Because it's absolutely toxic for society as a whole if inequality gets amplified over generations.
Estate tax should ideally be 100% above a reasonable cap. And by "reasonable" I mean a sum definitely below "never needs to work to support a middle class lifestyle".
> If the first generation achieved success, should it be reset in the next one?
Yes, absolutely.
> Why?
Because many opportunities are essentially zero-sum.
But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself.
I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again.
Tbh, I think that happens naturally though usually after a society has destroyed itself due to the first problem.
It'll happen to this one too eventually, so I don't see the need specifically to try to structure things in a way that will never go wrong or end badly. I don't think you can actually accomplish that with any one structure. It seems to be a game where some people win until it's game over and everyone loses.
Just my 2c.
It's bad longe before it gets to that point, just less obvious.
> But at the same time it seems the pursuit of wealth engenders risk taking that brings about benefits for large swathes of society and turns society into a machine that constantly improves itself.
Putting a cap on inheritance would not impede that in the least. Quite the opposite: inequality prevents a lot of risk taking and improvement from happening.
> I like the game as it is, but perhaps a healthy modification would be to add a reset button where every couple of hundred years the slate is wiped clean and it all just starts again.
That doesn't sound healthy at all because it represents an unneccessarily huge disruption.
It's no different than you or I dying, just on a much bigger scale. It's a huge disruption, sure, but that's sort of the point. Civilizations come and go, as do the people in them. There are just too many variables for things to be able to persist in a stable state in perpetuity.
Very telling are those "ands" and what's left out: "successful and capable (implied: rich)". "marginalised and useless (implied: poor)". Those traits don't go together automatically at all unless you use circular logic to define them in the first place.
I perfectly understand why this stance makes people angry, but you haven't provided a single argument on why is it false.
Perhaps because you know those two things are linked?
I often think people that grow up in disadvantaged circumstances have a major problem a) Learning the wrong game. Sometimes one that ultimately gets you in trouble. b) not knowing how to play the other game. The one that unlocks all the opportunities.
What I find curious about this discussion, which often occurs when people discuss what advantages are fair and unfair, estate tax and the like, is that they perceive each human being as a completely independent actor. Whereas for me, at least, it's more natural to think in terms of families. If the first generation achieved success, should it be reset in the next one? Why? The example you're talking about, with people reaching incredibly high success from nothing, are exceptions; usually it takes two or three generations at least.
And it's never only about money. Family culture, outlook toward education, work ethic, etc, these things survive when the family loses all of it's fortune or goes through even more dramatic events — though it's easier to notice when you live in a country that lived through a couple of revolutions, bloody wars and a couple of genocides in the last century than in US.