Adam Grant in Originals cites a study in which poor people are more ready to accept the status quo.
Sorry, we’re not going to play that game. You know, the one where you cite another factoid which sounds like it MIGHT be related to the original point, but you have no way to connect the dots between the two; you just toss it out there and hope that nobody notices that you didn’t.
Yes, certainly it’s possible that poorer people are more willing to accept the status quo than others.
It is also quite possible that their view that an estate tax is unfair is wholly unrelated to “status quo.” And without any evidence that the two are related, the rational person assumes they are not.
Studying data is only good if you know what to do with it.
Yep. And judging from the logical fallacy you vomited above, you have no idea whatsoever.
Now, address my other points, or I’ll assume you simply can’t, and that you hold certain political and economic opinions without any reason other than they “seem right” to you.
Now, let’s finish:
1%ers earned their money in a fair system
Yes, that is an assumption. If you believe it to be unfair, then please explain in detail how is it *not* fair. Otherwise, you’re spouting a political talking point that lacks merit.
2. Earnings are not new earnings if a new person, the heir, earns them. That is: once one person in a family earns a dollar, when that person bequeaths that dollar to someone who did no work for the dollar, the dollar is not earned again.
This is one of the oldest debates in taxation theory, and it comes down to a very simple binary. Do you tax the PERSON, or do you tax the DOLLAR?
MOST of federal tax law assumes that you tax the dollar; that once a dollar is earned, it is unfair to tax it again. You want it to be the former, while most (not all, but most) of the US tax code assumes the latter.
3. It is okay for one person to own x% of the money, which represents a portion of finite earthly resources and human labor.
The term “okay” implies a moral, rather than a rational, judgement. In my view, matters of morality should be left to priests or philosophers, not politicians. But, I digress.
Since I am not going to get into a moral debate, I’d rather focus on the more important point, that being “Does the fact that the rich are amassing wealth at a faster rate than anyone else create a real social problem, or is it something that just bugs lefty control freaks?”
The problem here for you lefties is that it’s rather difficult to find a real social problem caused by disparity. In fact, just today another poster posted this chart from The Economist (hardly a right-leaning publication):
So, what this little ditty is saying is that using the OECD’s Better Life Index, the bottom 10% of the US population lives better than the top 10% in places like Italy and Israel.
Having travelled extensively in Italy………I suppose that’s true, when you remember than Southern Italy is like an entirely different country than (developed) Northern Italy. But, let’s not digress. The original question was “Does US wealth disparity cause a social problem in US society”. And charts like this make it difficult to answer that question in the affirmative.
Poor people are a good judge of wealth distribution. You cite them as being authorities on the subject when a line of thinking [not mine] says rich people deserve their wealth because they are smarter or more talented or more clever about wealth distribution and complicated systems than poor people.
I made no such contention. All I said was that polling shows that poor people generally oppose the estate tax when it is explained to them, and give as their reason that it doesn’t seem fair to them. That statement neither contends not implies that they are “authorities” on wealth distribution or the reasons for its distribution.
Nevertheless, you seem to think I should agree with no estate tax because some people [even poor people] think it is okay. What kind of of reasoning is that? To accept an idea just because other people accept it?
Never said that. I simply pointed out that there is a rather broad consensus in our society (I believe in the high 60’s, IIRC) that the estate tax is unfair. Nobody implied that you should change your mind to match that consensus; but it does mean that your view is in the minority.
That it is penalizing someone who is inheriting money they didn’t earn to tax them. But it is not penalizing the people around that person to pay for the heir’s schools, the heir’s police, the heir’s military, and the heir’s roads by taxing actual labor.
That reasoning has a cart-horse problem. Before you can claim a “loss”, you have to first gain consensus that you’re entitled to the “gain”. If the estate tax is unfair, then there’s no loss, because you were never entitled to a gain in the first place.