4 ms·

So your great-great-great grandchildren don't have to work at McDonald's. Most people never think about leaving a backstop for more then one generation or they

by gscott 5y ago

So your great-great-great grandchildren don't have to work at McDonald's. Most people never think about leaving a backstop for more then one generation or they let the Government take so much in taxes at death it all has to be sold. Great for the government but bad for future generations of your family who don't have the financial means to quit a job to try a startup because they have to make rent and run on a mouse-wheel all of their life to stay one step ahead of the next bill.

RC_ITR 5y ago
Yeah, but you don’t think that this just perpetuates economic injustices from past generations? Like I’m sure all the black business owners in Tulsa would have loved to do the same for their grandchildren, but were systematically denied that opportunity. Why should we go so far out of our way to support the will of certain dead people but not all of them?
- gscott 5y ago
  Yes in the Tulsa case if the original owner died then there would be taxes on everything. Either the heir would pony up the money to the government (maybe by getting a loan which would be impossible due to racism). Chances are the heir would have to sell. With the right structuring there would be a generation of black people in Tulsa who would be able to afford college and other things. (of course it was burned by whites but if it wasn't). We need generational wealth in the country. For people who are in top .01% they should have a wealth tax but for those in the top 1% and below they should be able to make sure future generations can have a chance to be successful.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    OK, maybe you missed the reference. Plenty of white people benefitted from burning/bombing black businesses and then passed those ill-gotten gains to their children. Taxing those ill-gotten gains and improving the welfare state would probably be a more just outcome, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
vlovich123 5y ago
Why should past luck in getting wealthy be some kind of reward for that wealth propagating generationally? Keep in mind that for a long time, if left to their own “merits” generational wealth would evaporate after a few generations. To do it properly requires great care in creating the right structures and insulating the wealth itself from being mismanaged by family members. All this is to say that the broader public seems to be more efficiently entrepreneurially (in terms of creating new wealth) than what is achieved by hereditary wealth. Hereditary wealth transfer already has a huge leg up through social and educational networks and educational “legacy” that backstopping through actual wealth transfer on top of that doesn’t seem great for society as a whole. On the other hand, if you have some data to indicate that children of entrepreneurs are better capable at starting new businesses than the general public I’m certainly interested to see that. My understanding above is a synthesis from studies I’ve come across and the general concept of reversion to the mean (eg the most unique individuals in any field/specialty you could name generally pop up spontaneously in the general population rather than consistently being overrepresented in a lineage). This makes sense for the survival of the species too- you want diversity so that you don’t overfit a given ecosystem and become hypersensitive to those conditions remaining true.

by gscott 5y ago

RC_ITR 5y ago

Yeah, but you don’t think that this just perpetuates economic injustices from past generations? Like I’m sure all the black business owners in Tulsa would have loved to do the same for their grandchildren, but were systematically denied that opportunity. Why should we go so far out of our way to support the will of certain dead people but not all of them?

gscott 5y ago
Yes in the Tulsa case if the original owner died then there would be taxes on everything. Either the heir would pony up the money to the government (maybe by getting a loan which would be impossible due to racism). Chances are the heir would have to sell. With the right structuring there would be a generation of black people in Tulsa who would be able to afford college and other things. (of course it was burned by whites but if it wasn't). We need generational wealth in the country. For people who are in top .01% they should have a wealth tax but for those in the top 1% and below they should be able to make sure future generations can have a chance to be successful.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  OK, maybe you missed the reference. Plenty of white people benefitted from burning/bombing black businesses and then passed those ill-gotten gains to their children. Taxing those ill-gotten gains and improving the welfare state would probably be a more just outcome, no? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre

vlovich123 5y ago

Why should past luck in getting wealthy be some kind of reward for that wealth propagating generationally? Keep in mind that for a long time, if left to their own “merits” generational wealth would evaporate after a few generations. To do it properly requires great care in creating the right structures and insulating the wealth itself from being mismanaged by family members. All this is to say that the broader public seems to be more efficiently entrepreneurially (in terms of creating new wealth) than what is achieved by hereditary wealth. Hereditary wealth transfer already has a huge leg up through social and educational networks and educational “legacy” that backstopping through actual wealth transfer on top of that doesn’t seem great for society as a whole. On the other hand, if you have some data to indicate that children of entrepreneurs are better capable at starting new businesses than the general public I’m certainly interested to see that. My understanding above is a synthesis from studies I’ve come across and the general concept of reversion to the mean (eg the most unique individuals in any field/specialty you could name generally pop up spontaneously in the general population rather than consistently being overrepresented in a lineage). This makes sense for the survival of the species too- you want diversity so that you don’t overfit a given ecosystem and become hypersensitive to those conditions remaining true.