For me, the only flaw in capitalism is the idea of unearned wealth. The perfect example of a man uses his imagination and labour to create a booming enterprise, in the process becoming fabulously rich.
I am 100% okay with this.
What I don't like is the idea of this man then leaving everything to his son who couldn't possibly have helped to create this.
Help me resolve this issue in a way that is voluntary, that doesn't compel anyone to do anything.
100% inheritance tax
A man's son is his creation, why should he not be able to give his earnings to his creation? It is literally part of him, genetically.
/thread
Inb4 poor fags bootlick bezos and zuck
>It is literally part of him, genetically.
>implyings
Whores cheat all the time
That's a good question
Shouldn't he be free to give a gift?
also chek'd
But then you have a bunch of old people who are gonna die blowing their money on consumerist shit because they'd rather do that than have it go to waste. And the biggest problem with capitalism is consumerism and increased materialism. Not to mention this would increase people's time preference, which has a decivilizing effect.
>die blowing their money on consumerist shit
That's good for economy tho
Increase people's time preference?
explain pls
why'd you nmr ethanol?
>pay tax your whole life
>all gets taxed in the end anyways
>why bother
Why bother in the first place as you will die anyway
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
>No! Says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor!
>No! Says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone!
>No! Says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God!
A man builds. The parasite asks, Where's my share?
No gods. No kings. Only man.
Part of the reason for working hard and providing goods and services for others to enjoy is the promise that you can one day pass on your wealth to your children. Most millionaires and billionaires are self-made anyways. Furthermore, since many of the psychological traits responsible for success and prosperity are heritable, giving your money to your child so that they can invest it is probably about as good or better for the economy as giving it people who demonstrably contribute little to the economy.
Rethink this a bit. Why aren't you okay with the dad in your example leaving everything to his son? The dad earned that wealth.
It only becomes an issue of unearned wealth if the son gets to sit around collecting interest and pass it along to his children. That's a total misallocation of capital.
>100% inheritance tax
on unearned wealth. 0% on whatever you earn yourself
>becoming fabulously rich
Read Democracy: The God That Failed for a full explanation. But the short of it is this:
>high time preference means I want it now
>low time preference means I can wait for it
>savings is a sign of lower time preference
>civilization is a sign of lower time preference (have to protect your future and your people's future)
>consumerism raises time preference because I want more more more now now now
>materialism is the same, I want as much as possible as fast as possible and don't care about the future
A 100% inheritance tax removes all sense of saving for your kids' futures, which raises the time preference dramatically and causes consumerism.
But does he become "fabulously rich" if he isn't allowed to dispose of his money as he sees fit? Why should I care about creating wealth if anything I achieve dies with me?
>boo hoo some one was born into wealth and I wasn't
Like why do you care, why does it matter? How does someone else having money negatively effect your life?
But us middle class families basically are left with maybe a small house and enough to pay for the funeral. Would you 100% tax that too? Inheritance tax is literal commie shit you feckin commie
>implying the boss didn't invest tons of time, money, and resources into making a business successful
>he also has all the overhead of hiring people and keeping them employed and in good working condition by providing a better work environment
>but he's totally an evil guy who's stealing from them instead of just increasing the wealth for everyone
Capitalism isn't a zero-sum game. I can get rich without making someone else poorer for it. And if I'm the business owner employing them, I'm not only making myself richer but also making them richer by paying them to work.
It's the man's right to give his wealth to whomever he so chooses.
Anyway, in most cases (Other than well-publicized cases of celebrity children and stuff like that) the children are able to make good use of their parent's wealth and build upon it. Wealth is heavily affected by inheritable factors like intelligence.
There should just be a limit to how much you can leave to your kids.
A house.
200 thousand dollars.
A vehicle.
That is all you should be able to give to each of your children.
More than enough for them to be set up for life with a distinct advantage as all your major life purchases are already done.
The rest gets put into infrastructure development.
If someone is willing to leave another one's wealth, that person has earned that wealth. Otherwise, that person wouldn't be left one's wealth.
>Like why do you care, why does it matter?
Because over a long enough timeline it just means wealth concentrates in a few, which is both damaging to our republic, and damaging to the citizens of it, as that massive amount of money is stagnating.
So is a bunch of niggers with hammers and molotov bombs, under that logic.
Civilization exists, because men build things to exist beyond their own short lifespan, for their biological offspring, motivated by prime biological drive. Take away right to inherit, and you will destroy everything.
actually from the parents that are rich much more important that the money and the richness themselves, is the conexions and the life lessons to become rich, even if you father pass away his friends that are rich will also take care of you, and give you better oportunities that if you were born in a different family
Anyway, if the kid is stupid enough he will lose everything eventually
You don't have to do anything. If the son is smart and runs the business well, more power to him. If not the market will birth another business to supplant his.
It doesn't. Wealth isn't limited to a set quantity. If you want more wealth it's not about getting a larger piece of the pie while others get less, you just cook a second pie. Even if the wealth is concentrated what does it matter? The only real problem is direct interference in political matters but you don't necessarily need wealth to engage in this, though it definetly helps. If a rich person keeps to themself and doesn't bother anyone why should it matter.
>It only becomes an issue of unearned wealth if the son gets to sit around collecting interest and pass it along to his children. That's a total misallocation of capital.
100% brainlet. If anything, this is a BETTER use of money because more savings = higher investments. All those precious infrastructure projects you want? Guess where the financing comes from. Bank reserves, which is ultimately from ppl saving and "getting interest".
The spending habits of poor people and rich people are very different. One buys sneakers, while the other buys sneaker factories.
Holy shit you're fucking retarded.
This is a fundamental flaw in the left-wing interpretation of economics. If you have $100, and you have the choice between buying a basket of consumable goods or investing it in a capital asset, are these equally beneficial for the economy? The naive Keynesian view is that spending is good, ergo perhaps the basket of goods is even more beneficial than the capital asset. This, of course, can't possibly be true, as it diverts scarce resources towards items that will be used once and destroyed, with the producers and sellers of these goods maybe capturing a fraction of this as profit. More importantly, that flow of money from consumer to producer is only measured in one cycle of GDP, then disappears forever. Investing in the capital stock, however, increases the potential productive capacity of society, which is the only "real" measurement of the economy.
Consumer spending is good in so far as it provides profit to companies with which they can invest in new productive capacity (and at a baseline serves to absorb existing capacity), but has no intrinsic value of its own.
Wtf Panama is that?
The one who cucked you out of a canal, apparently.
>Help me resolve this issue
The only reason the first guy worked to make all that money, is so he could provide for his family and contribute to his descendants.
If you tell him you're going to take his money upon his death, all he'd do is spend it in ways that accomplish the same thing.
If you tell him he can't leave companies, land, homes, cars, and other things to his son, he won't even bother to work and build all that wealth.
At that point you've successfully destroyed half or more of the economy, because nobody has a reason to work for more than they can spend themselves.
Stop concerning yourself with what other people get and how they get it.
You're being a jealous faggot.
Yes because banks give interest for nothing. Because banks are in the business of storing money for you for free. Banks just exist just to reward savers. They definitely dont do anything with they money ppl deposit it into.
Fucking retard.
This is why poor ppl stay poor, they know shit about finance
These rules are all bs. For one, rich guys leaving their kids money is like a drop in the bucket as far as anyone else is concerned. It's not like the gov't could take that money and do much with it. What, confiscate it and give every citizen half a penny? Give it to Israel? Besides, the people who always want the inheritance tax fail to realize the most important thing: rich people will always find ways around it, and make sure their kids will be rich. Poor to almost rich people will actually pay it. It's really fucking disheartening to think you work your whole life to provide your kids a better future, and when you die, you try to give your kids a house, and 50k, but the gov't takes most of it and they end up getting basically nothing. This is why poor people stay poor, they can't build on previous generations success anymore. You're being baited by the rich guy and his money, as if some rich guys kid's are somehow gonna not end up rich, no matter what kind of rules you make. You're just fucking yourselves arguing for this tax. Do you really want to give the tiny pittance your parents worked so hard for to the govt? Richie Rich is gonna be loaded either way, I want my fucking money.
Furthermore, the inheritance tax argument is as such: I don't care about the hard earned money I have coming to me rightfully, just make sure that rich guy's kid's don't get any from his family. That'll show them who's poor.
You're fucking retarded because none of what you're writing about has anything to do with my comment you replied to, but for some reason you think it does. Wow, banks do things? That's like so deep man, and it's so relevant to the topic of earned vs. unearned wealth.
RE-read the original comment.
He implies that someone earning interest on inherited money is a problem.
I clearly explained why money in the bank is way better than any other alternative ie. giving it fucking niggers. Giving rich ppl their inheritance their rightful dues has way more societal good than giving poor people and niggers money because theyll spend it on stupid shit.
And how is inherited wealth unearned? It's earned by the kid's parents.
The fact that you think banks doing things is deep shows how much of brainlet you are.
The point of becoming successful is to ensure the survival of your genes. Always has been and always should be. If you like the idea of Darwinism - of good genes propagating and bad genes dying out - then you have to give good people the freedom to do whatever they can to help their own blood.
this is the other problem. Or, only a problem with lefty theories because they don't take into account common sense. There would never be a dollar left to confiscate, since people would spend it on the most retarded shit imaginable to keep it from going to waste right before they die, it actually causes more waste and the kind of thing they are trying to prevent.
The vast majority of people who inherit wealth piss it all away, just like the vast majority of lottery winners end up poor again. People who didn't earn their wealth are generally horrible at maintaining it. Free market wins again.
Then you replied to the wrong comment because I literally wrote in the comment you replied to that the money was earned by the dad. And who said anything about welfare? You sound like a robot that got programmed with a few basic talking points and just keeps repeating them randomly out of context.
It is heavily implied. What else could you have meant by interest from inherited money being a problem? I dont believe youre that dumb to mean that we should just burn down an estate's factories, gold bullion, money/ bank accounts etc. So obviously, you did mean welfare via taxation.
Also, how are investments a misallocation of capital, but consumption isnt?
Money earned by dad is still earned money, just by a different person. The only real unearned money is ironically tax money, because the government does not provide services from a transaction. They just tax you a "promise" to spend it on certain things you may or may not agree with.
The father earned it and it's his right to do whatever he wants with it. He could throw it on fire if he wanted to.
It's easier to accept the fact that people are born unequal. Some are born rich from inheritance and others are born poor.