5 ms·

One of the main human drives in life is to provide for their children. Why shouldn't you be able to spend all the resources you can to give your kids advantage?

One of the main human drives in life is to provide for their children. Why shouldn't you be able to spend all the resources you can to give your kids advantage? What I find curious about this discussion, which often occurs when people discuss what advantages are fair and unfair, estate tax and the like, is that they perceive each human being as a completely independent actor. Whereas for me, at least, it's more natural to think in terms of families. If the first generation achieved success, should it be reset in the next one? Why? The example you're talking about, with people reaching incredibly high success from nothing, are exceptions; usually it takes two or three generations at least. And it's never only about money. Family culture, outlook toward education, work ethic, etc, these things survive when the family loses all of it's fortune or goes through even more dramatic events — though it's easier to notice when you live in a country that lived through a couple of revolutions, bloody wars and a couple of genocides in the last century than in US.

coliveira 6y ago
In these countries, what survives more than anything else is political connections. If your family has the right friends you can do well, even after big setbacks.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Or just your family knows how to teach you how move in the upper culture. I always come back to how much of life is a confidence game. You can often get pretty far if all you have is knowing how to play the game. I often think people that grow up in disadvantaged circumstances have a major problem a) Learning the wrong game. Sometimes one that ultimately gets you in trouble. b) not knowing how to play the other game. The one that unlocks all the opportunities.
Ensorceled 6y ago
I'm not sure why you interpreted the comment you are replying to as an attack on the actions of rich people instead of a complaint about societies failure to provide opportunities to poor people. Perhaps because you know those two things are linked?
andi999 6y ago
I saw a remark by Miltom Friedman, basically he think beiing able to inherit your wealth to the next generaltion is one of the biggest drivers of the economy.
brazzy 6y ago
> Why shouldn't you be able to spend all the resources you can to give your kids advantage? Because it's absolutely toxic for society as a whole if inequality gets amplified over generations. Estate tax should ideally be 100% above a reasonable cap. And by "reasonable" I mean a sum definitely below "never needs to work to support a middle class lifestyle". > If the first generation achieved success, should it be reset in the next one? Yes, absolutely. > Why? Because many opportunities are essentially zero-sum.
- nullsense 6y ago
  I think it's bad if runs rampantly forever as eventually someone nefarious (which is more people than you might think) accumulates too much power and turns large swathes of society into a machine that benefits only them to everyone's detriment. But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself. I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again. Tbh, I think that happens naturally though usually after a society has destroyed itself due to the first problem. It'll happen to this one too eventually, so I don't see the need specifically to try to structure things in a way that will never go wrong or end badly. I don't think you can actually accomplish that with any one structure. It seems to be a game where some people win until it's game over and everyone loses. Just my 2c.
  - brazzy 6y ago
    >I think it's bad if runs rampantly forever as eventually someone nefarious (which is more people than you might think) accumulates too much power and turns large swathes of society into a machine that benefits only them to everyone's detriment. It's bad longe before it gets to that point, just less obvious. > But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself. Putting a cap on inheritance would not impede that in the least. Quite the opposite: inequality prevents a lot of risk taking and improvement from happening. > I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again. That doesn't sound healthy at all because it represents an unneccessarily huge disruption.

coliveira 6y ago

In these countries, what survives more than anything else is political connections. If your family has the right friends you can do well, even after big setbacks.

Gibbon1 6y ago
Or just your family knows how to teach you how move in the upper culture. I always come back to how much of life is a confidence game. You can often get pretty far if all you have is knowing how to play the game. I often think people that grow up in disadvantaged circumstances have a major problem a) Learning the wrong game. Sometimes one that ultimately gets you in trouble. b) not knowing how to play the other game. The one that unlocks all the opportunities.

Ensorceled 6y ago

I'm not sure why you interpreted the comment you are replying to as an attack on the actions of rich people instead of a complaint about societies failure to provide opportunities to poor people. Perhaps because you know those two things are linked?

andi999 6y ago

I saw a remark by Miltom Friedman, basically he think beiing able to inherit your wealth to the next generaltion is one of the biggest drivers of the economy.

brazzy 6y ago

> Why shouldn't you be able to spend all the resources you can to give your kids advantage? Because it's absolutely toxic for society as a whole if inequality gets amplified over generations. Estate tax should ideally be 100% above a reasonable cap. And by "reasonable" I mean a sum definitely below "never needs to work to support a middle class lifestyle". > If the first generation achieved success, should it be reset in the next one? Yes, absolutely. > Why? Because many opportunities are essentially zero-sum.

nullsense 6y ago
I think it's bad if runs rampantly forever as eventually someone nefarious (which is more people than you might think) accumulates too much power and turns large swathes of society into a machine that benefits only them to everyone's detriment. But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself. I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again. Tbh, I think that happens naturally though usually after a society has destroyed itself due to the first problem. It'll happen to this one too eventually, so I don't see the need specifically to try to structure things in a way that will never go wrong or end badly. I don't think you can actually accomplish that with any one structure. It seems to be a game where some people win until it's game over and everyone loses. Just my 2c.
- brazzy 6y ago
  >I think it's bad if runs rampantly forever as eventually someone nefarious (which is more people than you might think) accumulates too much power and turns large swathes of society into a machine that benefits only them to everyone's detriment. It's bad longe before it gets to that point, just less obvious. > But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself. Putting a cap on inheritance would not impede that in the least. Quite the opposite: inequality prevents a lot of risk taking and improvement from happening. > I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again. That doesn't sound healthy at all because it represents an unneccessarily huge disruption.