Live data from Hacker News

Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists

theguardian.com

231–236 of 236 posts

Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists

#231
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, almost all parents want the best for their children. But not every child has a parent that can or wants to provide the best for them. You are framing the issue as a right you have for society to provide for your children when you are dead. I am framing the issue as a right everyone has for society to provide for them, irregardless of who their parents were when those parents were still alive.

[dead]

Are you and kfterrg67 the same person? Ban evasion?

Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists

#232
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more of a problem that the money is only used to make more money rather than being used for services or productive work.

But... money becomes more money precisely because it's invested into companies that sell products and services that people buy, and use most of that money to pay employees, office rent, factories etc. Or in other words: money grows if you use it. If you just put it in a bank account it slowly erodes away under inflation.

that's the catch-22 type deal in the end which makes wealth-inequality the only outcome as the super-wealthy will always benefit more than everyone else when that money is spent and there is no incentive to limit growth

personally I think the only real solution is slowing down by reducing incentives to keep growing money (or stock value) by implementing some kind of tax ceiling in turn slowing down innovation and instead hoping that giving more people the ability to grow (easier access to education, healthcare, opportunity) eventually outweights the disadvantages of having such a ceiling

Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists

#233
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, almost all parents want the best for their children. But not every child has a parent that can or wants to provide the best for them. You are framing the issue as a right you have for society to provide for your children when you are dead. I am framing the issue as a right everyone has for society to provide for them, irregardless of who their parents were when those parents were still alive.

[dead]

> I would respect you far more if you candidly admitted that you are violently envious of wealthier and happier families, and wish to manipulate the levers of the state to crush them and steal their property on your behalf.

I don't think that is accurate, but let me try to get as close as possible with something that is accurate:

* I am not envious of people with wealthy and happy families. After all, I have exactly such a family.

* I am empathetic with people that don't have such a family.

* I recognise that there are a lot of the former, who are wealthy beyond their needs due to no merit of their own, while there are a lot of the latter who live below their needs despite their merits.

* I want the state to provide for the poor up to what they need, and to fund it they can take some from the rich who got it without merit.

* Inheritance is the perfect place. After all, the estate is given for neither merit nor need. And the owner of the estate doesn't exist anymore, so has no more moral rights.

Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists

#235
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

> I would respect you far more if you candidly admitted that you are violently envious of wealthier and happier families, and wish to manipulate the levers of the state to crush them and steal their property on your behalf. I don't think that is accurate, but let me try to get as close as possible with something that is accurate: * I am not envious of people with wealthy and happy families. After all, I have exactly…

You really need to think about all of this a lot more. I know you think you are advocating for nice things but this is evil. It's wrong.

>the owner of the estate doesn't exist anymore, so has no more moral rights

This is psychopathic. By this logic, it's open season as soon as a person's heart stops. Feed the body to your dogs, rape their corpse, burn it, cut it up for fun, set their car on fire, smash your way into their house and shit on the floor... They have no rights, right? So none of this is wrong. There is no victim. No right has been violated.

Here's a little tip for you: You can donate your children's would-be inheritance voluntarily. Nobody is stopping you. If you really believe you haven't earned your wealth, you have no right to it as soon as you're gone, and random strangers deserve it more than your own children, then do that. I fully support that. But leave my family out of it. Stop cowardly nagging the state to carry out your crimes.

Re: Over $70T of inherited wealth over next decade will widen inequality, economists

#236

Aside: Inheritance laws are one of those little thought of things that end up making huge differences in a society. The classic one is the changes in Sparta’s inheritance system that essentially caused their downfall. Originally every citizen had an equal plot of land, the economic base that allowed him to be a hoplite (Sparta help ~80% of their population as slaves, helots, as state property). But as Spartan men die…

Thank you for this perspective. It's very clarifying.. through this lens it makes a lot of sense that periods after large scale military endeavors lead to egalitarian moments. All these citizen soldiers so to speak will demand their share and elites will feel it is owed
Post reply on HN