Tom Zerucha wrote:
Some basic points on the thread
1. For wealth to be "handed down", it must be earned or confiscated first. Mao's widow lived quite well during Mao's life and for a while after his death.
Well China is nor more of an example of communism than Argentina is of Capitalism--they are both totalitarim regimes that use ideology as an excuse to plunder. It would be unfair for example to use Marcos wife (and her shoe collection) as an example of why capitalism doesn't work.
Also, if there was no direct way to pass wealth on to offspring, it would be consumed or destroyed by the generation which created it.
Perhaps by some--not most. Many die without wills--the wealthy tend to be much more careful with such things of course but you could allow provisions to have a percentage donated to non-political chartible organizations.
You may not agree with the choice of the original Kennedys and Rockefellers, but limiting that choice is not without consequence - the wealth will still not end up where you want it, and a great amount will be left uncreated.
I sincerely don't believe that. If you look at your above examples, or Bill Gates below, much of their motivation is not the accumulation of weath per se but rather power and performance. I know I would do much the same job (not that I'm in the wealthy) even if the salary were more or less--I enjoy it (I'm a programmer). Same is true for education--much of the motivation is either intrinsic or status oriented and has little or nothing to do with marketablity.
2. In a socialist society wealth is confiscated at gunpoint.
Not at all--no more or less so than in capatilistic societies.
In a capitalist society, I have to provide something that you want more than your wealth in order to obtain it.
That's true--as with all labor--but it is a matter of scale. Gates would do the same thing if you limited his income just for the sake of power accumulation--he's got all the money he could ever consume. That's not his real motive.
3. If wealth isn't being transferred, it is most likely because Government has created a monopoly or oligopoly. If I have a better idea for a car, I cannot simply just build one, since any modification to the powertrain has to be certified by the EPA. So if I could get 2 Miles/gallon better mileage without a change in emissions for a $50 modification, I still have to spend over $1 Million satisfying the bureaucracy and generating no profit. The existing auto industries have no incentive to change this because these are sunk costs, and they can keep their oligopoly.
Yes-our auto industry is a disgrace and I agree we do no favors protecting them or bailing them out. On the other hand goverment must protect against the creation of business monopoly which is even more stifling.
4. When you say wealth isn't being transferred, it is also generally untrue. While someone may be controlling it, their control is usually not to leave it under a matress (which would make my wealth comparatively more
Sorry to chop out so much about Microsoft--but sure most wealth is transferred in this country--that's a statisitical fact. Yes--there is consumption but when accumalation gets into the multi-millions that becomes irrelevant--money grows as you know--stocks, property, etc. and that is all that is passed down. There are few on either of these mailing lists that if given 10 million dollars could not sit on their ass for the rest of their lives consuming comfortably and watch their money double by the time they pass away.
5. Government is the least efficient means of resolving the problem. The
As inefficeint as it is it is really the only effective means. A simple 100% inheritance tax would be very helpful as would limitations on how much property a given individual (and a corporation is a virutal individual) may own.
6. No one has given any reason why the dollar following the 10-millionth has less claim of ownership than the first 10-million. You can dislike the situation, but I would like to hear a *consistent* theory of property rights that holds a sliding scale of claim based on volume. Does the grocer with 200 tomatoes need to give away 20 because a store down the street has only 180? What if the situation is reversed the next day?
Well the original issue we were discussing was the fact that a majority of wealth in the US in not earned--it is inherited. That can be changed very quickly with proper legislation. As to your other issue here--earnings and limitations on accumulation, much would be equalized without inheritance. But yes--there would still be accumulators--most would still produce regardless of limits because as I said their motives are not simply income--power, prestige, etc. all come in to play as well as the gratification that comes with winning. Gates enjoys his cover on Time Mag. much more than a few extra million a day. But the basic answer to your argument--from my standpoint--is that some people are extremely intellegent, others very gifted in other ways, others very dull witted, etc. Some possess artistic genius that can pay off immediately, others have none that is valued dollar wise by society. I sincerly don't believe one has the right to live better than the other--that the rewards, if different, sould be negligable. If I could make as much as I do know programming by working as a clerk in a convenience store or whatever I would still choose to do what I am doing. If you are in a different situation you're in the wrong career. Steve