Which poses another thorny question: Should the government have the right to confiscate wealth upon death?
-
-
-
At the risk of alienating everyone I haven’t already, I think this is one of the better ways to fund gov — insofar as it trades off against taxes on income/capital paid by the people who earned it. But it’s still culturally toxic to frame it as a means of sticking it to the rich
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Similarly, the rich do not have the political influence that they are thought to have. It takes a lot of money and time to run a political campaign, which is why political campaigns are rarely sustained by the funds of a single person.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I keep seeing this stat thrown out lately that by generation 1, 70% lose their wealth and by generation 2, 90% have lost it. Anecdotally it seems to make sense. Do you have research to back this up?
-
Nevermind this article seems to clarify most of thathttps://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/16/how-to-stay-rich-for-three-generations-.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wealth is, in fact, much more dynastic in Europe than in the US.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do they not discuss division of labor in corporate society at the Ayn Rand School of Economics & Business? There are no billionaires without the labor of wage-earners. All it takes is one carny-barking conman with a corporation to convince people to work for him.pic.twitter.com/WiQSRbY1PZ
-
Uh, yes, billionaires do tend to employee people. You got me there
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.