• confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Capping the amount of wealth anyone can inherit seems sane to me. In fact it seems healthy for the whole economy, so not just sane but prudent. If you let all the wealth be collected by a few the system breaks down and all the money becomes worthless. Preventing that is entirely sane.

    I’m against preventing the transfer all all property. That seems like a recipe for corruption but I’d vote for limiting it to a trust of like $50-$100 million maximum plus an occupied home, a vacation home, and some reasonable amount of small property like boats and cars. Honestly that amount seems excessive to me but I think the majority would be in favor of such a law.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you let all the wealth be collected by a few the system breaks down and all the money becomes worthless.

      This is not how wealth works

      • confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        An economy only works when a majority participates. An ideal economy has everyone participating.

        You can do a basic thought experiment to figure this out. Imagine 10 people control $100 trillion. Everyone else controls $0. What do you think you’ll be able to get for $1?

        You might then say, “money isn’t wealth.” True. But if 10 people control all the wealth and everyone else has starved to death that’s even worse.