Abolish Inherited Wealth (2020) | Hacker News Reader

Abolish Inherited Wealth (2020)

jacobin.com

10 pointsbratah8 comments

I’m a huge fan of this idea, except for the practical need for entrepreneurs. I’ve read that entrepreneurs need $20M. That seems like a rather high bar to set, but the unintended consequences of setting it too low would paralyze its implementation.

The reason our society has so many problems is because the elites have alternatives. When Bernie was pushing for universal healthcare, I scoffed that there remained a private option, so my (although highly upper middle class self) only options would be the public system, which would be defunded as soon as enabled, vilified as a bloated government entitlement that we couldn’t afford. I voted against Bernie just for that.

Or how about a progressive estate tax that is less regressive? I hate how draconian their solution is.

This article is basically click bait to advertise the book "Give Them An Argument: Logic for the Left" and the podcast "Give Them An Argument".

Great job Jacobin...

(2020)

I.e. make it illegal to rely on anyone but the government to provide for your children. I'm sure unlike the last few times it was tried, this time such centralization of control and severing of parent-child relations will work out wonderfully.

It's Jacobin, they're just a tiny step away from being tankies, and their readers are already there.

The other alternative, everything is owned by the king was also tried. It ends with the king getting his head chopped off. It's almost like black-and-white thinking like this isn't exactly intellectually curious.

> black-and-white thinking like this

What does "this" refer to? I am not advocating for zero inheritance tax (though it should be low) or zero income tax (current level seems to be in a reasonable range) or zero trust-busting/antitrust regulations (currently woefully underutilized). I assume this is the neo-feudal "king" you refer to - the corporate concentration of capital?

The only thing I objected to was entirely severing the chain of inheritance, to further cutting off parents from children (they are already mostly government educated). Objecting to one extreme proposition is not black and white thinking, unless one claims the opposite extreme is the only alternative.

Can you help me understand? It just seems that when we're talking about nuance and middle ground that rejecting one side seems a little biased.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com