41–50 of 95 posts
To a normal person the title is an argument against taxation. To a socialist it's the proof that taxes ought to be higher.
Anything but, the title literally states that social mobility in Florence is very low, and that capital is more valuable than labor. Bring back the death tax at 90%!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything but, the title literally states that social mobility in Florence is very low, and that capital is more valuable than labor. Bring back the death tax at 90%!
He is calling you a socialist, and implying that you are not normal.
No article last year held me in such horror as this one. I haven't dared even discuss it with anyone until now. It still takes my breath away. Especially because the U.S. now has less class mobility than most of Europe does. Automation is likely to be a "Yuuge" force multiplier for societal stratification; certainly modest minimum annual income grants aren't going to change that. All my life I've wanted to believe ev…
Europe is big. I don't think the United States is less mobile than Italia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, several states have repealed the common law rule against perpetuities entirely. Long story short, rich people can create trusts that pay a steady income to their families for as long as they want, including for hundreds of years. There's no estate tax upon your death because the assets were already transferred. The assets aren't taxed on transfer, either, but only as they're paid out to the beneficiari…
It's become painful to me to listen to most well-intentioned folks debate estate taxes and wealth inequality. So few understand what wahern describes above. The whole debate is a school of red herrings. European tax law is even more of a mess than the US in this regard; even if some practices are eventually ended here, whether in 10 years or 100 years, I have little doubt they will continue on unabated most everywher…
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
So 5% extra as the result of being related to a wealthier family 600 years ago. While definitely remarkable when considering how much happened during that time that should have destroyed wealth, it's far from apocalyptic.
There seems to be no implication that the descendants do not have to work either, just that they earn slightly more.
No article last year held me in such horror as this one. I haven't dared even discuss it with anyone until now. It still takes my breath away. Especially because the U.S. now has less class mobility than most of Europe does. Automation is likely to be a "Yuuge" force multiplier for societal stratification; certainly modest minimum annual income grants aren't going to change that. All my life I've wanted to believe ev…
The counterargument is usually "well let's set the cap at X million" which I find very problematic because I don't see an ethically sound way of defining these lines in the sand. Additionally in the age of webscale(tm) it's reasonably possible to start a "new dynasty" from scratch. Unfortunately most of these debates tend to boil down to "the rich are evil" which is usually when I use interest in them.
I've only roughly browsed the study but the effects aren't that big compared to compound interest from 1427 to now. If anything I'd argue the rich are still rich but not as rich as expected is the take away message.
Over 600 years, a family of 4 becomes a family of thousands. Take any reasonable sum of money and divide it by 20,000 and its not that big of a sum of money anymore.