[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.

[charlesdm]

Honestly, VC is probably one of the least attractive investment opportunities around. It's a crapshoot, very high risk, and the returns (if you even get any) are low.

It's a lot easier making money through Private Equity deals.

If I had $100m, I wouldn't be putting it in a VC fund. Not saying I wouldn't make direct investments, but I would only make those on the assumption the money is gone.

I don't think anyone makes investments in the stock market and private equity on the assumption the money is gone.

[AstralStorm]

Exactly. Everyone wants to get rich at little risk. This means putting money into blue chips with their huge inefficient bureaucracies and fixed assets.

Moreover the real unasked question is, how the company benefits the society if at all.

Capitalism really promotes amoral and immoral investing. Biggest returns for lowest cost and risk to investors.

[charlesdm]

You generally don't get rich investing in the stock market. You stay rich.

I think you have things wrong; companies aren't set up to benefit society. They're set up to benefit a select group of individuals.

[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.