lifestyle based on their merits. Exponential decay of wealth from generation to generation will resolve the advantaged starting position in time, and the proceeds obtained can be used to raise the remaining folks up to a level of relative competitiveness. This satisfies the idea that outsized reward should be available to those who create outsize value, but also ensures that this doesn't pass on to the idiot children.

jacquesm 7y ago
Even that only works to a certain level. Just for illustration: say you have a 50% estate tax on anything over $10M. That would still leave a heir that receives a $100M inheritance with $55M to start with. You can easily double your money in your lifetime. And that money would land in the states' pockets, it won't be distributed in a way that further levels the playing field.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Exactly why I think returning to an 80% top estate tax is fair, which is what we had in the US for the bulk of the 20th century [1]. It's only after Raegan that the rates dropped. And not surprisingly, that's exactly when wealth inequality started to skyrocket. IMO 80% on anything over the first $500K-1M indexed to inflation is totally reasonable. Money in state pockets is de facto distributed to every citizen. Once it's in the state coffers, citizens can vote on its' use. You can't do that when Bezos' hypothetical idiot child has it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Top_Estate_Tax_Rate.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_State...
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Money that the state collects is more evenly distributed across the population than money billionaires collect.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  It appears to me that you're calculating on only one child per generation. That's possible, but it isn't the norm.
not_a_cop75 7y ago
How does this help when generally only the poor don't have estate planning to escape these taxes?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  A floor of $500K-1M indexed to inflation will ensure the poor don't have to plan their estates at all. These don't have to be hard questions.
  - not_a_cop75 7y ago
    So this generation, the upper middle class and higher will be affected, and next generation everyone above the extreme poor will be affected.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      I picked a totally arbitrary number. If we sat down for more than the 30s it took me to make this reasonable sounding number up, I'm sure we could find a satisfactory system :)
      - not_a_cop75 7y ago
        Any satisfactory system will be alterable by (a) inflationary practices (b) those scheming to take advantage of loopholes in 10 or less years.
        arcticbull 7y ago
        Unless you (a) index it to inflation and (b) make an attempt to close loopholes, rather than surrendering at the starting line ^_^
        not_a_cop75 7y ago
        I like your optimism, but I've failed to witness a law that has never been twisted into some gross contorted display of what it was normally used for at least once.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
khawkins 7y ago
I think spending money on your children shouldn't be culled. There's a good amount of benefit to society in entrepreneurs investing fiscally in their families. Sure, it might not be fair from a cosmic level, but creating new businesses and expanding the private sector is better than feeding the bloated government bureaucracies. This is especially true because the social bonds and exchange of values and information that happen between someone who is successful and their family is more likely to be successful than the average person. In other words, while it might seem like nepotism from an outward perspective, it could be merit in actuality. Instead, I'd support very high luxury taxes. Tax heavily lavish private jets, yachts, and mansions. These are the types of goods that will rapidly drain the funds of a rich trust fund kid who offers little to society. Don't take their startup investment.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ip26 7y ago
  A wealth tax doesn't prevent spending money on your children, it attenuates it. For a toy example, imagine a logarithmic estate tax. If you make ten times as much as everybody else, you can give your kids twice as much as everybody else. You're still giving them a big leg up, but for the dynasty to continue they have to make something of themselves.
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    A wealth tax encourages spending, for example on private school tuition, SAT tutors, and other things that can help your kids. It only hits the money/assets you have left at the end of the year. It's also likely unconstitutional in the US (despite being backed by an HLS professor, who you'd think would know better). Andrew Yang is backing a heavy consumption tax, which would be used to give cash to all adult Americans. This would have the opposite effect, since it would encourage savings over spending.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      To my knowledge just giving people who need it money doesn’t encourage them to save it, but rather to spend it on what they need, which actually stimulates the economy. This is far more beneficial than leaving it as idle capital or in a savings account.

mikepurvis 7y ago

One hopes a system where it is possible for everyone to achieve a basically acceptable standard of living, even if that means a cap on what is possible to achieve for the most advantaged (whether that be in connections, social skills, intelligence, or something else).

danharaj 7y ago

We never had it, so it isn't there to replace. You might consider what it would take to approximate the ideals of meritocracy, but paradoxically you may find that calling anything real a meritocracy gets in the way of that goal.

dahart 7y ago

I honestly don't know, the idea that merit specifically might be a sham is brand new to me. But why does it need to be replaced, and what is the goal? We know that social advantage is hugely inherited, evidence for that abounds. Since, according to some, merit is a way to justify the riches of the rich as being deserving, then replacing merit for them means using a different rationalization to justify being rich. Maybe for people who aren't rich, the idea of replacing meritocracy with something else doesn't even seem like a good idea.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
If I'm poor or middle class, I can aspire to have merit, and thereby to rise in the world - if "merit" really means merit, not "connections" or "money". But if I'm poor (including in social capital) and have talent, effort, and ambition, but the key to making it is connections rather than merit, I'm just locked out, and there's nothing I can do. I think those on the outside would prefer merit.
- dahart 7y ago
  I’d agree, when the only choice is between having a way to achieve social mobility versus no way to achieve it. Personally, I think those on the outside would prefer more choices than two bad ones. We can certainly imagine economic systems that prevent people from being locked out by design, rather than allow people with talent and effort that statistically only comes from having financial advantage. Like, I think last week I might have argued exactly what you’re saying, that there’s some idea of merit that measures and reflects innate talent & effort and can be disconnected from connections and money. But is that really true? Can you actually separate them? Are you sure - certain - that talent isn’t, on average, statistically, something that you have the resources to develop only if you have a support system of money/family/friends that allows you to spend time on it? The problem with merit for the poor and the middle class is that “merit” means you have to work much much harder than someone who’s rich to have the same merit. Hard enough that it’s rare, and we fetishize the few people who do while ignoring the fact that the net effect of the system really keeps the poor poor. What if providing truly equal opportunity actually requires not judging people by talent, because pure talent is itself severely biased by money?

khawkins 7y ago

They have no idea: >What would a post-meritocratic world look like? Markovits doesn’t know, and neither did Marx know what a post-capitalist world would be like. There will be less alienation and inauthenticity (as Marx believed, too); other than that, we can’t really imagine a post-meritocratic world, because the élite has made its own values everyone’s. Really says everything you need to know about the article and the book. Taking a hard-line stance against merit as a value is foolish. You can argue the metrics are wrong or the game is rigged or that playing by the rules doesn't guarantee success, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater only guarantees more of the problems you're trying to fix.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
It's not just that the elite made their values the values that everyone else holds. Everyone else valued competence in the elite even without the elite "making its own values everyone's". Competence among the elite is something the elite claim, but it's something the non-elite want, for their own good.

jimbokun 7y ago

With an actual meritocracy. Did you see the recent college admissions scandal? All of these institutions present a facade of being merit based, while in reality admitting people who have money, power, connections, are good at gaming the system, or multiple of the above.