[geofft]

They face huge political opposition because rich people have the means to create that opposition (through all sorts of mechanisms from bribery on the one extreme to subtly influencing popular media to create the perception that wealth accumulation is a virtue on the other extreme).

That means that any policy at all that effectively solves the problem will face opposition - or in other words, if your proposed policy somehow doesn't face opposition, it means the rich families have figured out a loophole in it that lets them keep their money and power.

You have to figure out either a way to get this done despite opposition or a way to break their ability to effectively create opposition.

[seibelj]

Wealth accumulation, i.e. “savings”, is a virtue. Benjamin Franklin is known for the phrase “a penny saved is a penny earned.” It is extremely common to want to leave a legacy to your kids after you die - this is a natural, human trait.

[geofft]

I don't think "A penny saved is a penny earned" is advocating virtue, just strategy. The phrase predated Ben Franklin; the first written source seems to be George Herbert's 1640 Outlandish Proverbs, which has it in the form "A penny spared is twice got" - a bit clearer in that it's about effectiveness and not the moral value of either saving or earning. It's also got phrases like "Ever since we wear clothes, we know not one another," which is very clearly an observation and not a statement about the virtue of nudity!

Herbert does include some quotes that advocate virtue, though, including "Great alms-giving lessens no man's living," "Poor and liberal, rich and covetous," "Wealth is like rheume [a cold]: it falls on the weakest parts," "He is not poor that hath little, but he that desireth much," and "Honor and profit lie not in one sack."

Franklin quotes the phrase in a column "Hints for those that would be rich" (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-02-02-00...), which isn't about earning money and isn't even primarily about savings; it's about not buying unnecessary things on credit and paying interest on it forever. Sound advice, but again, more strategic than moralistic.

I also think that it's natural and human to want to leave a legacy to your kids. It is unnatural and inhumane to leave them such a legacy that they don't have to work at all; there's a reason "trust fund kids" are a stereotype. The article talks about inheritances on the orders of billions, richer than even monarchic dynasties of centuries past, which aren't particularly considered exemplars of virtuous resource allocation these days. (Even Queen Elizabeth II has a personal net worth of only half a billion dollars.) That's well beyond a "legacy."

Anyway, thank you for providing a perfect example of the actual battle here. So long as people believe the propaganda that giving your children billions of dollars is simply the larger-scale version of the virtue of working an honest job and living frugally, they'll hold on to their power.

[seibelj]

The government has the ability to print and spend trillions easily and quickly. When one person, exclusively through the private sector system by generating value for customers, creates enough value to obtain billions of dollars, it’s a great thing. I like that private people have billions of dollars - with a fraction of the resources of the state, private people and entities accomplish magnitudes better outcomes, products, and services.

I say, let’s allow some people to have large resources. If they inherited it, their ancestor usually earned it via a company, or that is the vast majority of the cases nowadays. Wanting to seize a family’s money is because of envy, or because you fear private power. I myself am not envious and also wish there was more private and decentralized power.

[DrNosferatu]

I would say the real problem here is that the 0.1% *of today* are hoarding capital just for their families to an extreme level. Instead of giving back their fair share to the very same Society that provided the ground conditions for them to profit.

Let's not forget that during the eight years of the Eisenhower *Republican* Administration, from 1953 to 1961, the top *marginal* tax rate was 91 percent. (...and it was 92 percent the year he came into office.) [1]

People won't tolerate eternally these levels of material Precarity and Inequality. And like in the 1930s, they will lead to Fascism.

PS: Seibelj, "Trickle-Down Economics" has been repeatedly proven to be a myth and not to work in reality. [2]

1 - [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/15/bernie-san...]

2 - [[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/23/tax-cuts-...]]

[seibelj]

I don’t know any definition of “wealth hoarding” nor what a “fair share” is that makes logical sense. It’s always some dollar amount where beneath it someone is a good citizen, and they make one more dollar and suddenly they are evil robber barons. Do you have a wealth amount that signifies someone is evil?

I don’t care about trickle down, I don’t care about rich people. Most of the huge problems in society - cost of housing, education, and healthcare, problems with the criminal justice system, problems with corporate welfare - are caused by the government themselves. The best parts of society that work like well-oiled machines are built and operate in the private sector.

It’s a philosophical difference of opinion - I like rich people and I’m happy that private entities have lots of resources and power. I don’t feel the need to steal from them out of envy.

[DrNosferatu]

Dear Geofft, I think aiming at a CWF would simply be a more attainable goal.

But what course of action do you purpose? Revolution? They're notoriously messy and difficult to implement...