71–80 of 95 posts
This is hard to believe. 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.
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. 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.
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…
Not if your children exclusively marry other wealthy people. Then the rate of dilution depends primarily on the growth in the overall population of the wealthy in each generation. The Italian population overall has quintupled since the 1400s, even if we make an allowance for the wealthy having more living children who reproduced, the wealth will not have diluted away completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Inheritance tax is not an effective way to avoid this. A different solution is needed
One of the reasons Bill Gate's father among others were campaigning against the repeal of "Estate Taxes" was so we wouldn't have a permanent wealthy class in the US. (Estate taxes are taxes paid on your money when you pass away before being distributed. Right now I think its only on holdings over 5million) http://billmoyers.com/2015/04/18/william-gates-sr/
I don't understand this. Assuming no inbreeding, families that consistently have 2 kids roughly double in size every generation - a 600-year-old family would have 1 billion unique descendants by now. Of course, there is a ton of inbreeding - in the technical sense - but I still have a hard time imagining a 600 year continuous family line that isn't a pretty arbitrary chart of certain descendants here and there. It's…
You'd need a higher rate to grow just based on that, plus there are untimely deaths and non-reproducing offspring...
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
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…
Control of the distribution of wealth and income is certainly a tricky, multi-faceted challenge that society had to face since the beginning of civilization, and certainly will have to face many a day.
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.
same as if you sell a thing you already paid VAT for - new buyer then should also pay VAT on selling price, right? foreign person shouldn't be favored better than your own children.