29 ms·

You’re exactly right- but it isn’t a timeless problem. Government has the ability to reform inheritance and taxation. However, theres no political will, becaus

by ntSean 5y ago

You’re exactly right- but it isn’t a timeless problem. Government has the ability to reform inheritance and taxation. However, theres no political will, because those with money, can lobby better than those without. Ironically America rejected the monarchy, and yet has replaced it with an oligarchy.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
They renamed 'aristocracy' to 'meritocracy' and we fell for it.
- Mckckdk 5y ago
  The vast majority of billionaires and millionaires are self made.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Define 'self made'. How many truly started out with no significant advantages conferred by the wealth of their progenitors?
    - Mckckdk 5y ago
      Self made means they didn't inherit their millions/billions
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      Being born in the late 20th century and in a developed, wealthy country is are both massive advantages, even if your parents are middle-class school teachers (as mine were). If those two facts constitute "significant advantages", then the obvious answer is "none of them", but that doesn't seem a productive place to draw the line.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        How many billionaires come from a family of middle class school teachers or the like though?
        sokoloff 5y ago
        I thought we were discussing "millionaires and billionaires", not just billionaires.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        I didn't introduce those terms here. I'm speaking of the 'wealthy elite', not some arbitrary dollar figure cut off. The point is that 'person born to wealthy parents continues to be wealthy' is still a common story and 'person born in rags becomes a billionaire' is non-existent. We are fed a narrative about hard work and earning, but the people at the top largely only got there by being born from the right womb.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      Not a self made millionaire, but I have seen plenty of people starting with significant advantages to crash and burn. The amount of money that can be spent on dodgy business projects, or, worse, various harmful substances, is insane. IMHO by far the best "significant advantage" you can have is a shrewd, practical brain combined with low levels of blind arrogance and some kind of "people talent". In normal peacetime conditions, people like that tend to rise fast.
rl3 5y ago
>You’re exactly right- but it isn’t a timeless problem. It's a timeless problem insofar that it dates back to ancient times while remaining unsolved today.
Wolfenstein98k 5y ago
No one has ever prevented intergenerational wealth, and it is so innate and natural to humans that you're bordering on Soviet territory when you decide to fight all that and try and end it. (If you're just talking about reducing it that's fine, but we already do that massively with the tax and transfer system, and I think you guys have estate taxes too.)
- VictorPath 5y ago
  Until 10000 years ago, there was no such thing as intergenerational wealth or surplus, everyone was a migratory hunter gatherer before that owning what they carried. Some people in the Amazon still live like this. So the notion that massive intergenerational wealth is innate to humans and natural is absurd. Or if it is innate and natural, then the lack of that is innate and natural as well. Most of behavioral modernity had none of this at all, it is a relatively new phenomenon, not "innately human".
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    Pre-agricultural tribes could have had forms of wealth — an ornate spear or knife, a prized shawl, a special ceremonial bowl, etc — that they passed down. It seems quite likely to me that as soon as we started crafting and carrying things around, we developed complex behaviors around who gets which things.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Frequently those things were buried with the people who made them.
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        It is not really possible to determine who made the grave goods found next to a skeleton (or urn). Some specialization of work is seen in hunters and gatherers already. Not everyone makes their own spearheads or cotton strings etc.
  - 5y ago
germandiago 5y ago
> Government has the ability to reform inheritance and taxation. However, theres no political will IMHO it is not right to try to make people that earn more than us the target to be sacked. I think it is a bad thing. It is not a matter of you have less or you have more . It is a matter of respecting people who make money legally or inherit it by the will of their own relatives or whatever. I do not think anyone should be entitled to put hands into that for any single reason whatsoever unless that money has been stolen or made in illicit ways. That is the only valid reason IMHO.
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  But the laws are written by the rich...
- dreinhardt 5y ago
  There is a sound argument that to create wealth you need a society. We all contribute to it and if we didn’t there wouldn’t be a society and even if you had a billion dollar or a few tons of gold you couldn’t get anything. At the point where the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny fraction of members of society becomes detrimental to the functioning of our society it is necessary to redistribute before society stops functioning. How you feel about isn’t very important.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Is there strong evidence that the concentration of wealth has reached the point where that is detrimental to a point where society is in danger of stopping functioning?
    - rjmunro 5y ago
      > society is in danger of stopping functioning We shouldn't have to wait for society to nearly break down in some catastrophic way before we try to make things better. Some sort of society will continue to "function", but it is likely to be a worse society for everyone, even the ones nearer the top of the wealth curve as they will constantly be worried about being robbed etc.
pibechorro 5y ago
You aren't ever going to fix that via regulation. In fact, it makes it worse as it always under a long enough timeline gets captured by the powerful and in turn it becomes a barrier to entry and we get Monopoly, Oligarchs, etc. If you want equality of opportunity, you need to fight furiously for complete free speech and complete freedom of trade. The change has to come from the individual bottom up.
jrs235 5y ago
Revenue and earnings made via a government provided and recognized privilege of limited liability are fair game for the government to regulate (edit: and tax). If individuals wish to operate outside of limited liability, un-shielding all their assets to the consequences of their actions, then they can keep all their revenue/earnings. I think it's BS that limited liability orgs commit acts that damage the environment and others, pay dividends to share holders, salaries (and bonuses) to officers and employees, and then go bankrupt when they are then being held to account for their actions and leaving little to nothing to their victims because there is no ability to claw back the money they paid out. Quid pro quo. They get limited liability for being regulated. Don't like being regulated? Then forego limited liability.
- nybble41 5y ago
  For the most part limited liability is a private agreement between you and your creditors, not a get-out-of-jail-free pass to avoid any and all consequences when you cause deliberate or negligent harm to someone who never agreed to those terms. To be sure, there have been instances where the government shielded someone from liability unjustly or failed to "pierce the corporate veil" when doing so was arguably warranted. However, such cases are very much in the minority compared to instances where limited liability is used purely to protect personal assets from being seized to pay the corporation's debts in the event of a business failure or contractual dispute.

by ntSean 5y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

They renamed 'aristocracy' to 'meritocracy' and we fell for it.

Mckckdk 5y ago
The vast majority of billionaires and millionaires are self made.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Define 'self made'. How many truly started out with no significant advantages conferred by the wealth of their progenitors?
  - Mckckdk 5y ago
    Self made means they didn't inherit their millions/billions
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    Being born in the late 20th century and in a developed, wealthy country is are both massive advantages, even if your parents are middle-class school teachers (as mine were). If those two facts constitute "significant advantages", then the obvious answer is "none of them", but that doesn't seem a productive place to draw the line.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      How many billionaires come from a family of middle class school teachers or the like though?
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        I thought we were discussing "millionaires and billionaires", not just billionaires.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        I didn't introduce those terms here. I'm speaking of the 'wealthy elite', not some arbitrary dollar figure cut off. The point is that 'person born to wealthy parents continues to be wealthy' is still a common story and 'person born in rags becomes a billionaire' is non-existent. We are fed a narrative about hard work and earning, but the people at the top largely only got there by being born from the right womb.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Not a self made millionaire, but I have seen plenty of people starting with significant advantages to crash and burn. The amount of money that can be spent on dodgy business projects, or, worse, various harmful substances, is insane. IMHO by far the best "significant advantage" you can have is a shrewd, practical brain combined with low levels of blind arrogance and some kind of "people talent". In normal peacetime conditions, people like that tend to rise fast.

rl3 5y ago

>You’re exactly right- but it isn’t a timeless problem. It's a timeless problem insofar that it dates back to ancient times while remaining unsolved today.

Wolfenstein98k 5y ago

No one has ever prevented intergenerational wealth, and it is so innate and natural to humans that you're bordering on Soviet territory when you decide to fight all that and try and end it. (If you're just talking about reducing it that's fine, but we already do that massively with the tax and transfer system, and I think you guys have estate taxes too.)

VictorPath 5y ago
Until 10000 years ago, there was no such thing as intergenerational wealth or surplus, everyone was a migratory hunter gatherer before that owning what they carried. Some people in the Amazon still live like this. So the notion that massive intergenerational wealth is innate to humans and natural is absurd. Or if it is innate and natural, then the lack of that is innate and natural as well. Most of behavioral modernity had none of this at all, it is a relatively new phenomenon, not "innately human".
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  Pre-agricultural tribes could have had forms of wealth — an ornate spear or knife, a prized shawl, a special ceremonial bowl, etc — that they passed down. It seems quite likely to me that as soon as we started crafting and carrying things around, we developed complex behaviors around who gets which things.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Frequently those things were buried with the people who made them.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      It is not really possible to determine who made the grave goods found next to a skeleton (or urn). Some specialization of work is seen in hunters and gatherers already. Not everyone makes their own spearheads or cotton strings etc.
- 5y ago

germandiago 5y ago

> Government has the ability to reform inheritance and taxation. However, theres no political will IMHO it is not right to try to make people that earn more than us the target to be sacked. I think it is a bad thing. It is not a matter of you have less or you have more . It is a matter of respecting people who make money legally or inherit it by the will of their own relatives or whatever. I do not think anyone should be entitled to put hands into that for any single reason whatsoever unless that money has been stolen or made in illicit ways. That is the only valid reason IMHO.

ProjectArcturis 5y ago
But the laws are written by the rich...
dreinhardt 5y ago
There is a sound argument that to create wealth you need a society. We all contribute to it and if we didn’t there wouldn’t be a society and even if you had a billion dollar or a few tons of gold you couldn’t get anything. At the point where the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny fraction of members of society becomes detrimental to the functioning of our society it is necessary to redistribute before society stops functioning. How you feel about isn’t very important.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  Is there strong evidence that the concentration of wealth has reached the point where that is detrimental to a point where society is in danger of stopping functioning?
  - rjmunro 5y ago
    > society is in danger of stopping functioning We shouldn't have to wait for society to nearly break down in some catastrophic way before we try to make things better. Some sort of society will continue to "function", but it is likely to be a worse society for everyone, even the ones nearer the top of the wealth curve as they will constantly be worried about being robbed etc.

pibechorro 5y ago

You aren't ever going to fix that via regulation. In fact, it makes it worse as it always under a long enough timeline gets captured by the powerful and in turn it becomes a barrier to entry and we get Monopoly, Oligarchs, etc. If you want equality of opportunity, you need to fight furiously for complete free speech and complete freedom of trade. The change has to come from the individual bottom up.

jrs235 5y ago

Revenue and earnings made via a government provided and recognized privilege of limited liability are fair game for the government to regulate (edit: and tax). If individuals wish to operate outside of limited liability, un-shielding all their assets to the consequences of their actions, then they can keep all their revenue/earnings. I think it's BS that limited liability orgs commit acts that damage the environment and others, pay dividends to share holders, salaries (and bonuses) to officers and employees, and then go bankrupt when they are then being held to account for their actions and leaving little to nothing to their victims because there is no ability to claw back the money they paid out. Quid pro quo. They get limited liability for being regulated. Don't like being regulated? Then forego limited liability.

nybble41 5y ago
For the most part limited liability is a private agreement between you and your creditors, not a get-out-of-jail-free pass to avoid any and all consequences when you cause deliberate or negligent harm to someone who never agreed to those terms. To be sure, there have been instances where the government shielded someone from liability unjustly or failed to "pierce the corporate veil" when doing so was arguably warranted. However, such cases are very much in the minority compared to instances where limited liability is used purely to protect personal assets from being seized to pay the corporation's debts in the event of a business failure or contractual dispute.