Re:Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality
by pyuser583 on Monday December 09, 2019 @04:23AM
(#21741363)
It’s not so much the perfect being the enemy of the good, as the fundamental point being missed.
The goal is to prevent persistent, cross-generational inequality. High inheritance taxes simply won’t accomplish this. Or even come close.
The only policy that had ever achieved the sort of field-evening you want is a very strong public sector.
Providing quality education, job, opportunities to everyone (or at least lots of people).
A good example is Sweden. Sweden had massive asset-inequality. A handful of families are massively wealthy, and the successfully pass that wealth down generations.
Yet Sweden had little income inequality, because of their strong public services.
Re:Economists Are Rethinking the Numbers on Inequality
by FeloniousHam on Monday December 09, 2019 @10:45AM
(#21743555)
My complaint with inheritance is not that perpetuates income inequality (though it may do that). I don't care about income inequality in the abstract, it bothers me not a whit that multi-billionaires prosper while the poorest in the US live merely pretty OK lives.
I simply hate the unfairness of this particular form of wealth transfer: the winners hit the jackpot without even buying a ticket.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good enough. Inequality is a fundamental part of human existence, but I'd prefer that inequality to be as much as possible an expression of individual merit rather than a financial windfall as a result of parental success.
As I mention in another reply, your "inheritance" is what you get while your parents are alive.