5 ms·

A rich person usually inherits more money. Abolish inheritance and almost all of the capitalistic problems disappear.

el_zorro 12y ago
I'm really curious how you think this will solve anything. Children of wealthy parents don't have to inherit anything to have advantages that most poor children could only dream of. That is, unless you somehow abolish parents using their wealth to give their kids access to better healthcare, higher-quality and healthier foods, better educations, opportunities for travel, exposure to culture, and on and on. And if you say that yes, that is what you mean and all those things are to be taken care of by the state, then you've moved beyond even the socialized policies of the Nordic countries. Not that that's a bad thing, but it would be a little disingenuous to call it capitalism.
- wpietri 12y ago
  If you abolished inheritance (that is, taxed it at 100%) you would certainly reduce a number of capitalism's structural problems. That's why even many wealthy people are in favor of large inheritance taxes. [1] That would also provide you a lot of tax revenue for improving education and social services. Or you could just pay it out as a negative income tax or a basic income. That wouldn't solve every problem of capitalism, but so what? No improvement makes everything perfect, but that's not a reason to argue against improvements. [1] e.g.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/12/11/buffet-carter-gates-sr-and-friends-call-for-estate-tax-with-45-teaser-rate-amid-fiscal-cliff-negotiations/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/12/11/buffet-...
walshemj 12y ago
along with vast swathes of the middle class
- wpietri 12y ago
  Unlikely. Most people are solidly in adulthood before their parents die; at that point, their economic destiny is generally fixed. A high inheritance tax won't harm the kids' middle-class status.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    really are you sure a few years ago my parents worked out that in the UK my sister and I would have to immediately find over $130,000 in cash to pay for death duty. We could just do it but we have far more savings than the majority of the uk population.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      I don't know how death duty works there, but if it's like here, I presume that means you would be inheriting something asset worth a lot more than $130,000 but didn't want to sell it. Thus you would end up richer than before, just with an illiquid asset. In which case it would not harm your middle-class status.
      - ggreer 12y ago
        Often the illiquid assets being inherited have great sentimental value to the inheritor. Also, inheritees would get around the tax by hiding assets, gifting them before death, putting them in holding companies, etc. After all, what's the worst the government can do if they're caught?

I'm really curious how you think this will solve anything. Children of wealthy parents don't have to inherit anything to have advantages that most poor children could only dream of. That is, unless you somehow abolish parents using their wealth to give their kids access to better healthcare, higher-quality and healthier foods, better educations, opportunities for travel, exposure to culture, and on and on. And if you say that yes, that is what you mean and all those things are to be taken care of by the state, then you've moved beyond even the socialized policies of the Nordic countries. Not that that's a bad thing, but it would be a little disingenuous to call it capitalism.

wpietri 12y ago
If you abolished inheritance (that is, taxed it at 100%) you would certainly reduce a number of capitalism's structural problems. That's why even many wealthy people are in favor of large inheritance taxes. [1] That would also provide you a lot of tax revenue for improving education and social services. Or you could just pay it out as a negative income tax or a basic income. That wouldn't solve every problem of capitalism, but so what? No improvement makes everything perfect, but that's not a reason to argue against improvements. [1] e.g.: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/12/11/buffet-carter-gates-sr-and-friends-call-for-estate-tax-with-45-teaser-rate-amid-fiscal-cliff-negotiations/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaebeling/2012/12/11/buffet-...

walshemj 12y ago

along with vast swathes of the middle class

wpietri 12y ago
Unlikely. Most people are solidly in adulthood before their parents die; at that point, their economic destiny is generally fixed. A high inheritance tax won't harm the kids' middle-class status.
- walshemj 12y ago
  really are you sure a few years ago my parents worked out that in the UK my sister and I would have to immediately find over $130,000 in cash to pay for death duty. We could just do it but we have far more savings than the majority of the uk population.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    I don't know how death duty works there, but if it's like here, I presume that means you would be inheriting something asset worth a lot more than $130,000 but didn't want to sell it. Thus you would end up richer than before, just with an illiquid asset. In which case it would not harm your middle-class status.
    - ggreer 12y ago
      Often the illiquid assets being inherited have great sentimental value to the inheritor. Also, inheritees would get around the tax by hiding assets, gifting them before death, putting them in holding companies, etc. After all, what's the worst the government can do if they're caught?