Apply the same logic to any kind of asset. Why should real estate, ownership of land, or any other material posession be inherited through generations? Why not let it revert to the public domain upon the death of the owner?
For random “copyrighted” content like say my blog scrawlings, it would by default be under a CC attribution license unless I paid copyright tax on the content. Ie: default open not default closed.
Curious if any country does this?
It's an interesting point. I believe (chatGPT4 agrees) that taxes on IP occur via licensing deals, on transactions, and/or through registration fees. But not through anything resembling a RP wealth tax. There are probably some corner cases though.
Ownership of creative works you create yourself does not deprive anybody else of anything, so is less problematic.
Because land is real property. Unlike the made up BS that is intellectual property which is just like trying to own numbers.
You should have to do something that benefits the public in order for the public to grant you that right. And if you want the property to land in your nephew's hands, they too should have to contribute.
In our corner of the world we call that "taxes".
What proportion of property comes from "Being your rich uncle's favorite nephew"
Where do you propose we stop? Do we reevaluate your assets every day and expropriate them if some bureaucrat deems you are not "contributing" to society. Who makes that determination?
Why stop at property? If humans are deemed not beneficial maybe the state can take over your body and donate your organs?
Think that is hyperbolic? Nope. CCP started with property and is now doing forced organ harvesting.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
So then you get this situation where everybody knows that the taxes are doing more harm than good, and somebody really ought to do something about it, but nobody wants a discontinuity of government because their property is justified via taxation by the old corrupt one.
It correctly dissuades parents from working to the point of alienation and unjust negligence of children attempting to set their children up for success (which presumably increases the chances of maladjusted children), and presumably will result in more productive labor from the child.
Usually I see one where the parents' efforts end up contributing to zero-sum games such that they set their children up for success at the expense of their peers, which creates wasteful conflict down the line and ends up being negative-sum in the long run.
It's not as though private corporate competition isn't at times wasteful and destructive effort anyway.
I'm worried about the cases where the parents are working hard, for instance, to be able to afford property in the good school districts. In aggregate this widens class strata and creates preventable problems that the children will have to address (e.g. now you have to pay cops to keep the riffraff in its place when you could've just not had riffraff).
Better to invest in solving problems that everybody shares, because your kid will be part of that everybody. Though I admit that that's easier said than done.
Land is neither created nor easy to copy.
Speaking very pedantically, it can be.
I would download a car.
Human ownership only.