4 ms·

> "oh don't worry, they'll piss away that money anyways" is a bad reason for not taxing someone. IMO that argument is meant to counter people disliking unearne

> "oh don't worry, they'll piss away that money anyways" is a bad reason for not taxing someone. IMO that argument is meant to counter people disliking unearned wealth. But to argue in favor of dynasties: 1. It might encourage a longer time horizon. "Leaving something good for your grandchildren", etc - and in a lot of ways people not doing this is why we have issues fighting climate change. 2. If investment ability is correlated across generations (and I'll eat my hat if it's not) then giving the children of competent investors more capital than those of incompetent investors will lead to better investments overall, and thus faster economic growth. And economic growth is everything. (2% difference in annualized growth for a century is the difference between the US and Mexico)

throwawaygh 6y ago
> IMO that argument is meant to counter people disliking unearned wealth. Well, sure, for a lot of people. I care less about unearned and more about unproductive. Hedonistic consumption on the weekends/a few weeks in the summer/20 years at the end of your life so that you can go build something during the rest of your life is net productive in most cases. Hedonistic consumption 24/7 for a lifetime is probably totally unproductive. > 1. It might encourage a longer time horizon. "Leaving something good for your grandchildren", etc - and in a lot of ways people not doing this is why we have issues fighting climate change. I think a huge wealth tax would be better. People would probably not let all that go to the gov. They would probably donate quite a lot. Hopefully to causes that address our most important problems (like climate change, but also healthcare, mental health, organizations to promote community fabric to fight loneliness, education, etc.). >2. If investment ability is correlated across generations (and I'll eat my hat if it's not) then giving the children of competent investors more capital than those of incompetent investors will lead to better investments overall, and thus faster economic growth. And economic growth is everything. (2% difference in annualized growth for a century is the difference between the US and Mexico) Well, the alternative is taxation. That could mean direct wealth redistribution. Or, that could mean war. Or, that could mean reinvestment in infrastructure/research/etc. Now the question becomes "do you trust the grandchildren of the rich more or less than you trust the people's government?"
- DuskStar 6y ago
  > Now the question becomes "do you trust the grandchildren of the rich more or less than you trust the people's government?" Yes, I trust a collection of 3rd-generation rich more than I trust a government that is currently led by Trump. Some of those kids will be good, some will be bad - but they'll have diverse outcomes, while relying on the "people's government" is a single point of failure.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    Democracy also allows for diverse outcomes; Trump is not emperor. And, ironically, might not have become the president if he didn't inherit a $400m+ fortune.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      There is a difference between diverse outcomes in parallel and diverse outcomes in series. If you have a hundred people flip a coin 10 times, redistributing each time - heads they get back triple, tails they lose everything - you'll end up with around 1000x what you started with. Whereas if you flip that same coin with reinvestment ten times, you'll almost certainly have nothing at the end - even though the average outcome is the same.
      - throwawaygh 6y ago
        The US has 50 states, and each of those states have counties, and each of those counties is further subdivided, and each of those subdivisions is again subdivided, and sometimes even once more. And each of those jurisdictions is full of people, some quite wealthy, who can make decisions with the wealth that they generate in their own lifetime. And even beyond their own lifetime, by donating generously to churches and hospitals and schools and universities and parks and so on. There's plenty of parallelism, and even plenty of ways to invest one's wealth in meaningful pursuits posthumously without passing it to your offspring. I don't see why third generation aristocrats are needed to achieve the diversity and parallelism you seek.
  - 6y ago

throwawaygh 6y ago

> IMO that argument is meant to counter people disliking unearned wealth. Well, sure, for a lot of people. I care less about unearned and more about unproductive. Hedonistic consumption on the weekends/a few weeks in the summer/20 years at the end of your life so that you can go build something during the rest of your life is net productive in most cases. Hedonistic consumption 24/7 for a lifetime is probably totally unproductive. > 1. It might encourage a longer time horizon. "Leaving something good for your grandchildren", etc - and in a lot of ways people not doing this is why we have issues fighting climate change. I think a huge wealth tax would be better. People would probably not let all that go to the gov. They would probably donate quite a lot. Hopefully to causes that address our most important problems (like climate change, but also healthcare, mental health, organizations to promote community fabric to fight loneliness, education, etc.). >2. If investment ability is correlated across generations (and I'll eat my hat if it's not) then giving the children of competent investors more capital than those of incompetent investors will lead to better investments overall, and thus faster economic growth. And economic growth is everything. (2% difference in annualized growth for a century is the difference between the US and Mexico) Well, the alternative is taxation. That could mean direct wealth redistribution. Or, that could mean war. Or, that could mean reinvestment in infrastructure/research/etc. Now the question becomes "do you trust the grandchildren of the rich more or less than you trust the people's government?"

DuskStar 6y ago
> Now the question becomes "do you trust the grandchildren of the rich more or less than you trust the people's government?" Yes, I trust a collection of 3rd-generation rich more than I trust a government that is currently led by Trump. Some of those kids will be good, some will be bad - but they'll have diverse outcomes, while relying on the "people's government" is a single point of failure.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  Democracy also allows for diverse outcomes; Trump is not emperor. And, ironically, might not have become the president if he didn't inherit a $400m+ fortune.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    There is a difference between diverse outcomes in parallel and diverse outcomes in series. If you have a hundred people flip a coin 10 times, redistributing each time - heads they get back triple, tails they lose everything - you'll end up with around 1000x what you started with. Whereas if you flip that same coin with reinvestment ten times, you'll almost certainly have nothing at the end - even though the average outcome is the same.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      The US has 50 states, and each of those states have counties, and each of those counties is further subdivided, and each of those subdivisions is again subdivided, and sometimes even once more. And each of those jurisdictions is full of people, some quite wealthy, who can make decisions with the wealth that they generate in their own lifetime. And even beyond their own lifetime, by donating generously to churches and hospitals and schools and universities and parks and so on. There's plenty of parallelism, and even plenty of ways to invest one's wealth in meaningful pursuits posthumously without passing it to your offspring. I don't see why third generation aristocrats are needed to achieve the diversity and parallelism you seek.
- 6y ago