I didn't read the thread parent as being completely serious, and my not entirely serious reply highlighted the flaws in the argument.
You talk about 'fairness' but you could argue that many different ways. Everyone paying $10000 a year flat rate tax is 'fair', as is leaving everyone with the average income.
Clearly those 2 approaches have problems. At minimum the rich don't want a French revolution type event. But society benefits when people attempt risky ventures, that work out. So clearly you want a balance between these 2 extremes.
The traditional defense of letting richer people keep more of their money is that they worked to earn it through their superior skills. This kind of generational wealth makes a mockery of that.
Personally I would argue for a higher inheritance tax, let each generation compete on a leveller playing field, decrease the tax burden on the living.
The UK’s generational wealth discussed in the article and the generational wealth in France at the time of the revolution were propped up by special treatment in the law for nobles, aristocrats, and the “upper class.” I believe you and I agree that grants of special privilege by the state are unjust.
As for leveling the playing field, what evidence do you present that it is not already more or less level in jurisdictions that do not prop up class systems? Sure, you can cherry pick Paris Hiltons, but the plural of anecdote is not data. What is the distribution of wealth inherited by present millionaires? What studies can you point to that show conclusively that people who are good at building wealth are also good at transmitting these skills to their children, which would be remarkable?
Perhaps natural processes take care of the problem well enough already if overcontrolling micromanagers would only get out of the way.
You talk about 'fairness' but you could argue that many different ways. Everyone paying $10000 a year flat rate tax is 'fair', as is leaving everyone with the average income.
Clearly those 2 approaches have problems. At minimum the rich don't want a French revolution type event. But society benefits when people attempt risky ventures, that work out. So clearly you want a balance between these 2 extremes.
The traditional defense of letting richer people keep more of their money is that they worked to earn it through their superior skills. This kind of generational wealth makes a mockery of that.
Personally I would argue for a higher inheritance tax, let each generation compete on a leveller playing field, decrease the tax burden on the living.