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

81–90 of 95 posts

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

#81

Post by yummyfajitas »

gmunu wrote: post #51

Not surprisingly, the qz.com article distorts the meaning of the original paper and looking at the comments, they seem to follow the false, but suggested interpretation of the paper that qz gives. It's useful to note the title of the paper: What’s your (sur)name? Intergenerational mobility over six centuries. This paper is not tracking wealth, it's tracking income via tax records. It notes things like people who are…

This also looks like it's more work in the same direction as the "The Son Also Rises" ( http://amzn.to/2jFnUmZ ).

There are actually a lot of studies of this nature, across Europe, Asia and the Americas. This result is not unique to Florence - you get much the same result everywhere in the world.

Furthermore, this result seems primarily driven by factors intrinsic to the people/families themselves and not to the society they live in. There are a number of invisible subgroups (e.g. "New France", or people with names like Bauchau) which underperform or overperform across the generations. And when people shift from one society to another (e.g. West Bengal to America), the effects persist.

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

#82

Post by saalweachter »

nugget wrote: post #30
wahern wrote: post #26

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Unfortunately, several states have repealed the common law rule against perpetuities entirely.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…

I agree it is important to understand the loopholes, but the debate is still important: regardless of which side you fall on, it is important whether society thinks it is just or unjust for wealth to be propegated indefinitely and exactly to one's heirs.

In the US we have a mixed bag of libertarians who think it just and egalitarians who think it unjust. If you ever want to see either the token estate tax ended or the loopholes closed, and not just indefinitely moan over the imperfect world we live in, you have to make your case. Arguing over the estate tax is a reasonable proxy: if you could actually convince people the estate tax was important and necessary, they would also be inclined to believe we should close the loopholes.

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

#83

Post by [deleted] »

acomjean wrote: post #21

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/

[deleted]

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

#84

Post by _delirium »

dbcurtis wrote: post #76
acomjean wrote: post #21

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/

A low estate tax threshold is the destroyer of individual proprietorships and family farms. The impact on farm families is particularly caustic. If you want a world where only large corporations can farm, raise estate taxes.

The current U.S. federal estate tax threshold is so high ($5.5m for an individual, or $11m for a couple) that it only hits the wealthiest 0.2% of estates, not your typical small businessperson.

In addition, a large proportion of the "family farms" complaining about the estate tax are sham farms, essentially real-estate investment vehicles that throw a handful of cows on them in order to qualify for farm subsidies and property-tax exemptions. This is an especially popular kind of "family farm" in exurban Texas. There are genuine family farms, but they are much rarer than the number on paper, and typically don't, coincidentally, happen to hold as much prime investment land.

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

#86

Post by cableshaft »

gmunu wrote: post #51

Not surprisingly, the qz.com article distorts the meaning of the original paper and looking at the comments, they seem to follow the false, but suggested interpretation of the paper that qz gives. It's useful to note the title of the paper: What’s your (sur)name? Intergenerational mobility over six centuries. This paper is not tracking wealth, it's tracking income via tax records. It notes things like people who are…

But, but... the Medici rule the entire planet from their throne in outer space, Assassin's Creed told me so! (I didn't play much of the series, this is probably not legit). How dare your facts get in the way of my supernaturally attracted perception?

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

#87

Post by refurb »

acomjean wrote: post #21

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/

Countries without estate taxes: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, etc.

[1]https://taxfoundation.org/estate-and-inheritance-taxes-aroun...

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

#88

Post by eigenmeister »

trome wrote: post #43
geon wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is calling you a socialist, and implying that you are not normal.

I know and get that, he is an extremist that believes that the landed gentry deserve to rule over the landless serfs. I oppose that destructive policy, as it is a great way to stifle society as a whole and ensure we slide back towards the dark age.

Don't straw man his argument like that. I take it we both consider social mobility good for society. In that frame, defend the estate tax - does it improve social mobility? More than it costs? More efficiently than, say, a Georgist tax, or a basic income?

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

#89

Post by joshuaheard »

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…

In America, we call a version of this "redneck retirement" where a rural landowner is able to sell his property to a real estate developer when it is subsumed by urban sprawl.

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

#90

Post by refurb »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45
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…

> the U.S. now has less class mobility than most of Europe does Europe is big. I don't think the United States is less mobile than Italia.

You also have to account for the "spread" in classes. If income equality is lower, there is a greater spread in income from the bottom to the top. And the inverse if income equality is higher.

Thus, you could have someone in the US start out making $30K, then make $200K over their lifetime. Due to the spread in "classes", they might have only jumped up on class even though their income went up 6x.

In Europe, where the classes have less spread, someone could have gone from $30K to $100K and gone from the bottom to the top class.

Yes, mobility across classes is greater in Europe, but the American has the bigger increase in income.

Post reply on HN