Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#61

Post by pcrh »

kriro wrote: post #48
Nomentatus wrote: post #31

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…

I have had heated debates over inheritance taxes. I'm strongly against them because I don't like the signaling effect (if you work really hard, the government will take half of it) and it's a strange form of multi-taxation which is also questionable from my POV. I'm very family driven and I think "working hard to make the life of your children better" is a very strong motivator that should not be underestimated. The…

I'm in favor of inheritance taxes as I see it as taxing income of the inheritors. I don't see any rational reason why income from this one source should be exempt of taxation.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#62

Post by vixen99 »

motoboi wrote: post #23
conistonwater wrote: post #14

> taxpayers data in 1427 was digitized and made available online Wow, the Renaissance was really ahead of its time.

If I recall correctly, they invented banking. So, yes, they were really advanced.

Yes, indeed because it allowed wealth creation (=businesses) to flourish. Lending is an act of faith in the future.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#64

Post by pcrh »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #57
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but agriculture became less a source of great wealth during the industrial revolution. Trade probably continued to be quite profitable, though.

Agriculture isn't the way to riches anymore, but holding all the former farmland is. Say your ancestor Rich Grosvenor owned the village of Belgrave near Westminster Cathedral and the farmland around it - then just by holding on to it, watching it as it becomes prime urban real estate and living off the million-pound rents you and your children can't avoid becoming billionaires a dozen times over. Then you can proceed…

This phenomenon is exacerbated by selling leases rather than freehold rights. A leasehold may expire after 99 years, at which point it reverts to the original freeholders and can be sold again. In this manner the same land can be sold repeatedly, generation after generation, and is how the Grovenor family acquired such huge wealth.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#65

Post by rconti »

jstanley wrote: post #58
nugget wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Can you talk us through what exactly it is that we misunderstand, and what the correction would be?

nugget was concurring with what the parent post said; that people don't understand that the wealth tax is irrelevant and that money is instead passed down via trusts that are designed so as not touched by the wealth tax.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#66

Post by rconti »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #60
sologoub wrote: post #47

From the original source: "Stated differently, being the descendants of the Bernardi family (at the 90th percentile of earnings distribution in 1427) instead of the Grasso family (10th percentile of the same distribution) would entail a 5% increase in earnings among current taxpayers (after adjusting for age and gender)." http://voxeu.org/article/what-s-your-surname-intergeneration... So 5% extra as the result of bei…

On the contrary, it is staggering that a result is still present after 30 generations of splitting the family wealth. Even on the assumption that the rich only have 2-3 children, a billion-dollar inheritance should be diluted to nearly nothing after 15 generations. And with the 4-8 children that were usual back in the day, in less than 10 generations. Having such a massive difference that it can be traced by very low…

But it's earnings, not wealth. 5% isn't that much. 5% might be name recognition leading to more favorable outcomes when searching for employment. Hell, it might be genetic -- 5% might be from merely being TALLER.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#67

Post by OscarCunningham »

nom wrote: post #36
trapperkeeper79 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hilarious. Given that the world's population is 7 billion today, we started with (7x2) people 600 years ago? LOL. Doesn't check out.

Hilarious indeed. Are you aware that people die? :D

It's not forgetting death that's the error; it's forgetting that people have 2^30 ancestors from 30 generations ago rather than just one. Everyone's family tree grows exponentially, but they all overlap.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#68

Post by realusername »

valuearb wrote: post #38
forkandwait wrote: post #33

"the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" -- Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.

To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. To a man with a hammer and sickle, every problem is a class struggle.

To a liberal, every problem is a market problem

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#69

Post by OscarCunningham »

I think that this effect will have ended with modern gender equality. Each family has on average only one male child per generation, so if you consistently pass the money down to your son (the child with the same surname as you) then it will last a long time. But these days it's more common to give money to all your children, so it's halved at every generation.

Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)

#70

Post by altstar »

pcrh wrote: post #61
kriro wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had heated debates over inheritance taxes. I'm strongly against them because I don't like the signaling effect (if you work really hard, the government will take half of it) and it's a strange form of multi-taxation which is also questionable from my POV. I'm very family driven and I think "working hard to make the life of your children better" is a very strong motivator that should not be underestimated. The…

I'm in favor of inheritance taxes as I see it as taxing income of the inheritors. I don't see any rational reason why income from this one source should be exempt of taxation.

One reason can be double taxation. Normally all income and capital growth would already have been taxed.
Post reply on HN