There may be reasons unrelated to investment risk. For example, the risk of losing an earned income stream because my (assumed honest) employer (fires me, goes bankrupt, etc.) seems much higher than the risk of losing an unearned income stream based on my investment in bonds backed by the US government.
I think they where talking not about tbills, guilts or consols but riskier shares
The rise of passive investment strategies has neatly proved that no skill and little luck is required to grow existing capital in the modern society.
Double taxation doesn't mean anything in this context. We tax transactions, not specific euros. Income tax when an employer pays their employee. Inheritance tax once the money goes from the deceased to the heirs. These are separate things! And no different than, say, VAT on that iPhone. Sure it's between family members , but in the vast majority of cases all parties are independent adults. The land you inherit is not…
> The land you inherit is not "justly yours". It was the previous owner's thing. You are getting it but it is not your divine right, except that you won the birth lottery by being born into this family. Of course those arguments apply to governments as well, since they don't derive their law-making authority by claim to divinity - at least in modern times. Why should a government be specially privileged over a citize…
> Of course those arguments apply to governments as well, since they don't derive their law-making authority by claim to divinity - at least in modern times.
You could use that statement to argue about anything a government does. Why does the inheritance tax need a special justification?
It is quite sad, but predictable, that people are trying to silence your voice with their votes. Piketty’s observations dovetail nearly with this article. And a world where r>g, and inherited wealth dominates is a world of economic inefficiency; where lucky sperm dominate all aspects of life regardless of their talent or their value.
The flawed thinking that wealth is a pie of fixed size wherein gain by one is necessarily another’s loss is known as mercantilism and was long ago discredited as bunk economics.
> the tax system treats unearned income and wealth more favourably than earned income. The income was taxed when it was earned. What reason is there to tax it twice? > how you feel about in increase in unearned income flowing to the wealthy I guess. Or about how you feel about the government's use of it's citizen's resources. Why should wealth earned by the breadwinner of the family, not remain with the family? It's…
Why do you tax income? That's a disincentive to be productive, that's not good - we want people to be productive. Taxing wealth is basically paying a rent to the society that allows that wealth to exist. Your land in manhattan is only worth $10m because society hasn't gone all Syrian. Your copyright holding over your film is only worth anything because we don't let people freely copy it. When the wealth is owned by t…
> The land you inherit is not "justly yours". It was the previous owner's thing. You are getting it but it is not your divine right, except that you won the birth lottery by being born into this family. Of course those arguments apply to governments as well, since they don't derive their law-making authority by claim to divinity - at least in modern times. Why should a government be specially privileged over a citize…
> Of course those arguments apply to governments as well, since they don't derive their law-making authority by claim to divinity - at least in modern times. You could use that statement to argue about anything a government does. Why does the inheritance tax need a special justification?
> Fascinating chart: more than half of all private wealth has been inherited in Germany, UK, Switzerland, France — trend: rising fast! > Ever less private wealth is accumulated through own work, increasingly more through inheritance. A massive part of people's motivation to work is to provide for their children. That an increasing portion of wealth is inherited rather than build in an individual's working life-time i…
Modern inheritance should be inherently dissipative, as the estate is repeatedly divided among the heirs, amplified by death/inheritance/estate taxation. The problems arise when the wealth accumulation overpowers the dissipative effect of inheritance, combined with increasingly absurdly high wealth levels that go far beyond providing for children and grandchildren. As for the "golden area" you mentioned; yes, the war…
Wouldn't the trend towards fewer children and smaller families decrease the dissipative effect? In the extreme case of a "one child" policy, inheritance would be amplified because the wealth of both parents (and presumably four sets of grandparents) would flow to a single individual. Similar to assortive mating, if wealthier families had fewer children relative to poorer families, then this would worsen inequality over time.
A massive part of people's motivation to work is to provide for their children. >That an increasing portion of wealth is inherited rather than build in an individual's working life-time is indicative that the system is function as intended. No, it just signals that the tax system treats unearned income and wealth more favourably than earned income. Political choices. How you feel about that depends upon how you feel…
> the tax system treats unearned income and wealth more favourably than earned income. The income was taxed when it was earned. What reason is there to tax it twice? > how you feel about in increase in unearned income flowing to the wealthy I guess. Or about how you feel about the government's use of it's citizen's resources. Why should wealth earned by the breadwinner of the family, not remain with the family? It's…
We hear a lot in these parts about corporate greed, but curiously nothing about state greed.
I was just discussing this as a result of watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-asltUUvcGU in which they discuss the result of the western capitalist system loosely resembling a meritocracy, except in the case of inherited wealth. An exceptionally productive individual can generate billions, but then when he dies the money goes to his heirs which may not have done anything to deserve commanding that m…
I encourage you to read The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas Stanley because it will disabuse you of these and many other prejudices.