41–50 of 236 posts
That is the way of the world, capitalism specifically. The only way to counter is a fair tax system and good spending on education up to college level.
Capitalism creates inequality, but in a socialism/communism economy there would be either no money or no goods. Everyone would be equally poor, not just some.
European social democracies are among the top of the wealthiest countries in the world.
1) set a generous threshold over which your inheritance gets taxed, inflation adjusted (e.g, 2M not including the principal residence) 2) tax 100% above it. (should only concern a fraction of a fraction of cases) 3) put all this tax's proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund 4) at 21, a citizen gets access to her redistributed generational wealth 5) profit
The benefits of wealth are exercised long before the inheritance can be applied.
Your first home down payment, your education, your wealth generation while being on support by your parents, etc. - will push you off the ground faster, than any inheritance in a world where people easily live to 80-90. Most people hit retirement age, by the time their parents pass away.
1) set a generous threshold over which your inheritance gets taxed, inflation adjusted (e.g, 2M not including the principal residence) 2) tax 100% above it. (should only concern a fraction of a fraction of cases) 3) put all this tax's proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund 4) at 21, a citizen gets access to her redistributed generational wealth 5) profit
6) wonder why this has no real impact as it only recovers wealth from people who are over $2m in wealth but below set-up-a-trust-to-move-your-families-money-to wealth, which is a fraction of the wealth. 7) See trust-as-a-service businesses boom until there's no additional revenue.
The work of Piketty [0] and others shows that wealth inequality has surpassed pre-WWI historical maximums. The postwar "golden age of capitalism" has given way, from the 70s until today, to a neoliberal system that simply doesn't serve most people on the planet. It's an unfortunate fact that significant change happens rarely without large convulsions, e.g. after a major war, because I don't see this being sustainable…
I would not cite Piketty, Zucman or Saez who are the hardest fighters of the wealth inequality thesis as they usually mix political advocacy and have been criticized in their methodology and have been under a fair share of controversies. Btw I have grouped them because this is how they are usually treated, both by the fact they are all French economists but also on the fact they all push for the same inequality thesi…
Who has not been criticize in their methodology? Who do you expect to avoid any amount of "controversies" for such a political subject?
Your comment seems to be pure ad hominem. Also, discarding authors because they're French is kinda stupid: historically, quick advances in a field most often start at one time and place.
This is just wrong. If we skip the ultra rich totally and focus on normal families inheritance is THE way to help you decendants. Right now (where i live) you pay a big tax on inheritance, this is ok if you only inherit cash. In 99% of inheritances this is not the case. You inherit family home, a cottage etc. Then you must sell because you cant afford to pay for it. Now the asset is gone forever and the next generati…
You can sell the asset, so how does anyone inherit nothing? Someone who wants to spend an inheritance is going to do it, whether it’s liquid (cash) or marginally less so (real property)
The work of Piketty [0] and others shows that wealth inequality has surpassed pre-WWI historical maximums. The postwar "golden age of capitalism" has given way, from the 70s until today, to a neoliberal system that simply doesn't serve most people on the planet. It's an unfortunate fact that significant change happens rarely without large convulsions, e.g. after a major war, because I don't see this being sustainable…
I would not cite Piketty, Zucman or Saez who are the hardest fighters of the wealth inequality thesis as they usually mix political advocacy and have been criticized in their methodology and have been under a fair share of controversies. Btw I have grouped them because this is how they are usually treated, both by the fact they are all French economists but also on the fact they all push for the same inequality thesi…
1) set a generous threshold over which your inheritance gets taxed, inflation adjusted (e.g, 2M not including the principal residence) 2) tax 100% above it. (should only concern a fraction of a fraction of cases) 3) put all this tax's proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund 4) at 21, a citizen gets access to her redistributed generational wealth 5) profit
I think the bigger issue is that people are hording wealth instead of spending it in general making money work for them and not for the greater economy which is the only thing giving their money substance long-term. Well, long-term is longer than human lifetime so I guess there's no real reason for them to worry about it either.
There is some kind of bizarre world that we live in that the article has a quote from Ramaphosa, the totality of his extraordinary wealth was generated by corruption, on the terrors of inequality.
Hoarding is, generally, not a real problem because it requires believing that wealthy people are not greedy. The problem is that most societies heavily incentivize irrational behaviour through disincentivizing investment. Strangely, these same places also have political cultures that focus heavily on inequality (again, there is no better example than South Africa) because genuine openness tends to be very disruptive politically.
There is no way to square the circle. The solutions are known, the problem is that human nature and political culture tends to prevent those solutions being realised (as it is more politically beneficial to continue to sell people lies: it is this group of people, they are the problem, if we can take their money and give it you then you will be rich).
This is just wrong. If we skip the ultra rich totally and focus on normal families inheritance is THE way to help you decendants. Right now (where i live) you pay a big tax on inheritance, this is ok if you only inherit cash. In 99% of inheritances this is not the case. You inherit family home, a cottage etc. Then you must sell because you cant afford to pay for it. Now the asset is gone forever and the next generati…
The inheritance tax has to go somewhere. It could go into science and infrastructure and then everyone gets richer. Or it could be paid out as a dividend, then everyone below the average gets richer. There are many options here. Just saying "inheritance tax bad" without talking about the output side of such a tax is by definition going to be... well.. weird.