The Economist wrote an article about a new way to try and reduce the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. Although not one line was dedicated to explaining why inequality was bad. The idea was to create a ‘social wealth fund’.
IN their own words:
The fund, he [Matt Bruenig] says, should accumulate stakes in equity, bond and property markets, and then disburse a share of its investment income each year as a “universal basic dividend”. Even in the most egalitarian decades of the past century, the richest 10% of the population owned the majority of the wealth. Money passes down the generations through gifts and bequests, but also through the extra educational and entrepreneurial opportunities it affords. A social dividend would counteract this entrenchment of advantage.
The proposal has a certain appeal. If funded through taxes on existing wealth—like property and bequests—such an entity could be a simple way to reduce the unfair opportunities afforded to the rich at birth.
Okay just a few basic points I’m going to make. That which you tax you get less of. Tax on cigarettes, less cigarettes etc. Therefore tax on rich people endowing their children with wealth, the less endowments of wealth the rich will impose on their children. And instead they might just burn all their money before they die on the classic hookers and blow or put it into other ventures.
Would this not be politicized? Wouldn’t this just be used to entrench the wealth of certain publicly traded corporations like say Apple, Google, Amazon who could lobby to get the government to invest into their stocks? This would 100% be made a political issue of where this money is going and act as another form of corporate welfare where some less rich people pay money to the government who uses it to pay for much richer companies. Don’t see equality declining there.
Now a more moral part of. The article says it would be a way to “reduce the unfair opportunities afforded to the rich at birth.” Well, should the rich not be able to help their children? If someone has an idea and helps millions of people through marketing his idea, why shouldn’t he allow his children to go to good schools, to have a luxurious life style, to have more opportunists than other children? He worked so his children could have a better child hood and maybe even a better life than him. So what?
It’s natural to want to help your children with the wealth that you have. If inequality between children is bad then reductio ad absurdum even the disparity between middle class and working class children is bad. Even the disparity between working class and orphan children is bad so all children should be raised by the state and made equal. This is where this ideology leads you down. The state raising children is the last thing I want it doing.