[dragonwriter]

> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism.

I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death.

I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly in GP.

OTOH, I'm also not a big fan of capitalism as a system, am glad that it has generally been displaced by the modern mixed economy since being described by its critics, and think that the influence it has on the general shape of modern economies needs to be further curtailed, so I'm not particularly worried that limiting inheritance might further undermine the influence of capitalism; that's a benefit, not a cost.

[terryf]

So where's the line?

I was born and grew up under an actual communist rule. It was terrible. Also, it didn't really work due to fundamental human nature.

What human nature you ask? Well, mine for example. I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have. So that I can leave my wealth to my children (three so far) so that they can continue from a better position than where I started from (almost nothing, except the education my single mother gave me) to get an edge in life.

You want to take that option away from me? Sorry, not gonna work.

[metaphorm]

> I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have.

why do you want to have more than someone else? that implies that you derive pleasure from the deprivation of others, which is sadistic.

I think you should work so that you can have the things that you want for yourself, not so you can have more than someone else.

[terryf]

I like the freedom that monetary success gives. I've seen it briefly and it was freaking awesome.

The only reason it gives that freedom though is derived from inequality. The world is an extremely complex system and complex systems have weird emergent and unpredictable behaviours.

Also, some people contribute more than others. I'm certainly not saying that I'm the biggest contributor, but I do know people who can code circles around me (yes, I used to be a software developer, hey, this is HN you know) and really can do things that I could not, because they depend on fundamental understanding of complexity that I'm simply unable to comprehend. There is no way I could have come up with Paxos for example and clearly it has been extremely useful technology. Also I'm sure the inventor (Alan Kay, IIRC) makes a ton more money than I do and he deserves it!

There is no fundamental equality, because people are not equal and peoples contribution to society is not equal.

Bezos already has paid more taxes than I will ever pay - so he has in fact contributed more.

[pikzen]

No, I only want to take 75% of that option from you if it didn't return into the economy during your lifetime.

[terryf]

Good luck trying, you're not getting it :)

[pikzen]

Unfortunately for you, that is not up to you to decide, but to society as a whole. And society has those pretty fun tools like police forces, etc.

But don't worry, there are much bigger fish to fry than you. You probably won't even be impacted, given the amount of wealth that can be recuperated from the leeches at the top, we can probably already make a much more egalitarian society.

[terryf]

I can vote, just as everyone else :)

So, the problem here is that I don't understand why you think Jeff Bezos is a "leech" exactly. The guy built a business and became very successful. What the heck is wrong with that?

I'm building a house for me and my family. I mean literally building it myself, not hiring people to build it for me. It's fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating.

I've also been involved in building three companies so far. That has been fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating.

If one of those companies is/was successful, would I also be a "leech" by your definition?

[pikzen]

Absolutely! And in most likelihood, such a system will never be put in place, so you can sleep soundly.

Amazon could run very well without Bezos, at this point, solely through workers. Bezos at this point serves nothing but effectively leeching the wealth produced by employees. But appropriation of the means of production is not the subject.

Bezos being successful is not the issue. However, he is effectively an annuitant, and produces very little of value. This brings up the question of why does he deserve that money now? As he's been building the company, yes, eventually (and even then, his only contribution is capital. The rest of his work can be done by anyone else). Nowadays? I'm doubtful.

Secondly, this fortune would much better serve society as a whole than be passed through generations, effectively creating a lineage of oligarchs. If I have to choose between bettering the living conditions of millions or letting Bezos keep his net worth... I'm not going to cry for him.

The most important question is of course, how much should be taxed, and what amount of wealth is too much? Everyone will have different answers. But there are other solutions to taxation. Capping salaries and profits from shares to a factor of the lowest salary in the company, etc.

If one of those companies is successful, that you have managers upon managers doing most of the work for you, yes, you would be a leech.

Good luck on that house, however. I know from first hand experience that it is a tough thing to do. Make sure everything's done properly.

[metaphorm]

actually, you'll be dead

[averagewall]

People care about what's going to happen after they die. You can see this from any global warming activist. They're not concerned about their own live but about future generations. Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?

[dragonwriter]

> Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that once they're dead, what they cared about when they were alive matters, if at all, because and to the extent people still living care about it, and that there is no inherent right that the dead have to have their will dictate actions or rights of the living once they have died.

[metaphorm]

that's not the same type of thing as inheritance of material property and money. the inhabitability of the earth is an existential priority. what we do with leftover bank account balances when someone dies is not.