8 ms·

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

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.
- germandiago 5y ago
  There is one thing that is innate. I can tell you. I saw it from my nephews recently. One was building a castle, like five floors high with some stuff. The younger kid comes and destroys it. His brother gets deeply annoyed and started to cry. Why? Because he spent time building it. They are three and one years old. Do you think anyone taught them to get annoyed when the castle is destroyed? No, it is innate: what takes effort has a value for humans. We did not have the level of wealth of today before, but every single human that puts time somewhere wants to be the ruler of that effort. That is innate I think. I saw it clearly with my nephew's reaction. Noone taught him that. Looks like a good experiment to me.
  - ntSean 5y ago
    Your experiment speaks to how we interpret transgressions, and for that, it is true- taxes are seen as robbery. Does your nephew now own the sand he used to build that castle? I would hope not, as I think we’d agree, many kids would suffer! And likewise, many people believe so strongly in their ownership of money, that they don’t mind if others suffer.
    - germandiago 5y ago
      > taxes are seen as robbery Taxes are robbery. If you did the same to your neighbor under threat, you would end up in jail. If a mafia does that, they go to jail. If the government does it, they do not. And they did not ask you to adhere to a contract. It works with reversed logic from what we do in real life with others. There is no single logical justification to say it is not robbery. That is independent of whether what they do with that money is good or bad. A different discussion. > And likewise, many people believe so strongly in their ownership of money. Which represents just that you offered something worth that money to others, in the absense of threat or violence. So yes, now it belongs to them because of an exchange. > that they don’t mind if others suffer. Or even worse, some people subtract that money from us by providing no value, unlike the average of humans who at least sells something or provides a service and pretends that the people providing services or products are worse than the person subtracting in exchange of nothing under the threat of prison. Also, it seems that to you the person being subtracted the money they earned and spent time to get it(could be money or anything else, I am talking about effort) do not suffer. I guess they do not have a soul or feelings or do not deserve the same respect as the others.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I suspect that whatever wealth they did have was carefully passed to the next generation and, further, that people who didn’t do that were less likely to have their DNA represented in the modern human pool.
ntSean 5y ago
I suppose if I were to suggest a 70% tax - you might think that too would bordering on a Soviet policy? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/high-income-earners-tax-rate/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/high-income-earners-tax-ra... Taxes are so nominal, that the haircut is almost non-existent. Beyond theory, I’m very well aware as my close friend inherited a property portfolio, and is now set for life. Unfortunately, most are not as lucky, and therefore we should not rely on the inheritance lottery to act as our social security.
germandiago 5y ago
Reducing it should also be forbidden in my opinion. We should not be entitled to steal the effort of others. Every person can do what they deem right with their things. It is not a matter of how much. By that reasoning I could make legal hitting people, even if it is bad, as long as I do not kill anyone. Would that make hitting people better? I do not think so. The action is still hitting. The same way, the action is still stealing wealth for whatever reasons. Not a right choice.
- dreinhardt 5y ago
  In a finite world of limited resources, how couldn’t it be a question of how much?
  - germandiago 5y ago
    It is not the main question. Why? Because not all wealth is done by resource-intensive business. Developed countries rely a lot on services not only primary and secondary sector. Also, by having more offer available, prices are dropped. That benefits everyone, making them automatically wealthier, since now services are at the reach of more people at a lower price. I do not see the problem. At least, not so far. Indiscriminate redistribution by force has a long history of failure and it makes places poorer, not wealthier.
  - nyokodo 5y ago
    > In a finite world of limited resources Resources are indeed finite, but value is not. The wealth of new ideas, figurative and literal, is practically infinite. Your statement sounds very much like the zero sum fallacy.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  It doesn’t matter what we think is right. The more the people who have, have more than the people who doesn’t have, the closer we are to a time when the don’t haves will say: “fuck that, I was born in the same world as you, why should you have all the nice things just because you were born to the right parents. Só, the choice is simple: you can pay more taxes now, or just hope that the masses won’t do a revolution and send you to the guillotine all the while you scream about your god given constitutional rights to property.
HWR_14 5y ago
Estate taxes apply to less than 2,000 estates. And, by the way, as soon as you enter that you don't pay capital gains taxes. Meanwhile, those taxes are avoided in a thousand ways.

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.
germandiago 5y ago
There is one thing that is innate. I can tell you. I saw it from my nephews recently. One was building a castle, like five floors high with some stuff. The younger kid comes and destroys it. His brother gets deeply annoyed and started to cry. Why? Because he spent time building it. They are three and one years old. Do you think anyone taught them to get annoyed when the castle is destroyed? No, it is innate: what takes effort has a value for humans. We did not have the level of wealth of today before, but every single human that puts time somewhere wants to be the ruler of that effort. That is innate I think. I saw it clearly with my nephew's reaction. Noone taught him that. Looks like a good experiment to me.
- ntSean 5y ago
  Your experiment speaks to how we interpret transgressions, and for that, it is true- taxes are seen as robbery. Does your nephew now own the sand he used to build that castle? I would hope not, as I think we’d agree, many kids would suffer! And likewise, many people believe so strongly in their ownership of money, that they don’t mind if others suffer.
  - germandiago 5y ago
    > taxes are seen as robbery Taxes are robbery. If you did the same to your neighbor under threat, you would end up in jail. If a mafia does that, they go to jail. If the government does it, they do not. And they did not ask you to adhere to a contract. It works with reversed logic from what we do in real life with others. There is no single logical justification to say it is not robbery. That is independent of whether what they do with that money is good or bad. A different discussion. > And likewise, many people believe so strongly in their ownership of money. Which represents just that you offered something worth that money to others, in the absense of threat or violence. So yes, now it belongs to them because of an exchange. > that they don’t mind if others suffer. Or even worse, some people subtract that money from us by providing no value, unlike the average of humans who at least sells something or provides a service and pretends that the people providing services or products are worse than the person subtracting in exchange of nothing under the threat of prison. Also, it seems that to you the person being subtracted the money they earned and spent time to get it(could be money or anything else, I am talking about effort) do not suffer. I guess they do not have a soul or feelings or do not deserve the same respect as the others.
sokoloff 5y ago
I suspect that whatever wealth they did have was carefully passed to the next generation and, further, that people who didn’t do that were less likely to have their DNA represented in the modern human pool.

ntSean 5y ago

I suppose if I were to suggest a 70% tax - you might think that too would bordering on a Soviet policy? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/high-income-earners-tax-rate/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/high-income-earners-tax-ra... Taxes are so nominal, that the haircut is almost non-existent. Beyond theory, I’m very well aware as my close friend inherited a property portfolio, and is now set for life. Unfortunately, most are not as lucky, and therefore we should not rely on the inheritance lottery to act as our social security.

germandiago 5y ago

Reducing it should also be forbidden in my opinion. We should not be entitled to steal the effort of others. Every person can do what they deem right with their things. It is not a matter of how much. By that reasoning I could make legal hitting people, even if it is bad, as long as I do not kill anyone. Would that make hitting people better? I do not think so. The action is still hitting. The same way, the action is still stealing wealth for whatever reasons. Not a right choice.

dreinhardt 5y ago
In a finite world of limited resources, how couldn’t it be a question of how much?
- germandiago 5y ago
  It is not the main question. Why? Because not all wealth is done by resource-intensive business. Developed countries rely a lot on services not only primary and secondary sector. Also, by having more offer available, prices are dropped. That benefits everyone, making them automatically wealthier, since now services are at the reach of more people at a lower price. I do not see the problem. At least, not so far. Indiscriminate redistribution by force has a long history of failure and it makes places poorer, not wealthier.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > In a finite world of limited resources Resources are indeed finite, but value is not. The wealth of new ideas, figurative and literal, is practically infinite. Your statement sounds very much like the zero sum fallacy.
elzbardico 5y ago
It doesn’t matter what we think is right. The more the people who have, have more than the people who doesn’t have, the closer we are to a time when the don’t haves will say: “fuck that, I was born in the same world as you, why should you have all the nice things just because you were born to the right parents. Só, the choice is simple: you can pay more taxes now, or just hope that the masses won’t do a revolution and send you to the guillotine all the while you scream about your god given constitutional rights to property.

HWR_14 5y ago

Estate taxes apply to less than 2,000 estates. And, by the way, as soon as you enter that you don't pay capital gains taxes. Meanwhile, those taxes are avoided in a thousand ways.