5 ms·

After thinking about this idea for a while, it occurred to me: couldn't the same thing be accomplished by banning inheritance? Debts are already forgiven upon d

by novia 6y ago

After thinking about this idea for a while, it occurred to me: couldn't the same thing be accomplished by banning inheritance? Debts are already forgiven upon death. The average human life isn't that much longer than 50 years, and the resets would be happening continuously.

Invictus0 6y ago
Yes, estate taxes are progressive taxes. See Bernie Sanders' proposal: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/a-progressive-estate-tax#:~:text=Call%20for%20a%20progressive%20estate,their%20fair%20share%20of%20taxes.&text=The%20tax%20rate%20on%20the,million%20would%20be%2055%20percent https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/a-pr....
agarden 6y ago
This is an entirely different idea. Banning inheritance makes corporations even more powerful, as they can increase their wealth from one generation to another and families cannot.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Banning inheritance makes corporations even more powerful Corporations are legal fictions through which their owners operated. If ownership of corporations can’t be inherited, it doesn’t make “corporations” more powerful, it just distributes power over corporations (presuming that the absence of inheritance means that assets escheat to the State, and that the State itself is fundamentally democratic.)
- javierluraschi 6y ago
  How do you prevent them people from gifting their inheritance while they are alive?
briefcomment 6y ago
What about just limiting inheritance to, say, 500k per child?
- kansface 6y ago
  Off the top of my head, what happens to any farm, family business, or house in California?
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    Not sure. Maybe a policy like this stops crazy property inflation? And limits farm sizes? Meaning, local agriculture flourishes? I think it's better for people to stop working when they get pretty rich, like $20mil. People should stop working when they get rich enough to pay for an awesome life, and give someone else the chance. And if they actually enjoy working, they can do it pro bono. I do not trust the uber rich to mind their own business and stay out of other people's lives.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      Accruement of those levels of wealth is usually the result of ownership, and not labor.
    - hnracer 6y ago
      This view comes from the largely flawed assumption that making money is a zero or negative sum endeavour. In some cases it is but in many it's not. Whatever you think of his character, if Musk just threw in the towel at PayPal we wouldn't have SpaceX. I can say the same thing for Jobs, eg if he gave up after Next where would Apple be. Making money is generally a positive sum endeavour as long as you're not generating unpriced externalities such as carbon pollution, and as such I don't like the idea that rich people stop working after they're rich. As long as they're not creating externalities we want them to continue building and contributing to society. It's a much better alternative to them relaxing on a yacht somewhere, which contributes nothing. It's also inaccurate to think that making money by building crowds out other people from doing so. The opposite is the case. It's the same mindset behind the "immigrants took our jobs" train of thinking.
      - briefcomment 6y ago
csomar 6y ago
> Debts are already forgiven upon death. Not quite. You should have life insurance and something the bank can seize to be able to get financing. So even if you die the bank can recover some of the principal. You can also file Chapter 11; that's actually a reset.
heavyset_go 6y ago
> Debts are already forgiven upon death The dead person's estate is responsible for paying back creditors, even if that means liquidating the estate to do so.
- novia 6y ago
  yes, after the requisite math equations are complete, the remaining debt is forgiven.
hnracer 6y ago
I wonder if this would massively increase conspicuous and frivolous consumption. Some may go the direction of Bill Gates, but others may not be so benevolent. At least when wealth is conserved in the family unit it's mostly passively invested in the economy as capital supply.

by novia 6y ago

Invictus0 6y ago

Yes, estate taxes are progressive taxes. See Bernie Sanders' proposal: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/a-progressive-estate-tax#:~:text=Call%20for%20a%20progressive%20estate,their%20fair%20share%20of%20taxes.&text=The%20tax%20rate%20on%20the,million%20would%20be%2055%20percent https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/a-pr....

agarden 6y ago

This is an entirely different idea. Banning inheritance makes corporations even more powerful, as they can increase their wealth from one generation to another and families cannot.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Banning inheritance makes corporations even more powerful Corporations are legal fictions through which their owners operated. If ownership of corporations can’t be inherited, it doesn’t make “corporations” more powerful, it just distributes power over corporations (presuming that the absence of inheritance means that assets escheat to the State, and that the State itself is fundamentally democratic.)
javierluraschi 6y ago
How do you prevent them people from gifting their inheritance while they are alive?

briefcomment 6y ago

What about just limiting inheritance to, say, 500k per child?

kansface 6y ago
Off the top of my head, what happens to any farm, family business, or house in California?
- briefcomment 6y ago
  Not sure. Maybe a policy like this stops crazy property inflation? And limits farm sizes? Meaning, local agriculture flourishes? I think it's better for people to stop working when they get pretty rich, like $20mil. People should stop working when they get rich enough to pay for an awesome life, and give someone else the chance. And if they actually enjoy working, they can do it pro bono. I do not trust the uber rich to mind their own business and stay out of other people's lives.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Accruement of those levels of wealth is usually the result of ownership, and not labor.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    This view comes from the largely flawed assumption that making money is a zero or negative sum endeavour. In some cases it is but in many it's not. Whatever you think of his character, if Musk just threw in the towel at PayPal we wouldn't have SpaceX. I can say the same thing for Jobs, eg if he gave up after Next where would Apple be. Making money is generally a positive sum endeavour as long as you're not generating unpriced externalities such as carbon pollution, and as such I don't like the idea that rich people stop working after they're rich. As long as they're not creating externalities we want them to continue building and contributing to society. It's a much better alternative to them relaxing on a yacht somewhere, which contributes nothing. It's also inaccurate to think that making money by building crowds out other people from doing so. The opposite is the case. It's the same mindset behind the "immigrants took our jobs" train of thinking.
    - briefcomment 6y ago

csomar 6y ago

> Debts are already forgiven upon death. Not quite. You should have life insurance and something the bank can seize to be able to get financing. So even if you die the bank can recover some of the principal. You can also file Chapter 11; that's actually a reset.

heavyset_go 6y ago

> Debts are already forgiven upon death The dead person's estate is responsible for paying back creditors, even if that means liquidating the estate to do so.

novia 6y ago
yes, after the requisite math equations are complete, the remaining debt is forgiven.

hnracer 6y ago

I wonder if this would massively increase conspicuous and frivolous consumption. Some may go the direction of Bill Gates, but others may not be so benevolent. At least when wealth is conserved in the family unit it's mostly passively invested in the economy as capital supply.