Addressing inequality

[Ron Scott]

America, like many countries today, is experiencing inequality on a growing scale.

Buffet recently made the case that this is an inevitable result of advanced economies. Advanced countries value and reward people with highly specific skills sets, and have become so efficient that the need for more commoditized skills is low and can be had cheaply here or outsourced. He contrasts today to the old agrarian days, when it was difficult to earn 20-50X what your neighbor did by being a better farmer. New tech like AI and robotics will add fuel to the fire. Maybe he’s right.

Martin Luther King spoke to a more critical issue—the plight of the poor—in an interesting way. In addressing a group of philanthropists in the year of his assassination he thanked them for their largess, but warned them that giving is insufficient if it left in place the system that kept the poor down. He wanted the poor to have  EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to earn their way up.

I don’t find any of the solutions being advanced today very helpful. Placing tariffs on all imports is supposed to create manufacturing jobs but it would also create inflation, make us less competitive, and alienate our allies. Increasing taxes will leave the wealthier with less, but it doesn’t put  money in the pockets of others. Piling on social programs just leaves people dependent on the system and will always be subject to attack from the right (who are often more than 50% of us) as the “nanny state” solution. And anyway, people want the OPPORTUNITY TO EARN their way up much more than govt programs.

The traditional political proposals from the left and the right are simply not solutions.

The various economic systems countries have adopted share the goals of helping people to meet their needs and giving people in their prime high energy years something productive to do. We shouldn’t lose sight of that last part. I don’t want to see what would happen if the January 6 brigade weren’t burdened by day jobs.

In my worldview the solution lies in helping people develop skills that are more highly valued. (And that reminds me of Trump’s comment “I love the uneducated”. What an ass…)

What do you think?

[FINate]

Historically, every attempt to eliminate inequality has ended VERY badly. Look at the amount of death and suffering communism caused in the 20th century. The Left is too quick to discount this as "well, it just wasn't done right." IMO, the fundamental flaw is the concentration of power required to eliminate economic inequality creates a new worser form of political inequality (the politburo vs. the people).

To be clear, I'm not arguing for an absolutist position on economic systems -- I'm not an ideologue. A sprinkling of socialist programs can offset the worst excesses of capitalism. Those that work hard and smart, and get lucky, should be rewarded with lifestyle upgrades: e.g. the ability to buy bigger houses with nicer views, fancy cars, expensive vacations, high-end restaurants, etc. Yet we need to make sure this opportunity is accessible to everyone with the ambition to pursue it.

On the other hand, those that choose to work less and/or don't get lucky should be able to live simple yet dignified lives. They should not be punished with existential dread because they cannot afford the necessities of life. What this often looks like today is being so rent burdened that they cannot make ends meet and fall further and further behind. The threat of homelessness and insecurity should not hang over the heads of everyone that isn't wealthy.

My first proposal is to build A LOT more housing. Specifically, multi-family housing, affordable by design (smaller, more efficient), in desirable locations, in good school districts, in walkable/bikeable neighborhoods, preferably near reliable public transit. Places people can easily live without cars (which we know are money sinks). Yes, this means building apartments in wealthy neighborhoods, so rich people accepting the poors as neighbors and in their schools. Build enough housing units and rents decline -- this would be the single most helpful outcome for those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder because housing is their largest expense. Those who work hard and smart and get lucky can still pay a premium for bigger SFH, not taking that away.

On the upward mobility side, we need to get back to some sort of free/highly subsidized state college. I'll admit, I'm more skeptical of this one because the penchant for organizations to grow fat and wasteful on a diet of "free" money. I don't want to create an incentive for people to go to college for 4 (or maybe 6) years just to have a fun experience for an unmarketable degree. The low-handing fruit are those pursuing degrees on the front lines of medicine such as doctors and nurses. We should just pay for these to address shortages, which should reduce medical costs longer term thereby helping people at all income levels. For other degrees, I'd like to see something like a feedback mechanism that informs the amount of subsidy a field of study receives. We know what degrees people earn, and we know how much they earn after they graduate. Generally speaking, higher income is a signal for value. So on average, degrees that result in higher earnings (say, 5 years out) should be more heavily subsidized. Those that have the ambition and ability would be directed to remunerative careers, and they could do so without crippling student loan debt. Whereas those that have the desire and the means to pursue an obscure unmarketable degree can still do so, but they would have to pay their own way.

[Greystache]

Simply taxing the rich and taxing the corporations and distributing the money to the poor is a bad idea. It is like treating a disease instead of preventing a disease. I think a better idea is capping the compensation of executives and board members and capping the amount of money that is distributed to shareholders. Excess profits should be directed to the workers and to growing the business instead of buying back shares. Increases in productivity used to correlate with increases in worker pay. This correlation was broken in the 1980s and the gap has been increasing ever since.

[GilesMM]

Sounds like an off-topic topic.

[twinstudy]

Happy to address inequality of opportunity by having stronger support programmes for school-aged children and early childhood care, and by ensuring that every child has access to a great school - preferably for free. Academic and aptitude (musical, sporting, etc) testing should be state-run and subsidised, and private schools should be discouraged by means of taxation (schooling should be a public good).

However, once everyone has an equal chance to run the race, leave it be. Have enough welfare and support so that you don't have vast swathes of homeless and unemployed people, but I am yet to see any good reason for a middle-class person to rail at a billionaire: the middle class person has all the opportunity she ever needed.

The other thing is, if we accept a society where we give parents free rein to be as shitty and irresponsible as they like (subject to only criminal standards of deprivation), we'll have to accept that some children are gonna be fucked by their shitty parents. We should still try to ameliorate this through the childhood welfare and schooling system (as above), but the concomitant of the state not interfering with parenting is that some children's prospects will be destroyed by their parents. In that sense, I'd focus the blame on the parents rather than 'the system', in most cases.

[FIRE@50]

Fund and support public education so that it is equal and high quality at a national level. Free healthcare at the national level. Flat income tax with a high standard deduction. None of this is complicated. Just vote for people that have the will to do them.

[Cranky]

Schools aren’t somehow inherently shitty or good based on funding. (Many urban schools spend more/pupil than do suburban schools.) Also, you’re going to have to define shitty/good - are you talking about test scores? Some schools have a population with more needs than others - kids who come from low income families are likely to have many more urgent needs than do most kids from middle income families. Are they going to be evicted? Deported? Have they changed schools multiple times? Is there food at home? Do they have clean clothes? Do they have dental care? And on and on and on…

So, offering families more support on a lot of levels would go a lot ng way to leveling the playing field.

And yes, make college and trade school free. So what if some people spend 5 years studying basket weaving! Maybe we could use some more basketweavers, and if you can actually spend 5 years studying that then you are pretty passionate about it.

I don’t care if you work hard at some boring tech job and make $500k at it, but why should someone make millions/year? Are they really doing more important work than the school janitor? (I’d say no.)

But a lot of inequality isn’t because Bezos makes a lot of money, it’s because people are able to keep fortunes in the family for generations. Let’s get serious with the inheritance tax. Yes, you can leave your kids a house but not a real fortune.

We’re always going to have some inequality because people are just different from one another, but we should not be handicapping some people right from the start.

[twinstudy]

I don't think a university degree should be free, unless in the case of poor students with high marks. Otherwise, a university degree confers huge economic value, and shouldn't be blanket subsidised by the state in all cases. I was happy to pay for my law degree, and I should have paid for it. There is no reason why I should have got that for free.

As for 'millions per year' - not sure where you draw the line. Maybe no one 'earns' $100m a year, yes. But I know people making $500k per year, $1000k a year and $2500k a year and the difference between the three is significant.

Are they really doing more important work than the school janitor? (I’d say no.)

The guy I know making $2500k a year is one of maybe 2-3 people in the whole state who can do the kind of operations he does, so yeah, I suspect his work is more important than a school janitor's work. No one's going to die if the janitor doesn't show up.

[RetiredAt63]

For these issues/discussions my general reaction is, what first world countries don't have this huge poverty gap, and how do they manage to do that?  Then figure out things they do that seem easiest to implement and start there.


Twinstudy, Cranky and Fire@50 listed some of the obvious ones.

Also look at tax rates, American tax rates on corporations have been dropping steadily since Reagan. 

[crocheted_stache]

I don't see a good answer in anything like the current system, but interest is paid largely by people who don't have money, largely to people who do.

Need a car?¹ In the U.S., probably you do, because public transportation is crap, except in a few urban areas.

If you're one of the people who hangs out here, probably you earn(ed) enough that you could run at a surplus just by not being a spendypants. Then, you buy a 5-year-old (or more) car in cash and afford to maintain it so it runs another ten years (or more). Or you buy a modest-but-reliable new car and keep it 15 or 20 years. You put your extra into a money market account or CD, and the bank pays you a bit just for keeping it there. (Yes, I'm disregarding investments.) The banks bring in that money (and plenty more they don't pass along to customers) by lending it to other people who need loans, including car loans.

If you're working a retail or restaurant job—possibly two or more of them so that no one employer needs to schedule you full time, lest they be forced to pay any sort of medical benefit—you might struggle to amass much of any savings after paying for food², rent, and utilities. Groceries, rent, and utilities are not spendypants. They're necessities. They're costing too much because inflation has charged ahead while your pay stayed the same. ³

Now, the old car breaks down or you're forced to move further away because that's all you can afford. You don't have $5,000 or $10,000 for a car. You can't borrow to pay for a cheap but working older car. Nobody finances the $3500 1998 Craigslist sedan with peeling paint, but it's still running because it's a Toyota/Honda. Maybe you also can't borrow at a good rate on a more expensive, more recent thing because you lost a job midway through a previous loan and ended up with the resulting black marks on your credit report. So you end up paying some usurious interest rate on a so-so used car, spread out over 6 or 8 years, if that's what it takes to make it into a monthly payment you think you can manage. The car might not last that long, and neither might you, but the extra interest will see the bank through until they can repossess and resell the car if you default.

It's certainly not the only thing, but it's one of the driving forces behind an awful lot of the other things.

[1] I hate that this is true, but we'd need a pretty major improvement in public transportation and walkability/bikeability of most regions to make car ownership irrelevant: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/many-low-income-families-cars-may-be-key-greater-opportunity
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/walmart-and-mcdonalds-among-top-employers-of-medicaid-and-food-stamp-beneficiaries.html
[3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1065466/real-nominal-value-minimum-wage-us/

[crocheted_stache]

Buffet recently made the case that this is an inevitable result of advanced economies. Advanced countries value and reward people with highly specific skills sets, and have become so efficient that the need for more commoditized skills is low and can be had cheaply here or outsourced. He contrasts today to the old agrarian days, when it was difficult to earn 20-50X what your neighbor did by being a better farmer. New tech like AI and robotics will add fuel to the fire. Maybe he’s right.

Was there more context or detail to this argument or was it basically a technological obsolescence variant? Also, did Buffett suggest any sort of remedy or alternative?

Technology has changed the face of work over and over, and many times, the resulting market adjustments take a long time to happen and often don't benefit the generations immediately affected by the changes.

[Ron Scott]

I’d prefer to focus almost exclusively on ensuring people have more opportunity to succeed.

In modern economies creating equal opportunity does entail some assistance for poor and lower-middle income families, to ensure the kids have a safe environment with adequate food, clothing, shelter. But the big ticket is education.

Education is prerequisite for success. We should be redesigning education to be more effective, efficient, first class, and increasingly available to all. The redesign should leverage tech; especially AI, AR, videoconferencing, etc. Carrying shitty texts to class and sitting bored for hours, chin in hand, isn’t the model. We need a new way. And the whole university approach needs to be rethought. The Ivy cultures, hundreds of millions on football, enormous loans, and so on are yesterday.

Let’s get real. Educating young people is an investment in the country. Treat it that way. It’s about learning skills that are highly valued and move us all forward.

Opportunity through education, not money and whatever for free for all.

[Ron Scott]

Sounds like an off-topic topic.

I like the Off-Topic section personally, but I gotta laugh at comments to move threads there, as if they are somehow too annoying when they appear in the wrong place.

Just on the 1st page alone of this “Welcome and General Discussion” board, we’ve got threads on how to sell guns, government data leaks, dementia, basics of AI, bicycle upgrades, Mint Mobile, and hearing aids. LOL

[Sanitary Stache]

Sounds like an off-topic topic.

I like the Off-Topic section personally, but I gotta laugh at comments to move threads there, as if they are somehow too annoying when they appear in the wrong place.

Just on the 1st page alone of this “Welcome and General Discussion” board, we’ve got threads on how to sell guns, government data leaks, dementia, basics of AI, bicycle upgrades, Mint Mobile, and hearing aids. LOL

All those topics listed are within a persons sphere of control and realted to how they might manage their daily life and their finances.

Pie in the sky policy discussions are inherently different.  The Off Topic section has an additional limitation, only posters who have contributed a certain number of posts are allowed to contribute to Off Topic discussion.  It keeps limits straight up bot trolling.  Its a helpful limitation.

Now that I am on this thread, I'll also comment that the sbuject title smells like click bait.

[FrugalToque]

Historically, every attempt to eliminate inequality has ended VERY badly.

It's weird that you say this and then spent the next four paragraphs listing very good ideas for eliminating inequality, all of which I would agree with.  I think it's widely understood I'm pretty far left :-)


Canada's Baby Bonus system (now the Child Care Benefit) did a really good job of eliminating equality by giving money directly to parents so they wouldn't starve back in the 1940s.  My mom was still getting it in the 70s and 80s. 


But yes, social housing that poor people can afford, wages that can pay for it, rules that keep wealthy business owners from ripping off pay, cheap/free tertiary education are ALL GOOD IDEAS to address inequality and have never ended badly.

[Cranky]

I don't think a university degree should be free, unless in the case of poor students with high marks. Otherwise, a university degree confers huge economic value, and shouldn't be blanket subsidised by the state in all cases. I was happy to pay for my law degree, and I should have paid for it. There is no reason why I should have got that for free.

As for 'millions per year' - not sure where you draw the line. Maybe no one 'earns' $100m a year, yes. But I know people making $500k per year, $1000k a year and $2500k a year and the difference between the three is significant.

Are they really doing more important work than the school janitor? (I’d say no.)

The guy I know making $2500k a year is one of maybe 2-3 people in the whole state who can do the kind of operations he does, so yeah, I suspect his work is more important than a school janitor's work. No one's going to die if the janitor doesn't show up.

Education and college degrees are valuable to society as a whole and state universities *were* pretty much free for many years. My own college tuition and fees added up to $325/semester, which included healthcare (but not food and housing.)

[Cranky]

I’d prefer to focus almost exclusively on ensuring people have more opportunity to succeed.

In modern economies creating equal opportunity does entail some assistance for poor and lower-middle income families, to ensure the kids have a safe environment with adequate food, clothing, shelter. But the big ticket is education.

Education is prerequisite for success. We should be redesigning education to be more effective, efficient, first class, and increasingly available to all. The redesign should leverage tech; especially AI, AR, videoconferencing, etc. Carrying shitty texts to class and sitting bored for hours, chin in hand, isn’t the model. We need a new way. And the whole university approach needs to be rethought. The Ivy cultures, hundreds of millions on football, enormous loans, and so on are yesterday.

Let’s get real. Educating young people is an investment in the country. Treat it that way. It’s about learning skills that are highly valued and move us all forward.

Opportunity through education, not money and whatever for free for all.

I’d say that one clear lesson of the pandemic is that online education sucks for most kids. Education isn’t about tech, it’s about relationships.

[iris lily]

I don't think a university degree should be free, unless in the case of poor students with high marks. Otherwise, a university degree confers huge economic value, and shouldn't be blanket subsidised by the state in all cases. I was happy to pay for my law degree, and I should have paid for it. There is no reason why I should have got that for free.

As for 'millions per year' - not sure where you draw the line. Maybe no one 'earns' $100m a year, yes. But I know people making $500k per year, $1000k a year and $2500k a year and the difference between the three is significant.

Are they really doing more important work than the school janitor? (I’d say no.)

The guy I know making $2500k a year is one of maybe 2-3 people in the whole state who can do the kind of operations he does, so yeah, I suspect his work is more important than a school janitor's work. No one's going to die if the janitor doesn't show up.

I don’t think university degrees convey huge economic value anymore. Those are old studies, old data.

I don’t think trade schools or university should be entirely free. There needs to be skin in the game from the students, and that skin needs to be a little bit more than showing up to class and regurgitating stuff on tests and in papers.

Let us not forget that we do provide, through our tax dollars, subsidized advanced education opportunities in the form of public universities and community colleges.

I tire of these broad assumptions that the public purse is not already hit for this  and others.

[twinstudy]

I don't think a university degree should be free, unless in the case of poor students with high marks. Otherwise, a university degree confers huge economic value, and shouldn't be blanket subsidised by the state in all cases. I was happy to pay for my law degree, and I should have paid for it. There is no reason why I should have got that for free.

As for 'millions per year' - not sure where you draw the line. Maybe no one 'earns' $100m a year, yes. But I know people making $500k per year, $1000k a year and $2500k a year and the difference between the three is significant.

Are they really doing more important work than the school janitor? (I’d say no.)

The guy I know making $2500k a year is one of maybe 2-3 people in the whole state who can do the kind of operations he does, so yeah, I suspect his work is more important than a school janitor's work. No one's going to die if the janitor doesn't show up.

I don’t think university degrees convey huge economic value anymore. Those are old studies, old data.

I don’t think trade schools or university should be entirely free. There needs to be skin in the game from the students, and that skin needs to be a little bit more than showing up to class and regurgitating stuff on tests and in papers.

Let us not forget that we do provide, through our tax dollars, subsidized advanced education opportunities in the form of public universities and community colleges.

I tire of these broad assumptions that the public purse is not already hit for this  and others.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/research-summaries/education-earnings.html

According to this - albeit the data is from 2015 - graduate degree holding men earn $1.5m more over a lifetime than high-school diploma holding men. I would struggle to see how a university degree, particularly one such as law or medicine or dentistry, would not confer a huge advantage. Most of my classmates in law also came from rich families, and had no difficulty affording tuition. I struggle to see why they should get a free ride through public spending. By all means, have subsidised degrees for those from demonstrably poor families and also have plenty of scholarships for the most meritorious.

It's interesting to see that a lot of American discourse favours equality of opportunity (things like education, anti-discrimination) whereas European/Australian discourse favours more equality of outcome. Things like a high minimum wage, bans on rental evictions (my state just made it unlawful to end a lease without a statutory prescribed reason after 12 months of rental, and also made rental increases subject to a 'market value' assessment), social housing, etc all go very much to equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

[dividendman]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

[iris lily]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

You are not going to be popular around these parts. :)

[GilesMM]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

[dividendman]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

The names you've provided are interesting since their generational wealth has endured. e.g. Anderson Cooper of CNN got some of that money and we're talking 4 generations since. Rockefellers are still quite rich, with NASDAQ estimating the family (of about 200) has $10.3 Billion in net worth. The Getty family wealth is estimated at $5.4 billion, at least by Forbes in 2015. So, yeah, they're not at the pinnacle of crazy richness they were during the oil baron days, but they're still really rich.
But even if 70% (which is the reported number) of generational wealth is squandered by the second generation:
1) why give them the pass to squander it?
2) if they do squander it so readily, it's clear that they're not creating the same disruptions and wealth their ancestors did *because* they have the free pass, so we're stifling the drive of those folks to invent things of their own
3) since they squander it, it's probably better to go to the government for various programs.

[dividendman]

I also want to add that from what I said earlier about the floor level being adequate.

If you're can work at McDonald's or any fast food chain in California you get $20/hr = ~$2800/mo take home. You can get covered california (California's Obamacare) for < $200 a month at that salary for decent health care, giving you $2600, you can rent a room even in the most expensive places in California for $1k/mo which still leaves $1400 for everything else. This, to me, is a more than adequate level for the "floor" of inequality to be at.

So, we don't have an inequality problem in the US.

[nereo]

to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

Curious how you came to this conclusion...
I deal with a lot of venture capital and impact investing and it's dominated by families that acquired their wealth multiple-generations ago. IME the way that massive fortunes turn into small ones isn't by the heir 'squandering' them, but by the simple dilution of having way more heirs than the original billionaire family. 

The Rockefellers are a good example, actually - overall, the heirs of the Rockefeller fortune are collectively worth many billions of dollars and most of them are in the 0.1%; the issue is that there are now > 100 of them.  The Rockefeller Foundation is huge in the philanthorp[y and impact investing world.   
JD had 5 children, 16 grand children and 28 great-grand children.  Today there's something like 200 direct (blood line) Rockefeller decendants.

This is also why primo-genitus (passing estates down thru the first-born son) was so popular in the European feudal system - it ensured that each estate only had one heir, therefore there was no diluat9ion over several generations.

[Ron Scott]

What someone else inherits is none of my business and if she lands a fortune i wish her the best and hope it brings her happiness. Why would anyone feel otherwise?

I only want each of us to have a REAL opportunity to succeed, and don't begrudge anyone their luck, wealth, or success.

Taming inequality by focusing on taking others down a notch sounds like a recipe for neurosis.

[Morning Glory]

I also want to add that from what I said earlier about the floor level being adequate.

If you're can work at McDonald's or any fast food chain in California you get $20/hr = ~$2800/mo take home. You can get covered california (California's Obamacare) for < $200 a month at that salary for decent health care, giving you $2600, you can rent a room even in the most expensive places in California for $1k/mo which still leaves $1400 for everything else. This, to me, is a more than adequate level for the "floor" of inequality to be at.

So, we don't have an inequality problem in the US.

Not sure how you can use California to extrapolate to the rest of the US. Some states still use the federal minimum wage of 7.25. There are also some that refuse to expand Medicaid,  leading to a situation where one's income is too low for ACA subsidies. Even at California pay it would be difficult to support a family living in a room, especially since the cheaper housing is often far from public transport.  I don't even know how a single parent would pay for daycare on $20/hr, and that's if one can find a job during daycare hours.

[Morning Glory]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

The problem is they don't just squander it. They use it to fund political campaigns and bribe judges leading to legislation that is favorable to their interests at the expense of societal good. This has now been declared a type of "free speech", probably thanks to their generous donations. 

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

If inheritance is taxed at 100%, there's no penalty for cheating - you'll lose it all, either way.  People react to changes, in this case by cheating and corruption.  Better to bribe someone than lose it all.

People don't report small gifts.  The IRS allows gifting of $18,000/year from one person to another.  If you keep that limit, rich parents can send $36,000/year ($18k from mom, $18k from dad) to each child.  If you dramatically lower the limit, the IRS will have far too many gifts to identify.

Does anyone want to sign up for my marriage pairing service?  Two dads take equally large chunks of money, and marry each other's daughters.  Spouses can transfer unlimited amounts... which evades the new 100% inheritance tax through a marriage loophole.  The fix would be even worse: policing who can marry, or rewriting the basic assumption that spouses are one entity in the tax code.

I think it is more practical to suggest higher estate taxes (current max of 40% at Federal level).

[dividendman]

I also want to add that from what I said earlier about the floor level being adequate.

If you're can work at McDonald's or any fast food chain in California you get $20/hr = ~$2800/mo take home. You can get covered california (California's Obamacare) for < $200 a month at that salary for decent health care, giving you $2600, you can rent a room even in the most expensive places in California for $1k/mo which still leaves $1400 for everything else. This, to me, is a more than adequate level for the "floor" of inequality to be at.

So, we don't have an inequality problem in the US.

Not sure how you can use California to extrapolate to the rest of the US. Some states still use the federal minimum wage of 7.25. There are also some that refuse to expand Medicaid,  leading to a situation where one's income is too low for ACA subsidies. Even at California pay it would be difficult to support a family living in a room, especially since the cheaper housing is often far from public transport.  I don't even know how a single parent would pay for daycare on $20/hr, and that's if one can find a job during daycare hours.

Yeah, some states are a bit behind but I think they'll get there soon. I didn't say "having various things you want" like a family. I'm just saying a base floor of adequate living i.e. you can take care of yourself and base necessities like food, shelter, health care.

[dividendman]

What someone else inherits is none of my business and if she lands a fortune i wish her the best and hope it brings her happiness. Why would anyone feel otherwise?

I only want each of us to have a REAL opportunity to succeed, and don't begrudge anyone their luck, wealth, or success.

Taming inequality by focusing on taking others down a notch sounds like a recipe for neurosis.

You're either for meritocracy of you're not. If you're not, then that's fine. If you are, you should want things to go in that direction. I thought I recalled you being a strong proponent of meritocracy, perhaps I'm recalling someone else.

I don't know where all this gobbledygook got into the human psyche that once you're dead you should have a say on anything. You're dead. It's over.

If you're not for a meritocracy (or moving in that direction as much as possible) then we should still have inheritances, but let them be random. I'd be for that over the current system. Hence it's not a "neurosis" of begrudging people for being lucky. I don't care that there are lottery winners. Let the people who are "lucky" be at random. So, a gagillionaire dies, and the fortune can go to a random poor person or rich person or anyone in the country. Seems fair.

[Morning Glory]

I also want to add that from what I said earlier about the floor level being adequate.

If you're can work at McDonald's or any fast food chain in California you get $20/hr = ~$2800/mo take home. You can get covered california (California's Obamacare) for < $200 a month at that salary for decent health care, giving you $2600, you can rent a room even in the most expensive places in California for $1k/mo which still leaves $1400 for everything else. This, to me, is a more than adequate level for the "floor" of inequality to be at.

So, we don't have an inequality problem in the US.

Not sure how you can use California to extrapolate to the rest of the US. Some states still use the federal minimum wage of 7.25. There are also some that refuse to expand Medicaid,  leading to a situation where one's income is too low for ACA subsidies. Even at California pay it would be difficult to support a family living in a room, especially since the cheaper housing is often far from public transport.  I don't even know how a single parent would pay for daycare on $20/hr, and that's if one can find a job during daycare hours.

Yeah, some states are a bit behind but I think they'll get there soon. I didn't say "having various things you want" like a family. I'm just saying a base floor of adequate living i.e. you can take care of yourself and base necessities like food, shelter, health care.

20 states still have a minimum wage of 7.25, including some highly populated ones like Texas and Georgia. Pretty sure their combined population is higher than California's. Increasing the
federal minimum is probably the low fruit for decreasing inequality.

https://www.masslive.com/news/2022/11/these-states-use-the-federal-minimum-wage-of-725-per-hour.html

[GuitarStv]

Historically, every attempt to eliminate inequality has ended VERY badly.

It's weird that you say this and then spent the next four paragraphs listing very good ideas for eliminating inequality, all of which I would agree with.  I think it's widely understood I'm pretty far left :-)


Canada's Baby Bonus system (now the Child Care Benefit) did a really good job of eliminating equality by giving money directly to parents so they wouldn't starve back in the 1940s.  My mom was still getting it in the 70s and 80s. 


But yes, social housing that poor people can afford, wages that can pay for it, rules that keep wealthy business owners from ripping off pay, cheap/free tertiary education are ALL GOOD IDEAS to address inequality and have never ended badly.

I kinda agree with FINate that inequality can't be completely eliminated.  At some level of inequality is necessary for any social system to work.  It gives workers a reason to do a better job, to kill themselves trying to invent a better widget, etc.  But I'd equally argue that there is a point where inequality becomes more damaging than beneficial . . . and I think that here in North America we are racing towards that line if not already past it.

As you've mentioned, there are a great many of successful ways that people have used in the past to reduce inequality, and we need to start implementing them (or fixing them if the current implementations are not operating as expected).

[Ron Scott]

What someone else inherits is none of my business and if she lands a fortune i wish her the best and hope it brings her happiness. Why would anyone feel otherwise?

I only want each of us to have a REAL opportunity to succeed, and don't begrudge anyone their luck, wealth, or success.

Taming inequality by focusing on taking others down a notch sounds like a recipe for neurosis.

You're either for meritocracy of you're not. If you're not, then that's fine. If you are, you should want things to go in that direction. I thought I recalled you being a strong proponent of meritocracy, perhaps I'm recalling someone else.

I don't know where all this gobbledygook got into the human psyche that once you're dead you should have a say on anything. You're dead. It's over.

If you're not for a meritocracy (or moving in that direction as much as possible) then we should still have inheritances, but let them be random. I'd be for that over the current system. Hence it's not a "neurosis" of begrudging people for being lucky. I don't care that there are lottery winners. Let the people who are "lucky" be at random. So, a gagillionaire dies, and the fortune can go to a random poor person or rich person or anyone in the country. Seems fair.

You know, i certainly believe access to desirable employment, advancements, pay, etc. should be based on qualifications, their work ethic and so on. Employers and others having an influence on our success should of course use merit as the barometer.

But at the same time I really don't care if you inherit a lot of money. (I did not.) If someone makes a good buck and wants to give it to her kids then for god’s sake, leave them alone and don’t get your balls in an uproar over it. Why would you care?

The worse thing is maintaining a system in which people don’t have an opportunity to succeed in the first place.

How could anyone feel good about making sure someone else doesn’t get an inheritance? I don’t get the motivation or what bothers these people so much.

[dividendman]

What someone else inherits is none of my business and if she lands a fortune i wish her the best and hope it brings her happiness. Why would anyone feel otherwise?

I only want each of us to have a REAL opportunity to succeed, and don't begrudge anyone their luck, wealth, or success.

Taming inequality by focusing on taking others down a notch sounds like a recipe for neurosis.

You're either for meritocracy of you're not. If you're not, then that's fine. If you are, you should want things to go in that direction. I thought I recalled you being a strong proponent of meritocracy, perhaps I'm recalling someone else.

I don't know where all this gobbledygook got into the human psyche that once you're dead you should have a say on anything. You're dead. It's over.

If you're not for a meritocracy (or moving in that direction as much as possible) then we should still have inheritances, but let them be random. I'd be for that over the current system. Hence it's not a "neurosis" of begrudging people for being lucky. I don't care that there are lottery winners. Let the people who are "lucky" be at random. So, a gagillionaire dies, and the fortune can go to a random poor person or rich person or anyone in the country. Seems fair.

You know, i certainly believe access to desirable employment, advancements, pay, etc. should be based on qualifications, their work ethic and so on. Employers and others having an influence on our success should of course use merit as the barometer.

But at the same time I really don't care if you inherit a lot of money. (I did not.) If someone makes a good buck and wants to give it to her kids then for god’s sake, leave them alone and don’t get your balls in an uproar over it. Why would you care?

The worse thing is maintaining a system in which people don’t have an opportunity to succeed in the first place.

How could anyone feel good about making sure someone else doesn’t get an inheritance? I don’t get the motivation or what bothers these people so much.

I don't "feel good" about it. I don't have any feelings about it. I'm looking at it logically.

I guess you're pro nepotism which will lead to less merit based rewards, and more inequality. I'm anti nepotism. I think people should succeed on their own merit as much possible. Of course I understand the impracticality of what I'm suggesting in today's culture/laws/world. I'm just suggesting how to make a more equality (of opportunity) and addressing inequality, which is what you asked for in this thread.

If people could only keep the money they earned, and could not confer wealth onto others, then I think the laws and many things would change to make a more equal starting point for all. I guess what I'm describing is the Ovarian lottery concept Warren Buffet put forth, but a way to actually enforce it.

The problem right now is all the laws are written by the wealthy, for the wealthy, to keep the wealth.

[GuitarStv]

You know, i certainly believe access to desirable employment, advancements, pay, etc. should be based on qualifications, their work ethic and so on. Employers and others having an influence on our success should of course use merit as the barometer.

But at the same time I really don't care if you inherit a lot of money. (I did not.) If someone makes a good buck and wants to give it to her kids then for god’s sake, leave them alone and don’t get your balls in an uproar over it. Why would you care?

The worse thing is maintaining a system in which people don’t have an opportunity to succeed in the first place.

How could anyone feel good about making sure someone else doesn’t get an inheritance? I don’t get the motivation or what bothers these people so much.

Inheritance is a way of transferring wealth from someone who earned it to someone who did not, who just happens to be related to the earner.  If you believe in rewarding people based on merit, it should be fundamentally difficult to support inheritance as it operates in a diametrically opposed manner.

In the system that we exist in right now, having wealth and using that wealth to help your children makes the playing field unequal.  Unearned wealth that children get from their parents gives them a significant leg up on their competition.  This can take the form of being able to work unpaid internships, being able to focus better on studies because they aren't working a night job to pay their way through school, family/business introductions and connections, to having better access to stuff (computers, tutors, hell - even school supplies and food) in elementary school that helps you learn and succeed.  This all greatly furthers inequality and undermines meritocracy.

Many of these problems that act as a drag on people's ability to succeed can be solved.  We're working on some solutions right now.  Free food programs in schools for example are an attempt to address kids who come from families where there isn't enough money to feed everyone every day.  (Usually the programs are run very cheaply, use very poor quality food, and are only available once during the day - but it's a start!)  But we don't usually do enough of these sorts of things to really level the playing field.  The reason given for not doing enough, or for doing the job poorly is invariably a lack of money.  So when people who believe strongly in a meritocracy see a hereditary transfer of wealth from those who earned it to those who did not, the idea of stopping that transfer of wealth and then distributing it more fairly is quite appealing.

[RetiredAt63]

I know I'm a dreamer - I would like to see a system where for most people inherited wealth doesn't really help that much*, because everyone starts out with a strong foundation.

That means good prenatal care and good prenatal nutrition, good nutrition and good health care for children (including dental), then good education for everyone, not just those whose money can buy private schools or access to the top public schools.  Free or extremely well supported education for a post-high school degree - so a technical college degree or a B.A/B.Sc.  Support past that - but with strings - no low cost education and then taking off for greener pastures.  I say this because Canada has done the brain drain to the US too much, and it has cost us.

Decent parental leave and good affordable daycare, so parents have support and children do too.

Universal health care of some sort - this is in every G20 country except the US.

Sensible minimum wage - people should have a living wage.

For those in the US who look at this, Universities like McGill and U of Toronto score well in world university ranking assessments and the undergrad fees are reasonable.

I read someplace a few years ago that Canada now has more social mobility that the US.  If you can get an education at relatively low cost, if your schools are funded by the province, not the municipality, if you do not depend on a job for your health insurance so you have more job mobility, you have opportunities.  The Scandinavian countries are the best examples.


*Of course this doesn't apply to the 0.01% - their money opens doors that the rest of us don't even know about.  And it is protected.   Change political funding laws to do something about this.

[reeshau]

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

The names you've provided are interesting since their generational wealth has endured. e.g. Anderson Cooper of CNN got some of that money and we're talking 4 generations since. Rockefellers are still quite rich, with NASDAQ estimating the family (of about 200) has $10.3 Billion in net worth. The Getty family wealth is estimated at $5.4 billion, at least by Forbes in 2015. So, yeah, they're not at the pinnacle of crazy richness they were during the oil baron days, but they're still really rich.

Actually, Anderson didn't get an inheritance.  He did get an education.  While Gloria did inheritance, it was $2.5-$5M in 1925 ($35-70M today)  Because of the history of her father squandering most of the family fortune, she told Anderson early that he would not get an inheritance.

https://lawtonlegacyplanning.com/2024/05/10/gloria-vanderbilt-no-trust-fund-kids-for-her/

He has passed on that mentality to his sons.
Anderson has written about the rise and fall of his own family, and the Astors.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a45124305/anderson-cooper-sons-inheritance/

[doneby35]

You know, i certainly believe access to desirable employment, advancements, pay, etc. should be based on qualifications, their work ethic and so on. Employers and others having an influence on our success should of course use merit as the barometer.

But at the same time I really don't care if you inherit a lot of money. (I did not.) If someone makes a good buck and wants to give it to her kids then for god’s sake, leave them alone and don’t get your balls in an uproar over it. Why would you care?

The worse thing is maintaining a system in which people don’t have an opportunity to succeed in the first place.

How could anyone feel good about making sure someone else doesn’t get an inheritance? I don’t get the motivation or what bothers these people so much.

Inheritance is a way of transferring wealth from someone who earned it to someone who did not, who just happens to be related to the earner.  If you believe in rewarding people based on merit, it should be fundamentally difficult to support inheritance as it operates in a diametrically opposed manner.

This makes sense but I also see a problem here. This should then apply to let’s say a stay at home or unemployed spouse that did not “earn” the money, or even earns much less than the primary earner, but just happens to be married to the earner.

[GilesMM]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

The names you've provided are interesting since their generational wealth has endured. e.g. Anderson Cooper of CNN got some of that money and we're talking 4 generations since. Rockefellers are still quite rich, with NASDAQ estimating the family (of about 200) has $10.3 Billion in net worth. The Getty family wealth is estimated at $5.4 billion, at least by Forbes in 2015. So, yeah, they're not at the pinnacle of crazy richness they were during the oil baron days, but they're still really rich.
But even if 70% (which is the reported number) of generational wealth is squandered by the second generation:
1) why give them the pass to squander it?
2) if they do squander it so readily, it's clear that they're not creating the same disruptions and wealth their ancestors did *because* they have the free pass, so we're stifling the drive of those folks to invent things of their own
3) since they squander it, it's probably better to go to the government for various programs.

If you REALLY want to see money squandered, give it the federal government!

[dividendman]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

The names you've provided are interesting since their generational wealth has endured. e.g. Anderson Cooper of CNN got some of that money and we're talking 4 generations since. Rockefellers are still quite rich, with NASDAQ estimating the family (of about 200) has $10.3 Billion in net worth. The Getty family wealth is estimated at $5.4 billion, at least by Forbes in 2015. So, yeah, they're not at the pinnacle of crazy richness they were during the oil baron days, but they're still really rich.
But even if 70% (which is the reported number) of generational wealth is squandered by the second generation:
1) why give them the pass to squander it?
2) if they do squander it so readily, it's clear that they're not creating the same disruptions and wealth their ancestors did *because* they have the free pass, so we're stifling the drive of those folks to invent things of their own
3) since they squander it, it's probably better to go to the government for various programs.

If you REALLY want to see money squandered, give it the federal government!

For example?

[reeshau]

If you REALLY want to see money squandered, give it the federal government!

For example?

Federal wool subsidies.  Circa WWI, this was a strategic measure because military uniforms were made of wool.  It has been...well-lobbbied-for, I guess.

Switzerland subsidizes a number of farm products, in the name of preserving their heritage.  I've never heard of something like that, here.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) offers a number of programs that support the wool industry, including:
Cotton and Wool Apparel Program (CAWA)
In May 2022, the USDA announced $50 million in support for eligible apparel manufacturers of wool suits, sport coats, pants, and other wool and cotton clothing. The program is part of the USDA's Pandemic Assistance for Producers initiative.
Wool and Mohair Program
The Agricultural Act of 2014 authorized the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to provide nonrecourse marketing assistance loans (MALs) and loan deficiency payments (LDPs) to eligible wool and mohair producers. These programs are available until January 31 after the wool is shorn.
Wool Trust Fund
This fund helps US wool producers improve the quality of their wool and develop and promote the wool market. The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) receives about $2 million annually to fund activities under this program.
Agriculture Wool Trust
This trust provides four types of annual payments, including payments to manufacturers of worsted wool fabrics, wool yarn, wool fiber, and wool top duty compensation payments. It also refunds duties paid on imports of certain wool products.

[GilesMM]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

The names you've provided are interesting since their generational wealth has endured. e.g. Anderson Cooper of CNN got some of that money and we're talking 4 generations since. Rockefellers are still quite rich, with NASDAQ estimating the family (of about 200) has $10.3 Billion in net worth. The Getty family wealth is estimated at $5.4 billion, at least by Forbes in 2015. So, yeah, they're not at the pinnacle of crazy richness they were during the oil baron days, but they're still really rich.
But even if 70% (which is the reported number) of generational wealth is squandered by the second generation:
1) why give them the pass to squander it?
2) if they do squander it so readily, it's clear that they're not creating the same disruptions and wealth their ancestors did *because* they have the free pass, so we're stifling the drive of those folks to invent things of their own
3) since they squander it, it's probably better to go to the government for various programs.

If you REALLY want to see money squandered, give it the federal government!

For example?

Are you joking? This topic has been around since the late 18th century if not longer. For a recent update, check the latest Festivus Report. Nearly $1 trillion of utter waste.


https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Festivus-2023.pdf

[dividendman]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

The names you've provided are interesting since their generational wealth has endured. e.g. Anderson Cooper of CNN got some of that money and we're talking 4 generations since. Rockefellers are still quite rich, with NASDAQ estimating the family (of about 200) has $10.3 Billion in net worth. The Getty family wealth is estimated at $5.4 billion, at least by Forbes in 2015. So, yeah, they're not at the pinnacle of crazy richness they were during the oil baron days, but they're still really rich.
But even if 70% (which is the reported number) of generational wealth is squandered by the second generation:
1) why give them the pass to squander it?
2) if they do squander it so readily, it's clear that they're not creating the same disruptions and wealth their ancestors did *because* they have the free pass, so we're stifling the drive of those folks to invent things of their own
3) since they squander it, it's probably better to go to the government for various programs.

If you REALLY want to see money squandered, give it the federal government!

For example?

Are you joking? This topic has been around since the late 18th century if not longer. For a recent update, check the latest Festivus Report. Nearly $1 trillion of utter waste.


https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Festivus-2023.pdf

Not sure that Rand Paul is the best neutral auditor of the federal government. Each department goes through independent audits to ensure the money is spent as congress intended.

Rand Paul has also voted against every spending bill. I guess he thinks the ideal spend is zero.

Also, the comparison isn't the government compared to perfect. I think a better comparison is the government compared to any large megacap. Having worked at many of them at fairly high levels, they waste a lot...


edited: for typo and to say, I think having a billionaire give all of the money to the government is still a better use than giving it to their offspring, even if the government wastes a good portion of it.

[Ron Scott]

Do you guys really see the solution to inequality to be empowering the federal government to reduce the wealth of the wealthy, sending their money to the federal government, and establishing more federal government programs?

[dividendman]

Do you guys really see the solution to inequality to be empowering the federal government to reduce the wealth of the wealthy, sending their money to the federal government, and establishing more federal government programs?

No. I don't want the federal government to reduce the wealth of the wealthy at all. I want them to prevent the transfer of wealth from the wealthy to others. So, pretty much the opposite of what you wrote. I don't mind if the assets held at the time of death are directed to the national debt instead of some program, or simply liquidated and erased by the federal reserve (that would help with monetary expansion and inflation).

FYI: outside of the justice system and the national defense, the governments real only remaining power is taking money from one group and giving it to another.

[AccidentialMustache]

But at the same time I really don't care if you inherit a lot of money. (I did not.) If someone makes a good buck and wants to give it to her kids then for god’s sake, leave them alone and don’t get your balls in an uproar over it. Why would you care?

If someone made a good buck in the last 45 years by making it on the backs of everyone who's the losing side of inequality, I think caring about it now is a pretty reasonable response.

Go listen to some of Scott Galloway (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E) and you might start seeing why younger generations keep giving you answers you don't like.

[twinstudy]

Firstly, inequality isn't bad so long as the floor quality of life is adequate which I think we've largely achieved in most western countries.

But if you want to make it a more even playing field:

Eliminate generational wealth transfers. Make inheritances not a thing (i.e. taxed at 100%). Eliminate all gifts/giving money to relatives who are adults.. Of course, the practicality of implementing this is a problem since you can create dummy jobs for your friends/offspring.

All people must incur (government provided) debt for their own education that they have to discharge (instead of taxing the population for education).

Basically make all individuals pay for their own shit through money they earned themselves.

Generational wealth doesn’t seem to be an issue in the US as it is normally squandered by the third generation.  Vanderbilt, Getty, Rockefeller, etc. Ant counter examples?

The names you've provided are interesting since their generational wealth has endured. e.g. Anderson Cooper of CNN got some of that money and we're talking 4 generations since. Rockefellers are still quite rich, with NASDAQ estimating the family (of about 200) has $10.3 Billion in net worth. The Getty family wealth is estimated at $5.4 billion, at least by Forbes in 2015. So, yeah, they're not at the pinnacle of crazy richness they were during the oil baron days, but they're still really rich.
But even if 70% (which is the reported number) of generational wealth is squandered by the second generation:
1) why give them the pass to squander it?
2) if they do squander it so readily, it's clear that they're not creating the same disruptions and wealth their ancestors did *because* they have the free pass, so we're stifling the drive of those folks to invent things of their own
3) since they squander it, it's probably better to go to the government for various programs.

If you REALLY want to see money squandered, give it the federal government!

For example?

One example from Australia is the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which now costs more per year than our entire Medicare (public health) budget, despite only 6% of Australians being on the NDIS. The NDIS is separate from disability benefits (income) and is separate from normal acute health needs. It is a massive money sink. Do disabled people need extra care? Of course. But if you give huge amounts of funding to individuals to spend on private providers, those providers have an incentive to (1) over diagnose, (2) over treat and (3) claim the highest possible rate which will exactly deplete the individual's funding plan, before applying for another. And the individuals have no incentive to save either, since the money is not theirs.

[twinstudy]

But at the same time I really don't care if you inherit a lot of money. (I did not.) If someone makes a good buck and wants to give it to her kids then for god’s sake, leave them alone and don’t get your balls in an uproar over it. Why would you care?

If someone made a good buck in the last 45 years by making it on the backs of everyone who's the losing side of inequality, I think caring about it now is a pretty reasonable response.

Go listen to some of Scott Galloway (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E) and you might start seeing why younger generations keep giving you answers you don't like.

I actually do believe in an inheritance tax as I think it is meritocratic, but I disagree that someone who is rich necessarily made it on the back of everyone who's on the losing side of inequality. For example, does a surgeon or a barrister make money off the back of the less capable? I don't see how that is so.

Further, let's assume you do in fact make money at others' expense (let's say for example you are an insurance salesman, or some other unpopular job). Why does this lead to any culpability or responsibility? Why do younger generations feel that someone else has 'screwed them over'? It's not like that insurance salesman forced you to sign the insurance contract, or stopped you from getting into medical school.

I can understand arguments for an inheritance tax (plainly meritocratic) and for better access to education (plainly meritocratic) but the hatred of the rich comes from a completely different, and much less noble, place. If you weren't good enough it's fine to complain about a lack of opportunity, and it's fine also to point at people who got their jobs via nepotism (yuck), but that's not everyone who's successful.

[Morning Glory]

But at the same time I really don't care if you inherit a lot of money. (I did not.) If someone makes a good buck and wants to give it to her kids then for god’s sake, leave them alone and don’t get your balls in an uproar over it. Why would you care?

If someone made a good buck in the last 45 years by making it on the backs of everyone who's the losing side of inequality, I think caring about it now is a pretty reasonable response.

Go listen to some of Scott Galloway (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEJ4hkpQW8E) and you might start seeing why younger generations keep giving you answers you don't like.

I actually do believe in an inheritance tax as I think it is meritocratic, but I disagree that someone who is rich necessarily made it on the back of everyone who's on the losing side of inequality. For example, does a surgeon or a barrister make money off the back of the less capable? I don't see how that is so.

Further, let's assume you do in fact make money at others' expense (let's say for example you are an insurance salesman, or some other unpopular job). Why does this lead to any culpability or responsibility? Why do younger generations feel that someone else has 'screwed them over'? It's not like that insurance salesman forced you to sign the insurance contract, or stopped you from getting into medical school.

I can understand arguments for an inheritance tax (plainly meritocratic) and for better access to education (plainly meritocratic) but the hatred of the rich comes from a completely different, and much less noble, place. If you weren't good enough it's fine to complain about a lack of opportunity, and it's fine also to point at people who got their jobs via nepotism (yuck), but that's not everyone who's successful.

In the US we had overt racial discrimination about who could own land or receive bank loans until fairly recently,  leading to a huge wealth gap between racial groups today. A stiff inheritance tax would be the easiest and probably fairest way to close the gap.