[pksdjfikkkkdsff]

Why exactly is inequality a problem? Because people suffer from their envy?

People starving, having no health care, low life expectancy, that sort of thing, are problems. Their neighbor having more money in the bank is not really a problem.

There are also actually differences in skills, performance, diligence, and so on. It would be very unfair if some people weren't allowed to earn more money than others.

Whether it should be possible to be arbitrarily rich is another question.

[ianleeclark]

> People starving, having no health care, low life expectancy, that sort of thing, are problems. Their neighbor having more money in the bank is not really a problem.

Most people, when they critique wealth inequality, aren't critiquing their neighbors because most people in the same zip code are going to be at similar levels. When people critique wealth inequality, they're talking about the Koch brothers, or other parties who leverage capital to gain unfair advantage and political powers and then work against the first half of your statement.

> Whether it should be possible to be arbitrarily rich is another question.

I, too, am in favor of a 100% wealth tax upon death. No more freeloading failsons.

[pksdjfikkkkdsff]

"Unfair capital advantage"

Well, again, start accumulating capital, if it is such an unfair advantage.

"I, too, am in favor of a 100% wealth tax upon death. No more freeloading failsons."

I am absolute against such a thing, in fact I consider it an insane proposal.

It seems one of the fundamental human rights should be people being allowed to provide for their children.

People work to have successful children. It is absolutely incorrect that all children should have the same starting positions for a fair world. If a couple works hard to earn money, and others don't work and instead pop out 10 children, why on earth would it be fair to take money from the hard working parents to distribute it to all? I know many people who would like to have more children, but feel they can't afford them. Why should they be punished for being responsible.

It even starts before people have children. They work hard to be attractive and find a good mate, to improve the odds for their children. That is basic human nature.

The acts of their parents are not the children's fault, of course, and everybody should be given a fair chance to make it in life. But there are limits. Both strategies can be valid (have few children and try to give them a good head start in live vs having as many children as possible and leaving them to their own devices), but it would be unfair to politically punish one strategy over the other. At the very least, if you take away money from the responsible parents, you should have to limit the behavior of the irresponsible parents.

The only way to make things completely equal for everyone is to disallow people to have children, and instead rise future children in clone factories. Why should that be considered desirable?

And even more basic than that: people should be allowed to do with their money as they please. Including giving it to their children.

[ianleeclark]

> I am absolute against such a thing, in fact I consider it an insane proposal.

44 minutes ago

> Whether it should be possible to be arbitrarily rich is another question.

You were so close to getting it, what happened to you?

> Well, again, start accumulating capital, if it is such an unfair advantage.

Hey, person who can barely make it to get by and spends all of their income on subsistence-level living, why don't you just get more capital?

> The acts of their parents are not the children's fault, of course, and everybody should be given a fair chance to make it in life. But there are limits.

You continually try and straddle the line with these declarations, but just draw completely arbitrary distinctions: everyone should be given a fair chance to make it--but what is fair, how is this decided, who enforces it? What are these limits and why are they decided? There's no rhyme or reason to what you're saying, just whatever sounds the best to you.

> And even more basic than that: people should be allowed to do with their money as they please.

So it's perfectly acceptable when Coca Cola sends death squads to kill labor organizers. The ancap fever dream is terrifying.

[pksdjfikkkkdsff]

"> Whether it should be possible to be arbitrarily rich is another question.

You were so close to getting it, what happened to you?"

There is a difference between limiting how rich anybody can get, and taking everything away from families if the head of family dies.

"Hey, person who can barely make it to get by and spends all of their income on subsistence-level living, why don't you just get more capital?"

How many such people even exist? If you barely make it, you should aim to improve your situation. Try to find a better job, try to learn skills that enable you to get a better job, and so on. Few people are really doomed to such a situation forever. And those who are, usually because of illness, need charitable help or insurance. It's a separate problem.

"everyone should be given a fair chance to make it--but what is fair, how is this decided, who enforces it?"

Well who do you want to decide what is fair?

I think markets are the best mechanism to establish fair prices. Other than that, you can establish some baseline - access to housing, food and education, so that people can try to make something out of their lives. It can be discussed. But certainly it doesn't mean fair has to be everybody has to have the exact same starting positions. It is not even possible, because not all parents are the same. If your parent is Paul Graham and he teaches you programming, you already have an advantage against other kids, even without economic resources.

"So it's perfectly acceptable when Coca Cola sends death squads to kill labor organizers."

Obviously not. I think you are being silly here. Basic laws still apply.

[FeloniousHam]

> I, too, am in favor of a 100% wealth tax upon death. No more freeloading failsons.

I am very far from an economic leftist, but the elimination of inheritance seems to me the fastest, fairest, path to equality of opportunity (the disposition of the confiscated assets is a separate argument). Tax the dead guy.

[beerandt]

That's one of the top defining characteristics of "economic leftist" type systems.

Either you don't fully grasp the implications of such a policy, or you may want to re-evaluate your economic self-identity.

I'll add- it's not just the rich that this hits. This means taking a family's home when parents die, unless they pay for it again.

Which means it's basically an incentive for people to rent everything and own nothing. A Subscription based economy for everything. And companies will love it, since they'll provide the subscriptions and corporations never die, so it won't affect corporate wealth.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it's not difficult to see a floodgate of unintended consequences. And only the rich will be able to afford the accountants and lawyers to double-Irish/ Dutch-sandwich loopholes.

[FeloniousHam]

A couple points:

1. The government must be funded, taxes are inescapable

2. Financial/material inheritance is inherently cosmically unfair (Paris Hilton and orphan street dweller have equal merit claim to the Hilton fortune)

3. Your children's "inheritance" is their genetic endowment, the benefits of being raised by you, and whatever material help you can provide during your lifetime

4. The details (and loopholes) of the implementation are an exercise for the student (I'm not super concerned whether a "family farm" must be liquidated, or how every last penny of Warren Buffett's fortune is confiscated)

> Which means it's basically an incentive for people to rent everything and own nothing.

This may be true toward the end of one's life, and I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Your children's inheritance is a distant concern for most your time on earth; your savings is almost entirely a prudent hedge against a lean harvest.

FWIW, I am strongly against (national) Government expansion, and would be fine with just setting all the confiscated funds on fire.

[pyuser583]

Then the dead guy will give all his money to his kids before dying.

At the very least the dead guy will pay for them to go to Harvard, arrange the appropriate internships, etc.

It’s very possible to preserve a class system without actually transferring wealth to your children upon death.

Just use your wealth and money to make sure they’re set before you die.

Easy-peasy.

Just look at the many children of still-Alice billionaires. They’re not hurting.

For example, Warren Buffet announced he was giving away all his wealth, created a foundation that possesses most of his wealth, and named his son as director.

Not rocket science.

And that doesn’t include the affects of private tutors, nanny’s, quality education, etc.

[FeloniousHam]

> Then the dead guy will give all his money to his kids before dying.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good enough. Inequality is a fundamental part of human existence, but I'd prefer that inequality to be as much as possible an expression of individual merit rather than a financial windfall as a result of parental success.

As I mention in another reply, your "inheritance" is what you get while your parents are alive.

[pyuser583]

It’s not so much the perfect being the enemy of the good, as the fundamental point being missed.

The goal is to prevent persistent, cross-generational inequality. High inheritance taxes simply won’t accomplish this. Or even come close.

The only policy that had ever achieved the sort of field-evening you want is a very strong public sector.

Providing quality education, job, opportunities to everyone (or at least lots of people).

A good example is Sweden. Sweden had massive asset-inequality. A handful of families are massively wealthy, and the successfully pass that wealth down generations.

Yet Sweden had little income inequality, because of their strong public services.

[FeloniousHam]

My complaint with inheritance is not that perpetuates income inequality (though it may do that). I don't care about income inequality in the abstract, it bothers me not a whit that multi-billionaires prosper while the poorest in the US live merely pretty OK lives.

I simply hate the unfairness of this particular form of wealth transfer: the winners hit the jackpot without even buying a ticket.

[hervature]

You're just incentivizing rich people to put all their assets in holdings companies and then giving their children ownership before they die. I wouldn't be surprised if this is how its done today.

[beerandt]

That's basically what trusts are, with a few additional benefits.

[anoncake]

> Why exactly is inequality a problem? Because people suffer[...]?

Yes. That and the fact that rich people don't gain as much utility from additional wealth, making inequality inefficient.

> Whether it should be possible to be arbitrarily rich is another question.

No, it isn't. Unless you think wealth is somehow intrinsically a problem even if it's equally distributed.