[dcre]

Everything you say is absolutely right about the very richest 0.01% -- unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem. But there are very few such people, and what really drives the top-line inequality numbers is the redistribution of income upward to the 5% or the 1%.

[humanrebar]

> ...unearned rents and inheritances are a big problem

The Walton fortune was earned... by Sam Walton. If he wasn't allowed to leave it to his family, what does property even mean?

[einarvollset]

Presuming you’re not trolling: take the implication of what you’re saying to it’s natural conclusion (no inheritance tax, no property tax, etc) and explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four?

In my view, there should be some correlation between hard work, smarts and financial outcome that isn’t entirely determined at birth.

[humanrebar]

> Presuming you’re not trolling

A rhetorical question isn't a troll. If someone is a troll, just flag them.

> explain to me how we don’t end up with a feudal society in a generation or four

As wealthy people die, they give their money to foundations and split it among their progeny and spouses. Some of them, it turns out, aren't great with money. The richest of the rich are no longer Carnegie, Rockefeller, or Weyerhäuser. A few generations out and the fortune is already spreading out naturally. Sure, some grandchildren are regional socialites and minor celebrities, but we're not exactly worried about which politicians Paris Hilton is palling around with.

[einarvollset]

I guess I don’t understand why smart people, like you seem to be, would want to design a system that inherently rewards nepotism instead of one that rewards innovation in the present.

Your system of “natural” fortune spreading was the default for all time until the modern welfare state came along. That’s what you want to return to? Hope that stupidity somehow spreads wealth the best?

[charlesdm]

Some of these people would've called it quits a long time ago though, if not for the ability of their offspring to have it (much) better than they do. Nothing wrong with that.

Some people are born with above average intelligence, or above average physical skills. Nothing wrong with that either.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to inherit significant fortunes?

[AstralStorm]

Because fortune on it's own does nothing. (As opposed to investment in manufacturing or research.) The result is stagflation and stagnation in long term.

Generally the tax is not supposed to be on inheritance but on unreasonably frozen money. Inheritance tax is a work around.

Skills when applied are supposed to be net positive for society.

Additionally with money comes influence, media and politics. Stagnation in those areas is risky too.

[humanrebar]

> Because fortune on it's own does nothing.

Where are the Scrooge McDuck money bins? The money is invested. Or it's spent and someone else has it.

Inheritance tax is a double tax. The money was already subject to income tax, capital gains, property tax, sales tax, etc. If the problem is that capital earnings accumulate faster than labor earnings, then we should just address that problem.

Property isn't about what it does for the rest of society. Property is a human right. Taxes generally are on voluntary actions for a reason. You choose to purchase something, own taxable property, emit carbon, etc. People don't choose to die, so it's an involuntary tax, something we should think about.

Lots of people don't care about the ethical implications for personal reasons, I guess, and that's their prerogative. But there's no moral high ground on not caring about the ethics of property rights.

[charlesdm]

There are plenty of heirs that continue to participate in business. Taking their money away isn't going change much, aside from taking their money away.

You act as if all inherited wealth is just sitting in bank accounts. Some is, some isn't, some heirs are active in and good at business, others aren't.

[AstralStorm]

It is not doing as much as it should. What it does is bring profits to financiers who control it.

This as opposed to direct investment (VC or starting new enterprises). even having a controlling share in a company is not exactly the same. Working on a business is not enough of most of the money gets frozen in fixed assets or rented away to bankers.

[humanrebar]

Money sitting in bank accounts is typically doing something, too. It's not like they are stacks of bills in a vault gathering dust.

[clarkmoody]

You may glance at this to update your mental model of feudalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

The democratic urge to use the state for preventing the transfer of wealth between generation is sickening. It shows neither a respect for property nor liberty.

[dcre]

The Walton fortune was generated by Sam Walton's employees but captured by Sam Walton. What does property mean, indeed.

[humanrebar]

Those are two different subjects, then. There is inherited money and generated money. If we think it's easy to generate money the wrong way, then there's not much point in lambasting inheritances. That's actually a legitimate way to get money, at least compared to using (unfair) power and information imbalances to always give yourself an (unfair) sweet deal.

[AstralStorm]

One leads to the other. You can hire more specialists in making money and capturing labour.

[mamon]

Sam Walton's employees would not be able to generate that fortune on their own. You seem to underestimate the role of leadership, vision and other business skills in creating a company. Not to mention that many of those employees probably also made their own small fortunes along the way.

Also, you make it sound like Sam Walton somehow has a debt of gratitude to a society for it allowing him to get rich. I think that no such debt ever exists: in exchange for those billions of dollars Walton made society has already gotten something equally valuable in return, i.e. Wal-Mart mall in every city, providing cheap and easy access to all kinds of consumer goods. That's how business works: making money by providing services that society finds valuable.

[dcre]

The fact that leadership is necessary (which I do not deny) does not imply that some particular share of the resulting surplus value should go to said leadership. The share of surplus value captured by capital is something we get to decide as a society, and the idea that "as much as capital can manage to capture" is a natural and just share is a pervasive and pernicious lie.

[mamon]

But of course it implies exactly that. People should be rewarded for their skills and their contribution to the success of the company, which means that lion's share of profits goes to those on top. And no, we as a society don't get to decide that, because companies are privately owned by individuals, not by society as whole. Why should society decide how should I spend my money?

[chrisbennet]

Yes, reward them for their skills and work - not what they can capture of someone else’s hard work. It is an article of faith in some quarters that someone who manages to put themselves in a position where they can skim the labor from employees or renters somehow means they are a wealth creator. Usually though, these “wealth creators” are just capturing wealth generated by someone else.

[dcre]

Whether it’s really yours is what we’re arguing about.

You’ve just made the interesting argument that because it’s yours, it’s yours. Not sure I’m convinced by that.

[mixmastamyk]

Can’t take it with ya.