4 ms·

I don't think it's necessary, but there are a lot of things that make it somewhat inevitable without a lot of pushback. One of the worst is inherited fortunes.

I don't think it's necessary, but there are a lot of things that make it somewhat inevitable without a lot of pushback. One of the worst is inherited fortunes. I think the world would be a much better place if extremely rich people couldn't leave a fortune to their kids. Those kinds of kids practically always end up being fail-sons or fail-daughters. Besides, if you remove the motivation of "leaving behind an empire for my kids" you probably remove the excuse for acquiring more wealth than you could possibly spend in a lifetime in the first place. Also, this would really help with problem of "elites". If your family name didn't imply a lot of wealth, would colleges etc. be so eager to let in rich scions? IMO the number one problem america has is we have a ruling class of "elites" that know practically nothing, but think they're experts because they have degrees from nice schools and their families have money. Almost every disaster this country has had in the last 20 years have been from these various "elites", such as the economic collapse in 2008, the continued ridiculous wars since 9/11, etc. If we broke up these incestuous "elite" circles by not allowing this generational buildup of influence and wealth a lot of the inequality problems would go away also.

bestnameever 5y ago
Who is the ruling class of "elites"?
- overgard 5y ago
  It's not a simple definition, but I'd start with: - Ivy league pedigree - Rich parents - Generally in professions where "connections" matter most (finance, private equity, politics, etc.) A simple litmus test is "would they be here without access to special connections". Would George W. Bush ever have been president without his family names? (Would he even have made it into his Ivy league school?) How many people in finance really worked their way up from the bottom?
throwawayboise 5y ago
To whom should rich people be able to leave their fortunes, if not to their children? Or should it just be seized by the government when they die?
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >Or should it just be seized by the government when they die? Yes, pretty much.
  - fakedang 5y ago
    We had a country that pretty much effectively ran on that principle. The Soviet Union.
    - pstuart 5y ago
      Wait, don't you mean the United States? Between 1941 and 1976 the estate tax was 77%. That period of history for many would be considered "the good old days."
    - overgard 5y ago
      Not really, there's a difference between limiting inheritance (which is mostly unearned) vs limiting profiting on your own ingenuity.
    - Analemma_ 5y ago
      That is not even remotely the principle the Soviet Union ran on. Stop using the USSR to mean “thing I don’t like”.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  One serious suggestion is a limited amount of gifts to be given over a lifetime tax free. Once youve used up that amount, the person/corporation recieving the money gets taxed on it. This is in effect "the government taking all your money when you die" but in a form that might be less susceptible to propaganda. Im sure there would ve interesting wotkaroubds as usual.
- overgard 5y ago
  > Or should it just be seized by the government when they die? Probably. Use it to fund infrastructure and social programs. The person gets to enjoy the wealth they created in their lifetime, and then society gets to enjoy the wealth once they're gone.
mrtksn 5y ago
Actually I am fine with the super rich, they create special dynamics due to creating societies that don’t need any more money and their ego is driven completely differently. Usually the first generation sucks but later on you have “old money” and they tend to be respected and productive. I think the harmful inequality in a population comes only at the first few steps of the Maslow’s pyramid, i.e. access to food and shelter. There’s a day and night difference between the life’s of people who were given a house as a young adult and those who were not. The difference of life quality of a person who has a fully paid property and a person who is super rich is not that much. The super rich one has more power, of course, but both of them will not feel the pressure to do the things that they don’t want to do. They both would have higher aspirations for stuff they want to do but don’t have means to do - just on different levels.
- overgard 5y ago
  > I think the harmful inequality in a population comes only at the first few steps of the Maslow’s pyramid, i.e. access to food and shelter. In a democracy, do you think it's ok that one person has an incredible amount more influence over society compared to others, not because of their ideas but because they can give more to politicians?
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    I think it’s OK as long as they don’t attempt to damage the democratic process. I don’t think it’s inherently good or bad to have people with large monetary power. What it counts is what they do with it. Money is just one kind of a power. Other people can have great charisma, fame, information, access or any other kind of a power that is disproportionately stronger and influential than the average person.
- int_19h 5y ago
  > they tend to be respected Of course they do - they have money for PR. > and productive They're definitely not productive in proportion to their income.
alex_munroe 5y ago
This is a terrible idea. Who are you to stop other people from providing for their family? Besides, rich people have options. Wouldn't they just move their families and their wealth to a country that's not going to rob them? Countries with human rights, freedom, and capitalism attract capable and talented people. Countries that restrict freedoms and take away people's stuff motivate the most capable and talented people to escape, and are left with people who have no better options. Countries can stop people from escaping by force, but is that a kind of place you'd like to live in?
- overgard 5y ago
  > This is a terrible idea. Who are you to stop other people from providing for their family? I said leave a fortune, not an inheritance. A trust that provides a safety net? Sure. A billion dollar football team? Nope. > Besides, rich people have options. Wouldn't they just move their families and their wealth to a country that's not going to rob them? Given how much the super wealthy pay in taxes, this is essentially already the case. IMO they should either have to pay the same as everyone else, or not be allowed to do business here. > Countries with human rights, freedom, and capitalism attract capable and talented people. Countries that restrict freedoms and take away people's stuff motivate the most capable and talented people to escape, and are left with people who have no better options. The point of capitalisms is you're motivated by self interest, but that self interest makes the world a better place for everyone. If you inherit 100 million when you're 20, what motivation do you have to do anything with your life? > Countries can stop people from escaping by force, but is that a kind of place you'd like to live in? If they want to leave, they can leave. If they want to keep their US citizenship, they can't hold on to empire's past the term of their life.

bestnameever 5y ago

Who is the ruling class of "elites"?

overgard 5y ago
It's not a simple definition, but I'd start with: - Ivy league pedigree - Rich parents - Generally in professions where "connections" matter most (finance, private equity, politics, etc.) A simple litmus test is "would they be here without access to special connections". Would George W. Bush ever have been president without his family names? (Would he even have made it into his Ivy league school?) How many people in finance really worked their way up from the bottom?

throwawayboise 5y ago

To whom should rich people be able to leave their fortunes, if not to their children? Or should it just be seized by the government when they die?

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>Or should it just be seized by the government when they die? Yes, pretty much.
- fakedang 5y ago
  We had a country that pretty much effectively ran on that principle. The Soviet Union.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    Wait, don't you mean the United States? Between 1941 and 1976 the estate tax was 77%. That period of history for many would be considered "the good old days."
  - overgard 5y ago
    Not really, there's a difference between limiting inheritance (which is mostly unearned) vs limiting profiting on your own ingenuity.
  - Analemma_ 5y ago
    That is not even remotely the principle the Soviet Union ran on. Stop using the USSR to mean “thing I don’t like”.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
One serious suggestion is a limited amount of gifts to be given over a lifetime tax free. Once youve used up that amount, the person/corporation recieving the money gets taxed on it. This is in effect "the government taking all your money when you die" but in a form that might be less susceptible to propaganda. Im sure there would ve interesting wotkaroubds as usual.
overgard 5y ago
> Or should it just be seized by the government when they die? Probably. Use it to fund infrastructure and social programs. The person gets to enjoy the wealth they created in their lifetime, and then society gets to enjoy the wealth once they're gone.

mrtksn 5y ago

Actually I am fine with the super rich, they create special dynamics due to creating societies that don’t need any more money and their ego is driven completely differently. Usually the first generation sucks but later on you have “old money” and they tend to be respected and productive. I think the harmful inequality in a population comes only at the first few steps of the Maslow’s pyramid, i.e. access to food and shelter. There’s a day and night difference between the life’s of people who were given a house as a young adult and those who were not. The difference of life quality of a person who has a fully paid property and a person who is super rich is not that much. The super rich one has more power, of course, but both of them will not feel the pressure to do the things that they don’t want to do. They both would have higher aspirations for stuff they want to do but don’t have means to do - just on different levels.

overgard 5y ago
> I think the harmful inequality in a population comes only at the first few steps of the Maslow’s pyramid, i.e. access to food and shelter. In a democracy, do you think it's ok that one person has an incredible amount more influence over society compared to others, not because of their ideas but because they can give more to politicians?
- mrtksn 5y ago
  I think it’s OK as long as they don’t attempt to damage the democratic process. I don’t think it’s inherently good or bad to have people with large monetary power. What it counts is what they do with it. Money is just one kind of a power. Other people can have great charisma, fame, information, access or any other kind of a power that is disproportionately stronger and influential than the average person.
int_19h 5y ago
> they tend to be respected Of course they do - they have money for PR. > and productive They're definitely not productive in proportion to their income.

alex_munroe 5y ago

This is a terrible idea. Who are you to stop other people from providing for their family? Besides, rich people have options. Wouldn't they just move their families and their wealth to a country that's not going to rob them? Countries with human rights, freedom, and capitalism attract capable and talented people. Countries that restrict freedoms and take away people's stuff motivate the most capable and talented people to escape, and are left with people who have no better options. Countries can stop people from escaping by force, but is that a kind of place you'd like to live in?

overgard 5y ago
> This is a terrible idea. Who are you to stop other people from providing for their family? I said leave a fortune, not an inheritance. A trust that provides a safety net? Sure. A billion dollar football team? Nope. > Besides, rich people have options. Wouldn't they just move their families and their wealth to a country that's not going to rob them? Given how much the super wealthy pay in taxes, this is essentially already the case. IMO they should either have to pay the same as everyone else, or not be allowed to do business here. > Countries with human rights, freedom, and capitalism attract capable and talented people. Countries that restrict freedoms and take away people's stuff motivate the most capable and talented people to escape, and are left with people who have no better options. The point of capitalisms is you're motivated by self interest, but that self interest makes the world a better place for everyone. If you inherit 100 million when you're 20, what motivation do you have to do anything with your life? > Countries can stop people from escaping by force, but is that a kind of place you'd like to live in? If they want to leave, they can leave. If they want to keep their US citizenship, they can't hold on to empire's past the term of their life.