This isn't very surprising. For decades, the strongest predictor for a country having high social mobility is a strong welfare program including child care and health care, financed by progressive taxation of income and wealth.
In the US, the rags to riches story has been a myth for at least 50 years.
> For decades, the strongest predictor for a country having high social mobility is a strong welfare program including child care and health care, financed by progressive taxation of income and wealth.
I guess that does not apply at all to developing countries like China.
EDIT: looking at your link:
> An elasticity of zero would mean there is no relationship, and thus complete intergenerational mobility,
No, an elasticity of zero would rather mean that people are overly taxed and therefore there is no transfer of wealth between generations, which is probably not what you want (what is already taxed belongs to you and whoever you decide to give it to).
Of course, elasticity of zero would mean that there is no whatsoever transfer of skills or intelligence between generations, which is genetically patently false.
> I guess that does not apply at all to developing countries like China.
Have you looked at the second link?
> No, an elasticity of zero would rather mean that people are overly taxed and therefore there is no transfer of wealth between generations, which is probably not what you want (what is already taxed belongs to you and whoever you decide to give it to).
If your design goal is high social mobility (e.g. because you want a meritocratic society or simply argued from an ethical position) and high economic growth, you want to limit inheritance as much as possible. This is pretty much what Piketty et. al. have shown a few years ago.
> Of course, elasticity of zero would mean that there is no whatsoever transfer of skills or intelligence between generations, which is genetically patently false.
And yet elasticity is close to zero (0.15) in Denmark while being over three times higher in the US.
The reason is obvious: Genetics predict potential, societal context predicts outcome.
Scientifically this is pretty much consensus for decades now BTW.
> Only 4 OECD countries still have a wealth tax.
True, but I meant not only the tax literally called wealth tax, but all taxes targeting wealth. Almost all OECD countries have inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, real estate transfer taxes and so on.
I guess that does not apply at all to developing countries like China.
EDIT: looking at your link:
> An elasticity of zero would mean there is no relationship, and thus complete intergenerational mobility,
No, an elasticity of zero would rather mean that people are overly taxed and therefore there is no transfer of wealth between generations, which is probably not what you want (what is already taxed belongs to you and whoever you decide to give it to).
Of course, elasticity of zero would mean that there is no whatsoever transfer of skills or intelligence between generations, which is genetically patently false.