I’m a huge fan of not passing along any substantial generational wealth. Above certain threshold - I’ll give it 15 times of country’s median annual income - it only serves to accumulate wealth.
I’m sorry but biting into that particular number was rather counterproductive, as it was arbitrary - make it 50 if you care, but my point still stands. Armed elite’s successors are the armed elite still, but we can counter that. It would still leave them with funds to afford some very comfortable living, just no longer enough to terrorize the world.
I’m sorry if it came off that way, but I was not trying to be critical of your idea at all - I was trying to see how many people would be impacted, and I think you could easily get away with limiting the amount of inheritance even further.
I think being a worker gives a person perspective that is critical to their development, and no one should inherit or be given enough money that they never have to do any work in their life.
Not only does unrestricted inheritance directly cause the development of a disconnected wealthy class, but it’s also bad for the people who inherit too much.
I’m a huge fan of not passing along any substantial generational wealth. Above certain threshold - I’ll give it 15 times of country’s median annual income - it only serves to accumulate wealth.
Not acculumating generational wealth is only viable in a world where social services provide for everyone.
Very much agreed, but still - no hard limits in terms of heritage only supports a class of parasitic elite.
I was interested to see how the numbers would play out for this idea
According to https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-household-income-by-state the median household income for a single person is $41,382 in the United States. 15 times that would be $620,730
According to https://wealthvieu.com/average-inheritance/#average-and-median-inheritance 92% of inheritances would be well underneath this amount
Assuming that your limit was meant to apply to individual recipients and not to the entire estate, this seems like a pretty modest proposal to me.
I’m sorry but biting into that particular number was rather counterproductive, as it was arbitrary - make it 50 if you care, but my point still stands. Armed elite’s successors are the armed elite still, but we can counter that. It would still leave them with funds to afford some very comfortable living, just no longer enough to terrorize the world.
I’m sorry if it came off that way, but I was not trying to be critical of your idea at all - I was trying to see how many people would be impacted, and I think you could easily get away with limiting the amount of inheritance even further.
I think being a worker gives a person perspective that is critical to their development, and no one should inherit or be given enough money that they never have to do any work in their life.
Not only does unrestricted inheritance directly cause the development of a disconnected wealthy class, but it’s also bad for the people who inherit too much.