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 everything this study disproves. My parents and grandparents worked very hard for their kids because they didn't thing this was really the way the world worked. But it certainly is. If I want to become damned depressed all I have to do is think about it. There's no reason not to enjoy the day 'cause of it, but it is more than a little demotivating.
The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
31–40 of 95 posts
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#32Earlier 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Unfortunately, several states have repealed the common law rule against perpetuities entirely.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…
Do you have a reference on the states and trusts which need to be foreclosed?
A quick Google search found a PDF with this list:
Eight states have repealed the rule against perpetuities.
These states are Alaska (repealed the rule for vesting of
property interests), Delaware (repealed entirely for
personal property interest held in trust; 110 year rule for
real property held directly in trust), Idaho, Kentucky
(repealing the rule interests in real or personal property),
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota.
Nine states have adopted longer fixed periods for the rule
against perpetuities, sometimes only for certain types of
property. These states are Alabama (100 years for property
not in trust; 360 years for property in trust), Arizona (500
years), Colorado (1,000 years), Delaware (110 years for real
property held in trust); Florida (360 years), Nevada (365
years), Tennessee (360 years), Utah (1,000 years),
Washington (150 years).
Source: http://www.actec.org/assets/1/6/Zaritsky_RAP_Survey.pdf
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#33"the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" -- Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a reference on the states and trusts which need to be foreclosed?
A quick Google search found a PDF with this list: Eight states have repealed the rule against perpetuities. These states are Alaska (repealed the rule for vesting of property interests), Delaware (repealed entirely for personal property interest held in trust; 110 year rule for real property held directly in trust), Idaho, Kentucky (repealing the rule interests in real or personal property), New Jersey, Pennsylvania,…
Trusts are able to move as well - so if a state passes unfavorable trust laws, trusts can (and will) re-domicile into friendlier jurisdictions.
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have a reference on the states and trusts which need to be foreclosed?
A quick Google search found a PDF with this list: Eight states have repealed the rule against perpetuities. These states are Alaska (repealed the rule for vesting of property interests), Delaware (repealed entirely for personal property interest held in trust; 110 year rule for real property held directly in trust), Idaho, Kentucky (repealing the rule interests in real or personal property), New Jersey, Pennsylvania,…
Which reminds me: there are of course plenty of foreign jurisdictions that allow you to create multi-generational trusts (or trust-like devices) without any problem.
If you were establishing a multi-generational trust you'd want to put it in a politically, economically, and legally stable jurisdiction. Historically those options were limited to the U.S., U.K., and maybe a couple of other European nations. That's less the case now. But who knows what the world will look like in a 100 years. There's plenty of reason to want to keep money in the U.S. So I wouldn't argue that U.S. law is inconsequential in the face of foreign options. I just don't see us returning to an earlier time wrt restraints on generational wealth transfers. The viability of foreign options makes it even more difficult to reverse the trend.
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
He just got to 2^30, which implies a 20 year generation time. Pretty reasonable before the 20th century.
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
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#37One 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/
Yea, I don't think higher estate taxes will change income distribution at all. There are many ways to pass money, and the real problem isn't inheritance, it's the insider class whose political connections get them government subsidies, handouts, competitive barriers, etc, to get far richer than they could in a free society.
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#38"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.
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#39To a normal person the title is an argument against taxation.
To a socialist it's the proof that taxes ought to be higher.
Re: The richest families in Florence in 1427 are still the richest (2016)
#40To a normal person the title is an argument against taxation. To a socialist it's the proof that taxes ought to be higher.
Anything but, the title literally states that social mobility in Florence is very low, and that capital is more valuable than labor. Bring back the death tax at 90%!