[mattmanser]

Risk is a strong word, often there's little risk involved, it's often more about who you know, which entitlements your birth gave you and what parachute mummy and daddy can give you (especially if you're white, male and privately educated).

There's no inherent entitlement or human right to give your children your money, or to not be simply turfed off what ever land you are using when society decided there's a better use for it, for a competitor simply stealing your inventory, expecting protection from thugs taking your business etc., etc.

Because wealth begats wealth, there needs to be certain checks and balances, minimum wages are one of them, inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes are others.

For that, you get the protection of strong laws, an infrastructure you paid almost nothing towards, legal protections for your property, protection from foreign governments, access to skilled trained workers you didn't pay to educate, etc.

Your argument is circular, Fred is wealthy and can afford to speculate, therefore Fred deserves more wealth.

But Fred is only wealthy when everyone else buys into the system, otherwise Fred would soon be Dead Fred.

[ccffpphh]

There is risk in any action taken due to the fundamental lack of information regarding events occurring in the future. I agree with you that much of it is luck, this at the same time does not mean because one is born lucky that they now need to suffer to bring someone else to their level. I disagree that it is meaningless, I believe that since no one person is entitled to anything from anyone else (to think otherwise would be to support slavery), the only morally correct form of interaction is through consensual voluntary action.

I do not think we need checks and balances. Minimum wage actually harms those who are most disadvantaged - if I am hiring two people and I must pay them the same amount, there's no reason I would take the socially less valuable person. At the very least, eliminating the floor would allow the disadvantaged to compete and make racists pay for their prejudice, i.e. "Do I really want to pay $10.00 for a white straight privileged [whatever insert here] or $5.00 for a black trans [etc]".

Inheritance tax is violence against those who pass on their wealth. If you have indeed earned so much that you would like to ensure your lineage, what right does anyone else have to stop you? Why is it wrong for you pass on wealth to your children? Whose business is it? What if instead, you simply lived a thousand years and kept your wealth?

If you want to donate money because you are very rich and have a lot of money to spare and truly believe this, then by all means, you can even pay more in taxes nowadays and never file a return. Nobody will stop you.

[arp242]

The problem with no inheritance tax is that it destroys individual merit. In an ideal free and liberal society everyone would start from the same point and achieve the things they achieve in life based on their individual merit. Such a scenario driven to its extremes would be a dystopian Brave New World-like horror, but we can certain level the playing field somewhat by ensuring that some don't start with millions in their pocket whereas others start with 0.

There is an absolute mountain of evidence that the economic status of your parents is a strong influencer of your own economic status. This is the cause of a great many problems, including things like the problems with the black community in the US for example.

Your entire argument on this is a contradiction; no one is entitled to anything yet you are entitled to the money from your parents? What right do your children have on the money someone else earned with their merit? Let them prove their own worth.

[mattmanser]

I stopped reading when you started directly contradicting the fact based article with an armchair philosopher supposition.

Your view is merely dogmatic and ignorant, the opposite of what I come to HN for.

[dependenttypes]

The irony here...