[boxed]

> The benefits of wealth are exercised long before the inheritance can be applied.

Agreed.

But isn't that an argument FOR a strong inheritance tax? Because inheritance doesn't actually help your children anyway? That seems like it was your argument.

With that argument taking 100% of the inheritance as tax and taking 0% is exactly the same, as the wealth transfer was done before anyway.

[JAlexoid]

The only thing that I personally care about is the ability of ordinary people to build and retain wealth.

Wealth disparity doesn't grow because wealthy people are allowed to retain their generational wealth or not, it grows because the rest can't build and retain their wealth.

This isn't a zero sum game.

PS: I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes. So I would rather the children of wealthy people squander their wealth, than a politician transfer that wealth to their patron.

[boxed]

> The only thing that I personally care about is the ability of ordinary people to build and retain wealth.

Why? Just "having wealth" isn't important in itself, it's just a number in a computer. So there is something else you are trying to get at. What is it?

> Wealth disparity doesn't grow because wealthy people are allowed to retain their generational wealth or not, it grows because the rest can't build and retain their wealth.

Disparity happens when two groups diverge. That's what disparity means. As long as the richest have a higher growth rate, the disparity grows.

> This isn't a zero sum game.

That's a different conversation though. You talked about wealth disparity, not about quality of living or something. THERE it's not a zero sum game. But in wealth disparity it is by definition a zero sum game.

> I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes.

But you would trust the wealthy? Ok.. but...

> So I would rather the children of wealthy people squander their wealth, than a politician transfer that wealth to their patron.

So you don't trust the wealthy either?

I don't understand what you are arguing at this point.

[johnnyanmac]

>Wealth disparity doesn't grow because wealthy people are allowed to retain their generational wealth or not,

Yeah it does. The way compounding interest works means at some point that your passive accumulation of savings will outpace what most workers can earn as a salary. You can't really combat that by throwing more money at workers.

It's just mathematically impossible to let wealth run rampant in an individual like that and expect everyone to keep up with their limited hours of energy.

>This isn't a zero sum game.

It isn't. But with modern labor habits the billionaires want to make it one. That's why there isn't such thing as an 'earned billionaire'. They take from workers, lobby government to pay less, engage on anti-competitive behavior, or outright commit crimes to get to that point. The best case billionaire merely inherits the wealth and lets it accumulate, but I don't see many people like that these days who also don't fall into the other points.

>I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes.

Well someone has to. The us government has most things in record, so they are the easiest to audit.

This is more a sign that we need to pay more attention to politics and trustworthy figures who will self regulate. As in, pass laws that hold them and future policy makers in check.

[shoubidouwah]

> I would also not trust the government or any political body to handle income from the inheritance taxes

thus the importance of the sovereign fund.