5 ms·

1) Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Which should be a good thing for 95% of the population. Why should your kids have to start over aga

1) Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Which should be a good thing for 95% of the population. Why should your kids have to start over again? 2) Not all success has to be personal. You can and should profit from the wealth that your parents accumulated. I am fine with taxing the obscenely rich and with eliminating their insane schemes to circumvent the tax code. They should pay their fair share. The entire reason I originally answered you is that it's not entirely orthogonal, and keeping the distinction here is incredibly important. Being within the top 10% currently puts you into the 160K a year range. That is not rich. This is your ordinary handyman and his wive, doctors, lawyers, engineers, air traffic controllers, etc. These people are hardworking and in the process of accumulating wealth, for them and hopefully their children. Grouping them with the ultra rich and demanding their taxes to be raised any further is unfair.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Remind me how we got from "individual responsibility" and "personal success" to "inheriting wealth from parents by luck of birth" again? Generational wealth transfer can only ever increase the divide between upper and lower classes over time. There's no way around it. Talk of "individual responsibility" and "personal success" is diametrically opposed to inheritance. You cannot have both. The person inheriting has done absolutely nothing to deserve it.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think some of this is perspective. "Individual responsibility" is the easy part and can mean paying your debts. "Personal success" can simply mean advancing from your starting position, whatever that may be. I tend to agree with the parent post that building generational wealth and benefit is desirable. It makes sense for perspectives and systems that aren't zero sum. increasing individual and national prosperity is not zero sum activity. however, Income inequality is inherently a zero sum metric. Optimizing for income equality means it is better for each of us to have $1 to spend than one of us to have $3 and the other $2.
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Being within the top 10% ... is not rich. This is extremely out of touch.
- selfmodruntime 2y ago
  Nope. Being wealthy is not being rich. Perfectly normal people are wealthy by way of their assets and cash poor.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

> Yes. That's exactly how people build generational wealth. Remind me how we got from "individual responsibility" and "personal success" to "inheriting wealth from parents by luck of birth" again? Generational wealth transfer can only ever increase the divide between upper and lower classes over time. There's no way around it. Talk of "individual responsibility" and "personal success" is diametrically opposed to inheritance. You cannot have both. The person inheriting has done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think some of this is perspective. "Individual responsibility" is the easy part and can mean paying your debts. "Personal success" can simply mean advancing from your starting position, whatever that may be. I tend to agree with the parent post that building generational wealth and benefit is desirable. It makes sense for perspectives and systems that aren't zero sum. increasing individual and national prosperity is not zero sum activity. however, Income inequality is inherently a zero sum metric. Optimizing for income equality means it is better for each of us to have $1 to spend than one of us to have $3 and the other $2.

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

> Being within the top 10% ... is not rich. This is extremely out of touch.

selfmodruntime 2y ago
Nope. Being wealthy is not being rich. Perfectly normal people are wealthy by way of their assets and cash poor.