Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Wealth itself doesn’t create generational class differences. The extent to which a child’s economic status in adulthood corresponds to their parents’ does.
That intergenerational ‘stickiness’ varies substantially by country. As I’ve noted, Canada has historically had more intergenerational mobility that the U.S. and UK. I consider that a good thing.
That’s simply not true. If parental money and influence do little to improve the outcomes of children, then why do they spend so much time and money on schools, classes, programs, a house in the right neighbourhood, tuition, etc?
In fact, if you honestly believed bright and ambitious children will succeed no matter what, then you would not devote any resources to aiding your own children - they’ll either make it or not make it on their own, right?
That may be so. But you don’t think a couple where each set of parents can kick in $100k towards a new house and a couple that has no support will have very different experiences on the property ladder? And that this will impact their own children in turn.
The argument boils down to parental money doesn’t have much of an influence on generational wealth, but it’s absolutely vital I’m able to provide it anyway. And that doesn’t make any sense.
|
While all of these points can be considered valid, I can't see how any of them will be remedied by increases in inheritance tax?
I think the issue some opposing posters have is not that they don't want to see mobility and opportunities for lower income families, but that the 'solutions' being proposed seem to focus more on punishing upper class families as a sort of means of leveling the playing field...
What are the proposed solutions? Is an increased inheritance tax intended to fund better public schools? Provide $10 daycare so families can afford to have dual incomes (which can create its own issues)?