Why wouldn't wealth redistribution every 100 years be a good thing?
Granted there would be shit productivity the final year before the redistribution, but this is a small price to pay in order to get rid of the unfair advantage that rich people pass down to their kids.
Because git gud faggt
why should we structure society so a small elite can own the remainder in the first place?
Why not just heavily tax everything over a million dollars of lifetime inheritance per inheritor. That is, the tax is not on the estate of the person leaving the inheritance, but on the inheritor on their lifetime inheritance. Trump claims you only need a small loan to be a self made man.
because think of those poor rich people who won't be as rich
>the final year
More like the final 30.
Who decides what part of the 99% gets to be the 1% for the next 100 years? What about the other 98%, are they supposed to "wait" for their luck next time?
>unfair advantage that rich people pass down to their kids
Something like 70% of cases the wealth is gone after three generations
Wealth stays in the family for only 2-3 generations max
Sounds like bullshit
this
now fuck off to
hard times make hard men, who make good times, which makes soft man who make hard times
>Why wouldn't wealth redistribution every 100 years be a good thing?
It's called the estate tax. The very thing your boy Trump (and his party) wants desperately to eliminate, crippled as it already is.
Catchy.
Any proof?
Needs to be 99.9%, and that needs to include the ultra rich, not just the petty bourgeois.
>Why wouldn't wealth redistribution every 100 years be a good thing?
It probably would be, but in general wealth redistribution requires a revolution of some kind, and you can't design a functioning state that contains a mechanism for other-throwing itself, because some asshole will come along and abuse that mechanism to make himself dictatorfor life.
>air advantage that rich people pass down to their kids
How is it more unfair than the advantage the smart has over the dumb?
Arguing for fairness is retarded. You need to argue for efficiency.
kill yourself
enforcing Christian Jubilee would be way better
You've just described a republic.
It's more efficient to distribute the money. More competition, fewer diseconomies of scale, more entrepreneurs instead of rich people that just hire other people to manage their businesses for them. That's not efficient is capital flight. The reasonable path is to allow rich people to profit, but funnel as much of the newly made wealth to other people who will eventually compete with the rich, and the rich won't be able to just sit on their asses.
>Pass down an unfair advantage to your kids
>Being wrong somehow
>This is what marxists actually believe
Oh fuck off you autistic LARPer
time.com
>70% of wealth is gone after two generations
newsmax.com
>90% is gone by three generations
Fuck all you autistic commie LARPers
>It's more efficient to distribute the money.
Until you start thinking of how impossibly hard it would be to actually do it, especially with a century of power entrenchment between attempts.
>The reasonable path is to allow rich people to profit, but funnel as much of the newly made wealth to other people who will eventually compete with the rich, and the rich won't be able to just sit on their asses.
The best way to do this is through taxation and government support to new businesses, and it's been a thing for millennia already. All that's left is deciding what's the most efficient taxation points (considering all the social ramifications of taxation) and the best way to support businesses.
No. The amount of prosperity and general stability held by not redistributing far outweighs the risks involved with redistribution.
>unfair
Into the trash it goes.
You envy is no argument against someone giving his money to whoever he wants.
Because the poor should fear the rich.
Well, atleast you're not a fucking commie.
I r8 your sentence 10/10.
The very wealthy owe an obligation to society for allowing them to obtain such a rarified position. They should be required to foot the bill for a lot of things.
In America's corrupt system today, poor folks pay a higher proportion of their income to taxes than wealthy people. All this does is make getting out of poverty even harder.
Conservashits think poverty is all because of personal wrongdoing and not systematic factors influencing one's capacity to make decisions and opportunities.
>Conservashits think poverty is all because of personal wrongdoing and not systematic factors influencing one's capacity to make decisions and opportunities.
They are right, you know.
"When you are offended at any man's fault, turn to yourself and study your own failings. Then you will forget your anger." -- Epictetus
>dad works hard
>builds his own business
>you train as an apprentice
>LOL WEALTH DISTRIBUTION FGT. YOU DON'T DESERVE THAT BUSINESS YOU CREATED WITH YOUR FATHER!
Brilliant.
Except they're not and the vast majority of baby boomers and the early gen. X who currently spout such nonsense are only in affluent positions due to the fact that they directly benefited from policies contrary to what they believe.
That has nothing to do with what OP was talking about. Are you purposely being retarded or do you genuinely not understand the discussion?
>In America's corrupt system today, poor folks pay a higher proportion of their income to taxes than wealthy people
Illegally. The only time this is true is when wealthy people do everything in their power to dodge taxes. This is done with all sorts of shady shit like moving money offshore or falsifying residency in lower tax areas.
>That has nothing to do with what OP was talking about.
Sure it does, idiot. Just because wealth is being "redistributed" every 100 years does not mean things will neatly fall between generations. There are going to be plenty of cases like the ones I outlined. What happens when you're born 83 years after the last redistribution period, and things are suddenly shifted around when you've spent your life learning your father's business?
>systematic factors influencing one's capacity to make decisions and opportunities
>I didn't take risk, didn't opt for skills in high demand, didn't restricy consumption, didn't invest
>but that's because of the systematic factors!
Literally dindu nuffin.
>buy a burger
>give it to someone else
>this makes Marxists seethe with rage
Classic
Inheritance should be illegal. All of an individual's assets should do the government when hey die.
I'll never understand why someone doing what they want with something that belongs to them triggers so many people
>ban inheritance
>people just find ways to shuffle their shit around before they die
>maybe they lose half of their wealth to taxes, but their kids still end up with a big advantage
>people who obey the law get fucked
Not to mention that that's just fucking stupid. Plenty of poorer people have been living in the same house for generations. Why should they be thrown out of their houses?
If the kid of a wealthy person suddenly had alot of money, then the source would be obvious. And even rich people have to file tax returns. I'm just saying it wouldn't be hard to investigate a couple of rich people from now and then.
>government bureaucrats accept the bribes easily because they are dirty poor now
Adding an 100% inheritance tax would highly, highly encourage people to only contribute exactly how much to the economy as they need to get back out, and then never make any type of even semi-risky investments with that money.
The only reason a lot of people even keep working after they have everything they need is to leave something for their children when they are gone.
>If the kid of a wealthy person suddenly had alot of money, then the source would be obvious.
Guilty till proven innocent. I like the way you think.
Who decides how wealth is redistributed? How is it collected? Hell, how is wealth even evaluated and by whom?
That's not true at all. Rich people work for Veblen goods. This is retarded bullshit.
>rich people
Define "rich"
Who do you think is going to suffer more from massive inheritance taxes, a small number of super rich people, or the millions of small business owners that worked to make a better life for their families?
Most people simply don’t know or understand the magnitude of the small business sector in the United States. Utilizing the data and definitions from the SBA, small businesses make up the following; 99.7% of United States employer firms, 63% of net new private-sector jobs, 48.5% of private-sector employment, 42% of private-sector payroll, 46% of private-sector output, 37% of high-tech employment, 98% of firms exporting goods and 33 % of exporting value.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SUSB, CPS; International Trade Administration; Bureau Of Labor Statistics, BED; Advocacy-funded research, Small Business GDP: Update 2002-
2010, www.sba.gov/advocacy/7540/42371
Most people that I talk to or meet also assume that the majority of the new jobs that have been created in the United States over the past 20 years or so are in large or multinationals businesses. In fact, the direct opposite has been the case, Small firms accounted for 63% of the net new jobs created between 1993 and mid-2013 (or 14.3 million of the 22.9 million net new jobs). Since the end of the recession (from mid-2009 to mid-2013), small firms accounted for 60% of the net new jobs.
ucfunding.com