What is really the culprit of our economy

[antagon]

Antagon:

I don't mean to imply everyone who earns their first million turns evil.
I'm aware there are millionaires who devote a greater percentage of their income and time to legitimate charity than I do.

I'm not so sure about those who are worth multiple millions at the moment of their birth.

And I don't think it matters much if the last name is Kennedy or Bush.
There are families who believe they collectively own this country and this planet.

Over thousands of years they've proven far more successful at starting wars than fighting wars, and they tend to be creditors and rentiers as opposed to debtors and renters.

At the very least, shouldn't each generation in a free country be required to earn its own fortune?

shouldn't every generation in a free country be free to benefit from the wealth of their parents and ancestors?

 

[georgephillip]

At the very least, shouldn't each generation in a free country be required to earn its own fortune?

Should everything default to government upon death?

Government would be a last resort.

The choice of who receives the fortune would be up to those leaving the fortune.

Schools and non-profits would probably put the money to better use than government.

 

[georgephillip]

Antagon:

I don't mean to imply everyone who earns their first million turns evil.
I'm aware there are millionaires who devote a greater percentage of their income and time to legitimate charity than I do.

I'm not so sure about those who are worth multiple millions at the moment of their birth.

And I don't think it matters much if the last name is Kennedy or Bush.
There are families who believe they collectively own this country and this planet.

Over thousands of years they've proven far more successful at starting wars than fighting wars, and they tend to be creditors and rentiers as opposed to debtors and renters.

At the very least, shouldn't each generation in a free country be required to earn its own fortune?

shouldn't every generation in a free country be free to benefit from the wealth of their parents and ancestors?

If it's true that for the last 500 years the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime is losing control of the revenue streams generated by elite criminal activity, I don't believe the vast fortunes currently in existence grow from a level economic playing field free of "unearned" incomes.

A Bush or Kennedy receives a lifetime of benefits from their private educations.
Often family contacts going back generations open doors they would never get through without the "right" ancestors.

I'm always hesitant to use the word "fair" around most conservatives, but I don't see any evidence Anglo-Saxon capitalism would exist on truly level fields where only merit mattered.

 

[antagon]

Antagon:

I don't mean to imply everyone who earns their first million turns evil.
I'm aware there are millionaires who devote a greater percentage of their income and time to legitimate charity than I do.

I'm not so sure about those who are worth multiple millions at the moment of their birth.

And I don't think it matters much if the last name is Kennedy or Bush.
There are families who believe they collectively own this country and this planet.

Over thousands of years they've proven far more successful at starting wars than fighting wars, and they tend to be creditors and rentiers as opposed to debtors and renters.

At the very least, shouldn't each generation in a free country be required to earn its own fortune?

shouldn't every generation in a free country be free to benefit from the wealth of their parents and ancestors?

If it's true that for the last 500 years the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime is losing control of the revenue streams generated by elite criminal activity, I don't believe the vast fortunes currently in existence grow from a level economic playing field free of "unearned" incomes.

A Bush or Kennedy receives a lifetime of benefits from their private educations.
Often family contacts going back generations open doors they would never get through without the "right" ancestors.

I'm always hesitant to use the word "fair" around most conservatives, but I don't see any evidence Anglo-Saxon capitalism would exist on truly level fields where only merit mattered.

dunno, gp. focusing the government's capacity for draconian egalitarianism on what i see as a basic right to pass on your wealth to your kin is more a reason for concern than the bush or kennedy legacy. how has a kennedy or bush disenfranchised you or your family? how will a law which prevents you from passing on some of your wealth to your kids disenfranchise them?

 

[georgephillip]

Antagon:

Four hundred Americans currently have a greater new worth than 155 million of their fellow citizens combined.

Since the 1970s at least, the wealth has been steadily flowing up the economic food chain.

At some point one person one vote becomes meaningless, and the gap between the rich and the rest becomes a vacuum in a country with 200 million private guns.

Maybe the question is one of First Principals... Does government ever have the right to redistribute the private wealth of its citizens?

 

[Foxfyre]

At the very least, shouldn't each generation in a free country be required to earn its own fortune?

Who do you propose should be the authority who should require that?

Why have concern for the poor if each generation is expected to start out as poor as the last?

Why should parents sacrifice and give their best so that their children can enjoy more opportunity than the parents started with? More ability to succeed than the parents had? Get a bit closer to grasping the brass ring than the parents were able to do?

I don't despise that 'old money' any more than I despise 'new money'. That old money is the source of most of the foundatons and endowments and scholarship funds and other major philanthropic endeavors.

Class envy is a far more evil and insidious thing than any excesses of capitalism. Capitalism breaks down when it is excessively exploited for personal motives or gain. And those excesses are greatly tempered by a Constitution protecting and defending individual rights.

I want us to try real capitalism under the protection of that Constitution for awhile. I think many here might find the results most pleasing.

 

[antagon]

Antagon:

Four hundred Americans currently have a greater new worth than 155 million of their fellow citizens combined.

Since the 1970s at least, the wealth has been steadily flowing up the economic food chain.

At some point one person one vote becomes meaningless, and the gap between the rich and the rest becomes a vacuum in a country with 200 million private guns.

Maybe the question is one of First Principals... Does government ever have the right to redistribute the private wealth of its citizens?

the government has the right and exercises it liberally, georgephillip. do you acknowledge any extent that the government should take care to temper this redistribution? you mention the facts of the matter with the complexion of wealth in the US, but what do you find to be so negative about it? i dont get that part.