4 ms·

Dynastic wealth was earned by somebody. The way I look at it we should respect the spending decisions of people who make the money, and in this case the decisi

by tsotha 13y ago

Dynastic wealth was earned by somebody. The way I look at it we should respect the spending decisions of people who make the money, and in this case the decision was to give it to their children. And it's not like society doesn't take a big bite out of large inheritances - the US takes 40% of the really large ones. And I don't see why you think it's "harmful to the mobility of others".

quasque 13y ago
It may not have been. Throughout history up to the present day there has been much acquisition of wealth via slavery, war, corruption, and other such immoral acts. Wealth is not necessarily earned in as fair a manner as the word implies.
- tsotha 13y ago
  I'm sure that's true in some cases, but I doubt that's the normal case, and it's incredibly unfair to lump the people who earned their wealth with those who accumulated it in some underhanded way.
crusso 13y ago
Dynastic wealth was earned by somebody I get that, but that somebody is gone. The freedom that we allow each other in life to make what we will of our own labor is gone. the US takes 40% of the really large ones Do you think that the Kennedys lose 40% of their wealth every time one of them dies? Hardly. That money is locked up in trusts and other tax avoidance vehicles so that very little is lost when a member of the family passes. The people losing large amounts due to inheritance taxes are the ones on the bubble who maybe have a few million dollars to pass on, but aren't steeped enough in wealth to be able to take advantage of the real loopholes in the system. As with most cases, those people in the upper middle are the ones who bear the brunt of being "rich" without the protections of being truly wealthy. And I don't see why you think it's "harmful to the mobility of others". The biggest threats to a thriving free, capitalistic society are monopolies and corruption. Big government, crony capitalism, corporate monopolies, massive military-industrial complexes, and dynastic wealth all contribute heavily to those core problems. They are so fundamentally powerful that they rewrite the rules(laws) of the society to protect themselves by stifling smaller players. Dynastic wealth is power without the wisdom of having earned it. It's easy access to the force of government without really understanding how government impacts the capitalistic foundations of the society. I sympathize with those who want to leave money to their children after they die, and I definitely think that you should be able to leave something to them - but the dark side of capitalism that is dynastic wealth should really be dealt with.
- tsotha 13y ago
  >I get that, but that somebody is gone. The freedom that we allow each other in life to make what we will of our own labor is gone. I don't see why that would matter. >Do you think that the Kennedys lose 40% of their wealth every time one of them dies? Oh, I agree if we're going to have laws on the books we shouldn't allow rich people in Congress to write their own loopholes. >The biggest threats to a thriving free, capitalistic society are monopolies and corruption. I don't think monopolies are much of a threat, but corruption certainly is. But people with a lot of money are mostly interested in protecting their money from a rapacious government. As opposed to other powerful groups, like labor for example, which are trying to carve out special protections and set asides. >Dynastic wealth is power without the wisdom of having earned it. And that's why wealthy families usually don't stay wealthy for more than three generations or so. How many families that were fabulously wealthy in 1914 are still fabulously wealthy? Of the top ten richest people on the Forbes list seven have made their fortune. >It's easy access to the force of government without really understanding how government impacts the capitalistic foundations of the society. The remedy to that is to have a government that does less, not one that destroys competing concentrations of power.

by tsotha 13y ago

quasque 13y ago

It may not have been. Throughout history up to the present day there has been much acquisition of wealth via slavery, war, corruption, and other such immoral acts. Wealth is not necessarily earned in as fair a manner as the word implies.

tsotha 13y ago
I'm sure that's true in some cases, but I doubt that's the normal case, and it's incredibly unfair to lump the people who earned their wealth with those who accumulated it in some underhanded way.

crusso 13y ago

Dynastic wealth was earned by somebody I get that, but that somebody is gone. The freedom that we allow each other in life to make what we will of our own labor is gone. the US takes 40% of the really large ones Do you think that the Kennedys lose 40% of their wealth every time one of them dies? Hardly. That money is locked up in trusts and other tax avoidance vehicles so that very little is lost when a member of the family passes. The people losing large amounts due to inheritance taxes are the ones on the bubble who maybe have a few million dollars to pass on, but aren't steeped enough in wealth to be able to take advantage of the real loopholes in the system. As with most cases, those people in the upper middle are the ones who bear the brunt of being "rich" without the protections of being truly wealthy. And I don't see why you think it's "harmful to the mobility of others". The biggest threats to a thriving free, capitalistic society are monopolies and corruption. Big government, crony capitalism, corporate monopolies, massive military-industrial complexes, and dynastic wealth all contribute heavily to those core problems. They are so fundamentally powerful that they rewrite the rules(laws) of the society to protect themselves by stifling smaller players. Dynastic wealth is power without the wisdom of having earned it. It's easy access to the force of government without really understanding how government impacts the capitalistic foundations of the society. I sympathize with those who want to leave money to their children after they die, and I definitely think that you should be able to leave something to them - but the dark side of capitalism that is dynastic wealth should really be dealt with.

tsotha 13y ago
>I get that, but that somebody is gone. The freedom that we allow each other in life to make what we will of our own labor is gone. I don't see why that would matter. >Do you think that the Kennedys lose 40% of their wealth every time one of them dies? Oh, I agree if we're going to have laws on the books we shouldn't allow rich people in Congress to write their own loopholes. >The biggest threats to a thriving free, capitalistic society are monopolies and corruption. I don't think monopolies are much of a threat, but corruption certainly is. But people with a lot of money are mostly interested in protecting their money from a rapacious government. As opposed to other powerful groups, like labor for example, which are trying to carve out special protections and set asides. >Dynastic wealth is power without the wisdom of having earned it. And that's why wealthy families usually don't stay wealthy for more than three generations or so. How many families that were fabulously wealthy in 1914 are still fabulously wealthy? Of the top ten richest people on the Forbes list seven have made their fortune. >It's easy access to the force of government without really understanding how government impacts the capitalistic foundations of the society. The remedy to that is to have a government that does less, not one that destroys competing concentrations of power.