Income Inequality vs. Wealth Inequality

[Martin Hash]

The reason the egalitarians are always prattling on about “income inequality” rather that “wealth inequality” is that the poster-child income inequality nations, such as Sweden and the Netherlands with high taxation on income, have higher wealth inequality than the U.S. In fact, the Netherlands, normally associated with extensive socialism, is the nation with the most wealth inequality. Interestingly, the Netherlands pioneered Capitalism 4-centuries ago with the Dutch East India Trading company: stock market, limited-liability corporations & insurance; so Capitalism is mature there. How this disparity happened is that the Netherlands is aristocratic, including low inheritance taxes, and dynastic-type estates where only one heir takes all the family fortune into the next generation. Exacerbating the situation, many people have negative equity in their homes because of intentional underwater mortgages to escape the high income taxes. If there was a choice between the two, wealth inequality is arguably worse than income inequality because it inhibits liberty which is based on meritocracy, the opposite of aristocracy.

[DBTrek]

The reason the egalitarians are always prattling on about “income inequality” rather that “wealth inequality” is that the poster-child income inequality nations, such as Sweden and the Netherlands with high taxation on income, have higher wealth inequality than the U.S. In fact, the Netherlands, normally associated with extensive socialism, is the nation with the most wealth inequality. Interestingly, the Netherlands pioneered Capitalism 4-centuries ago with the Dutch East India Trading company: stock market, limited-liability corporations & insurance; so Capitalism is mature there. How this disparity happened is that the Netherlands is aristocratic, including low inheritance taxes, and dynastic-type estates where only one heir takes all the family fortune into the next generation. Exacerbating the situation, many people have negative equity in their homes because of intentional underwater mortgages to escape the high income taxes. If there was a choice between the two, wealth inequality is arguably worse than income inequality because it inhibits liberty which is based on meritocracy, the opposite of aristocracy.

What prevents a meritorious and capable citizen from acquiring the wealth of an inept wealthy heir through honest commerce?
PT Barnum told you about fools and their money.

You seem to frame the situation as if once a capable, wealthy person, leaves money to an heir - it's out of circulation, and the reach of everyone else, forever. Yet wealthy heirs are as capable of blowing a fortune on frivolities as anyone else.

So why do we need government to perform a function already handled by human nature?

[Martin Hash]

400 years of aristocracy says otherwise.

[DBTrek]

400 years of aristocracy says otherwise.

400 year of aristocracy that came to an abrupt end with the advent of free market capitalism, industrialization, and firearms.
So ... what today prevents a meritorious and capable citizen from acquiring the wealth of an inept wealthy heir through honest commerce?

I understand before the advent of electricity, codified individual liberty, personal property rights, and the combustible engine that it was considerably harder for wealth to be organically distributed.

[Martin Hash]

400 years of aristocracy says otherwise.

400 year of aristocracy that came to an abrupt end with the advent of free market capitalism, industrialization, and firearms.
So ... what today prevents a meritorious and capable citizen from acquiring the wealth of an inept wealthy heir through honest commerce?

I understand before the advent of electricity, codified individual liberty, personal property rights, and the combustible engine that it was considerably harder for wealth to be organically distributed.

After 400 years, the heir of Heineken brewing is the wealthiest person in the Netherlands even though the company hasn't made a profit since the turn of the 19th century. Is your contention that her merit far exceeds your own, and that you couldn't replace her for the better? Why hasn't anyone?

[DBTrek]

After 400 years, the heir of Heineken brewing is the wealthiest person in the Netherlands even though the company hasn't made a profit since the turn of the 19th century. Is your contention that her merit far exceeds your own, and that you couldn't replace her for the better? Why hasn't anyone?

Charlene de Carvalho-Heineken
"She owns a 25% controlling stake in Dutch brewer Heineken, of which she is also an executive director. . .
She is married to Michel de Carvalho, a financier and director of Citigroup, whom she met on a ski holiday in St. Moritz, Switzerland. He is a member of the supervisory board of Heineken NV.

Could I be as effective an executive director of Heineken Brewing as the lady whose family built the company and currently holds the position? The lady also married to a member of the company's supervisory board?
Probably not.
If I could, I'm sure the board members of Heineken would offer me a lot of money to take the job.

You know who would be even worse at running it than me tho?
The government.

So I'd rather have ol' Charlene up there trying to keep her grasp on her billions as free market forces worldwide try to pry them away, than have those billions just vanish into the hands of a government that's already $24trillion in debt.
Wouldn't you?

[Martin Hash]

You put anti-government over liberty. I’m not afraid to say I could do a better job than any heir of anything, no matter what nepotistic connections they have. However, as I’ve said before, without government holding back the gatekeepers, my merit would mean nothing because I couldn’t get any opportunity.

[DBTrek]

You put anti-government over liberty.

Government doesn't bestow liberty, it curtails it.
Anti-government is liberty.

lib•er•ty lĭb′ər-tē►
n. The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
n. The condition of being free from oppressive restriction or control by a government or other power.

[Martin Hash]

The generation before me couldn’t get into university without connections & cash. I went to the U of Cal system that admitted purely on merit & cost $200 per semester. CA led in this

The generation before me couldn’t get a primo job without knowing someone but government espoused the idea of merit and companies followed.

The generation before me couldn’t have started a business without connections but government forced conventions to allow anyone who met the merit criteria, and supply chains had to do business with everyone based on merit.

Of course, that’s mostly gone now: Fascism is back, and everything they don’t control, the Commies do. Accomplishments, achievement & merit are dirty words.