[wyager]

> we can see the heirs who drain off so much profit each year from the labor of those who work

If successful people couldn’t pass ownership onto their heirs, the value of ownership itself would drop dramatically. If Bud and Sam Walton knew they couldn’t pass on their business to their kids, they would either have never done it in the first place or they would structure the business to close out well before they died. Neither of these is good.

Most complaints about rational capital allocation, including this one, are based on a failure to generalize or punch through enough layers of indirection.

[pfooti]

Hot take: if the Waltons (and their ilk) had not built the walmarts of the world, to maximize profits by externalizing costs (food stamps for employees who are not paid a living wage) and then dodging the taxes that pay for that externalization, then yes. Things would undoubtedly be better.

Pretty sure that if there were a much higher estate tax and other ways to de-incentivize generational wealth inequality that people would still find ways to exploit a semi-capitalist system by arbitraging the interface between public good and private service (c.f., the modern 1099 economy)

[maksimum]

> If Bud and Sam Walton knew they couldn’t pass on their business to their kids, they would either have never done it in the first place or they would structure the business to close out well before they died

How confident are you in those conclusions? There are plenty of very rich people who claim that they don't intend to leave much for their heirs.

[nine_k]

They still can command what happens to their capitals after their death.

Remove this ability, and incentives change dramatically.