This is just unfair to everyone. It is wrong, immoral, unethical to tax the wealth of people, if you don't account for other inequalities in life. The inequalities will persist, just that when assets, money isn't that medium of storage, people will only value looks and other things even more, because that's how you'd effectively store your wealth, untaxable. The genes of the people become the platform for storing wealth in that kind of world. The only place where breaking or taxing people' wealth is agreeable is when they become too powerful and above governments. No other excuse.
This is something seriously overlooked.
Why do some guys get all the girls and some don't. Isn't it unfair to those guys that they have their needs emotionally met just like any other successful humans? If you are so fair, fix these problems. Everyone has feelings, and it's not their fault that they're bitter about it.
Is it those men's mistake that they were born in this world? And they couldn't even do anything to rectify that problem when the baseline is so high to reach?
Everyday I read about these people and it makes me sad. Thankfully I don't have any of those problems, but I can't overlook those who do have them. Atleast they'd have a chance in todays world had they pushed themselves and become wealthier.
This isn't only about men, but women too.
When you save money and forgo pleasures, you aren't supposed to be penalized.
Western European programmers still live very well, they just aren't as rich as in the US. And the high taxes do moderate and blunt the cutthroat competition to a degree, which results in less crazy work life balance etc.
Of course these debates get very heated because everyone wants the system that would give them more. I was born to poor parents who could afford their own education because it's free here. My relatives had a social net to bounce back from during rough times (primary school teacher). It's not good for a society to have a large portion who feel existential dread and that the only way up is taking huge risks that often require initial capital.
The reason it is like this in the US is because it's not a nation. It's just atomic families and people from all over the world, tolerating each other and minding their own business. There is no feeling of solidarity, especially across races.
But then again, I have not had children of my own, so I can't relate to the need to defend my offspring.
And from friends I know that parenting is really hard with lots of sleepless nights. Perhaps the parent commenter just had a bad day.
Perhaps it's just your laconic phrasing, but I can not stop reading your replies in Arnold Schwarzenegger's voice. Maybe I would see them in a different light if I read them with Wall-E's voice.
Best of luck to your child.
The paper being discussed talks about there being a threshold under which someone might be in a poverty trap. Would simple subsidies and programs to support children's economic future suffice, such as some of the policies advocated for by American progressives?
(Of course, this would require taxes or some other source of funding, but doesn't require confiscation of all inherited wealth)
I guess it's good that you are honest with yourself about it though, that's better than constructing some elaborate justification around some clearly insufficient core "principles".
Of course, the idea that taxation is theft and a fence isn't doesn't hold.