[LimaBearz]

I can’t tell if that’s sarcasm or not so I’ll just remind everyone of Adam Smith: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."

In this country there was a time yes where inheriting it is shady and it’s something I fear our conservative brothers have forgotten. The problems of multi-generational wealth were clearly visible to our founders looking at Europe. It should be patently offensive to all Americans

[IG_Semmelweiss]

there's no problem with inheritance.

What matters is the turnover of inheritance.

If you have the same 200 families holding all the wealth for 500 years, you have a problem (like several countries in europe).

There is nothing wrong with a hardworking person to reach wealth, and for heirs to keep it, if its properly managed. The issue is they should be able to lose it thru squander. Bail outs, lobbying, regulatory capture, prevent that natural ineptitude from taking place (securing thru connections what heirs couldn't do like their predecessors....that is, satisfying customers or creating shrewd innovation).

[renewiltord]

Well, since r > g, you will get wealth concentration if you have lower fertility rates.

[theonething]

I don't get it. What business is it of ours if a wealthy person passes their wealth to their progeny?

[alpha_squared]

Wealth is finite, despite how much some like to claim it's not zero-sum. Not everyone can be wealthy, so by definition there will be those who aren't. Inherited wealth allows the inheritors to start further along in wealth accumulation and widens the gap between the wealthy and those who aren't. That then locks up wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

[koonsolo]

I feel sad for you that you think people cannot create something from nothing.

So if you gain something, does that means somebody else needs to lose? Is that how people justify stealing or scamming? Or is that how they cope with their envy that rich people must be stealing or scamming.

I once knew a person that had this theory about happiness. If someone is happy, someone else needs to be sad.

I feel sad for anyone who has this mindset. It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy.

[Shacklz]

> It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy.

If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM).

He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in my opinion, makes a strong point that a society built on a "win-win" culture is bound to be doomed.

[not1ofU]

Thanks for posting this. About 20 minutes in, and he is talking about how to break google up, at google... nice. To the comment section (first comment):

"To those at Google watching this who don't know the story: Google initially decided, for the first time in its history, to not publish this video to its Talks at Google site here on YouTube after it was recorded. This presentation was given on the second week of September, note the publishing time lag. Giridharadas contacted Google to ask why, and his contact said "I'm not on that team anymore" and was blown off. He then leaked the story to a leading tech journalist, who started calling Google for comment because she was working on a story about why, for the first time ever, a Talks at Google video was not published. They published it the same week -- obviously reluctantly and under pressure. The only reason you're seeing this guys is because power is doing damage control. . Wake the f** up."

[7952]

Not the parent, but I think that is a bit harsh. Their definitely is a practical limit to the amount of resources humanity has immediate access to. Be that time, raw materials, capital or whatever. There obviously are ways to make those resources go further. But that is beyond the ability and scope of most of us to achieve. And wealth gives you the spare time and money to go look for those opportunities. I agree that the mindset of zero sum game is bad for you and society. But there are still real constraints.

[fighterpilot]

It's quite to me natural to me, and I think Adam Smith is off base here.

If the parents earned that wealth through voluntary exchange, and they didn't do so by exploiting negative externalities, then it's theirs to do with as they wish. If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them, start a charity, or give it all to their kids, that's their prerogative.

It follows from the concept of private property. The parents earned that wealth at one point, in that someone voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for subjective utility of equal or greater value.

What right is it of yours to take it away from them just because you don't approve of the way they're spending it? They can buy 500 Ferraris but can't give it to their kids?

In my view it's plain theft dressed up in layers of abstraction and indirection just to hide that fact. (No, not all taxation is theft, as some level is necessary, but swiping half or all of someone's property is).

[LimaBearz]

I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care. I agree ideologically with Adam’s premise though. It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it.

The accumulation of wealth across multiple generations has an extremely long history spanning back centuries of corruption, self dealing, preferentially treatment, and the hoarding of the more desirable assets (land for example) that the heirs did not earn or work for and cannot be enjoyed by a new entrant in the market. Being entitled to something because of your blood is fundamentally unamerican. We fought for our independence from such a system.

This country.. at least as how I was raised was one of grit, hard work, and innovation which determined who you’d be in life. A country where anyone with a novel idea or ruthless cunning can carve out a slice for themselves. The idea of inheritance undermines that, heirs did not earn anything by being born to the right parent, own things they did not work for.

This country is too young to have the problems of some European nations past but I think it’s starting to go that way. I think the founders saw the problems caused by bloodline rule and heirs and didn’t want that here.

There should be no inheritance. The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am. If a parent is wealthy then the kids will enjoy a life of potential high society, connections, and Ivy League educations, but they have to make it for themselves. I stand firmly behind that American ideal

[fighterpilot]

  >  the heirs did not earn or work for.

  >  heirs have an advantage they themselves did not earn, own things they did not work for.

The heirs did earn it, in the same way that anyone earns anything. Agent X voluntarily gave something to agent Y in exchange for something of equal or greater subjective value.

In this case, the parent (X) gave their wealth to their child (Y), and in return they get to satisfy their "empire"- and family- building ambition, which in subjective utility terms to them is superior to alternative uses of that wealth. Perhaps they've been working all their life for this motivation, it drives many people. A perceived level of accomplishment that extends post-death.

That's the nature of a decentralized, high-freedom world. X and Y will often transact and it's not clear what the subjective value exchange is.

As long as that transaction isn't hurting you through negative externalities, it's my opinion that you have no business interfering in that transaction.

  >  I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care.

I believe you do.

If at age 60, they buy 500 Ferraris, that's okay. If at age 60, they instead send that wealth to their kids, that's not okay.

The former transaction (wealth <--> Ferraris) is okay.

The latter transaction (wealth <--> subjective value from family/empire-building) is not okay.

Personally, if I was rich, I would derive much higher subjective value from giving that wealth to my kids than buying 500 Ferraris.

  > The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am.

Charity beneficiaries "don't work" for the money that's given to them. Are they entitled to it more than you?

I would say yes, because it was a voluntary exchange from the charity to that individual. We've no business in interfering in that.

We may think that the purpose of the charity is stupid, but that's the private, decentralized decision that they've come to with their own wealth.

  > It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it.

I don't put too much weight on these broad utilitarian arguments.

In practice, it so often ends with an undesirable outcome. If we did a 100% inheritance tax, do we know the impact on frivolous consumption or people's motivations?

In theory, nobody is really a utilitarian anyway, people's determinations come from biological/a priori frameworks and a subjective sense of fairness and justice with a tinge of impact from jealousy and self-interest (I'm not accusing you of that).

Reasoning from a set of basic axioms which generally, but not always, point in the right direction has a better track record, in my opinion.

  >  (like plots of lands)

A land tax would be great.

[LimaBearz]

It’s hella late so I’ll keep it short. I’ll just say I love the land tax idea. I’ve been toying with that idea in my head. It does seem like it would solve a lot of issues we’ve been facing.

And honestly I’d rather them buy 1000 Ferarris and crash every single one. I don’t even care if it doesn’t go to the government, on a more serious note it could all go to the American Cancer Society or a charity of their choosing, or local municipality…

I’ve personally committed to dying poor. I’ve met trust fund kids (not that I’m anywhere near that level) but money breeds entitlement, especially at a young age where they may not be emotionally ready. That’s not something I want for my kids. We’re all in tech here, we do well enough to corrupt at least a little

And it’s still unamerican.

[thro-a-wei]

I'm conflicted on this one, as I have a non-nuerotypical child who may (or may not) be able to enter the workforce when they grow up. If the US had an acceptable social safety net, I'd be all for 100% inheritance tax. Since the social safety net is threadbare, part of my motivation for gathering wealth is so that my child will have a decent life, even if they may not be able to work a single day of their life.

I guess the impersonal, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps "rugged individualism" aspect of Americanness clashes with family I'll-help-in-every-way-I-can collectivism - how do you square that circle?

[scatters]

> If they want to pay 1000 people to fan them

Then the transaction will be taxed as income for those 1000 people. Gifts to children, particularly adult children, should be similarly taxed as income whether they are passed while the parents are alive or when they die.