Originally Posted by Math2
It doesn't matter how you put it, you're discouraging success just like you discourage work when you give to the poor. That $1675000 you mentioned becomes less and less as welfare costs rise and rise and rise. It's unsustainable without having the rich pay upwards of 90% by 2050.
not everything is about growth.
social welfare appeals to an intuitive sense of fairness. if we truly believe in equal opportunity then curtailing intergenerational wealth transfer is necessary to achieve that goal. we all can agree that some people are born into luckier situations then other. If life was somehow a complete market in which people can take out insurance to hedge against the possibility of being born into a shitty situation, then people would do that. Wealth redistribution is but an ex post expression of that insurance.