>It is encouraging that a man whose family first got rich because his ancestor was the fat huntsman (gros veneur) of William the Conqueror has £9 billion today, 950 years later. It shows that our culture respects private property over government interference. It gives hope to us all.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/13/a-dukes-wealth-i...
I'd love to know how they think William came to acquire that property.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-com...
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/27232308-the-wake
Here's Kingsnorth writing about the consequences of the Norman invasion upon England today:
> [...] legacies of 1066 remain with us. Take that law enacted by Guillaume in 1067. In Anglo-Saxon England, the idea that one man — the king — literally owned the entire landbase of the nation would have been unthinkable. Today, it remains a legal reality: England is still owned, as a whole, by the Crown. The hereditary monarchy introduced by the Normans remains too, and the French concept known as ‘primogeniture’ — in which estates are inherited wholesale by the first-born son, rather than parceled out between children as was more common in Anglo-Saxon England
> [...] Today, Britain is the country with the second most unequal distribution of land on Earth, after Brazil. More than 70 per cent of the land is owned by fewer than two per cent of the population. Much of this is directly traceable to Guillaume, whose 22nd-great-granddaughter sits on the English throne today.
> [...] ask yourself whether the development of early modern capitalism in England would have been possible without that concentration of land, and therefore power and wealth. What about the consequent empire? Did the industrial revolution begin in England because that funnel of power and money made it possible? Or what about class, which is directly connected to all of those things? We are still one of the most socially and economically stratified countries in Europe. In today’s England, the rulers still drink wine and the ‘plebs’ still drink beer, just as they did in 1066.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-1066-wasn-t-all-that-england-s-en...
Quite, some good old fashioned respect for the rule of law there...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...
> Upon his father's death, in August 2016, as well as the peerages, he inherited a wealth currently estimated at £9 billion, with considerable trust funds for his sisters. This wealth is held in a trust, of which the Duke is a beneficial owner but not the legal owner — an arrangement which received considerable press attention due to the inheritance tax exemption this confers.
The standard Inheritance Tax rate is 40% in the UK when above a certain threshold - https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax
Seems fair!
Ownership is a fiction of society, as are most rules, and its probably up to us to decide what "fairness" means. I find it hard to make an argument that someones great grandchildren to the nth level has any claim on this property. So inheritance taxes do seem reasonable.
I have wondered if the modern trend of the rich establishing "foundations" is a way to sidestep inheritance taxes. The foundation will accumulate assets that will be controlled by the heirs some goes to charity which is good for society, but still more and more assets will of necessity be controlled by the foundation and all tax free.
The problem is your small money has no power, rich people with their big money can buy governments and pass laws that benefit just the rich.
The law is fighting the symptom instead of the root cause there.
Edit: reworded first couple of words
I don't think it's fair that public services for all have to be cut so that some people who's parents (not themselves!) got very rich can stay rich. Let them start out from "wealthy" or from "well off" instead, and let everyone else go from "scraping by" to "okay" in return.
A more logical view is to think of inheritance as just usual income to other person and hence eligible for usual income tax as contribution towards shared goal of the society.
2. I agree that an inheritance can/should be treated just like an income. And that's why I applied the usual tax fairness argument of "the more wealth you have, the more responsibility you bear for financing public services, because you have greatly (if perhaps indirectly) benefited from them."
I'd argue that it's even less fair that the government feels it's entitled to a percentage of your income. Taking money from a dead person doesn't seem as bad as taking money from a living person.
Nobody likes taxes, but they have been a part of society for several thousand years.
Do you have a dataset showing people without children work less hard and create less wealth?
That wouldn't be the right calculation. If a person has children, their children will contribute to future GDP. So a proper analysis of having children on the economy would compare the output of:
- someone without children; and - someone with children plus the net output of their children discounted to present day value.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the average person without children individually contributes more to GDP than the average person with children. However, that's largely because raising children takes time, labor, and resources. The person with children is sacrificing their own individual wealth and production and investing it their children. However, when the children's future production is taken into account, discounted by the future value of that production, I suspect that it turns out the other way.
I don't have data on this and although my suspicions feel correct, maybe they aren't. I'd be genuinely to see such data.
I think you're taking that in the wrong direction. The op was suggesting that the primary reason people work hard and create wealth is because they want to leave money for their children after they're dead, and that a redistributive estate tax would prevent that. Essentially: people are primarily motivated to create because of their children.
No, I was not. I was saying that that is one of the main reasons, not the main reason.
That's not what I was claiming. I was only claiming that providing for one's family is one of the main motivations for people to do productive work and create wealth, not that it is the only motivation.
Do you have a dataset showing that people with spouses and children do not do productive work and create wealth?
Really if we valued equality of opportunity at all cost we would either collectivize or randomize children but needless to say that would be incredibly unpopular and not lead to good outcomes given aspects of mammalian child-raising and bonds - we already know from our experience with orphanages that calling the results sub-optimal is an understatement.
There seems to be a major cultural force in the UK of enforcing their own bubbles of hereditary elite self-justification at all costs - and that is sadly by no means unique. It has been seen many times throughout history and around globe and usually ends in utter disaster when reality comes along and slaps them in the face - often after many smaller disasters which should have been major warning signs were ignored.
https://anarchimedia.com/2019/01/15/rich-families-in-florenc...
Looking at that history it’s easy to think that might be how the “born to rule” mentality among the aristocracy in the UK became so entrenched.
The alternative view is that the people in these families have the personal characteristics that allow one to build wealth, and that those characteristics are passed down (either by some kind of conditioning, or genetically, or some combination). This doesn't require much stability at all, since the wealth can all be lost but the capacity to build it is not as long as the person survives.
Examples of the second view can be found in diverse examples like: Wealthy Irans who lost everything in the '79 revolution, moved to America, and rebuilt from nothing to become wealthy again, often not even speaking English to start. Jews after the Holocaust, who lost everything and rebuilt from nothing to now become >17% of global billionaires on 0.1% of global population. And so on.
Though both views are obviously in effect, given the massive instability present throughout history, I'm inclined to say the second causality is dominant over the long term, while the first is only effective over the short term (e.g. trust-fund babies who lose everything in one generation, pro sports players or lottery winners who get millions and lose it all within a few years, etc).
I think it's important to keep both causalities in mind.
With no cataclysms to prove their ability to rebuild if needed, wealth's ability to self perpetuate means ascribing it to stability makes sense. Since they would remain wealthy as both with and without the 'virtues' (in the sense of self-promotion as opposed to morality) its presence is irrelevant. All they need to do is avoid doing anything extraordinarily stupid and wasteful.
I'm not sure it really changes the dynamic very much though. Even if the cream always rises to the top, theres no harm in shaking the milk bottle every so often.
IIRC, they only lease the land for as much as 999 years, don't sell.