Ownership by and of itself is not socially useful. If an object transfers from Scrooge McDuck to Daddy Warbucks, and nothing else changes, nothing useful is done.
The 1% get excellent educations and have amazing social networks. We need a scheme to encourage them to become socially useful.
My preference is 99.5% estate taxes,[1] coupled with heavy taxation of unearned income (money you get without having to work for it).
1. Conserving estates made sense when wealthy male life expectancy was in the fities, and welathy males did not start to produce offspring until their forties; daily life was more dangerous (naked flames and heavy drapes, ill-treated and cantankerous farm animals everywhere, and on and on); and society was a lot more volatile than it is now.[2]
These days, a wealthy male will die in their nineties, with children in their sixties. The kids don't need the estate; they've already had all the help they can make use of.
This is what that hero of much economic theory, the rational social planner, would do to derive a return on investment from wealthy families.
2. The period since WWII is the longest period of peace in Europe for several hundred years, if not ever.
Tell that to the various socialist and former-communist countries where industrial capital has depreciated to nothingness with a lack of maintenance because the capital lacked a beneficial owner.
This is a world issue. There are billions of people that have never flown on an airplane and probably billions of people that have never been in a bus.
The 1% are largely the only people unaffected by climate change while it greatly effects communities in the global south.
https://activerain.com/blogsview/5136164/are-you-in-the-top-...