Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (14275)	6/6/2002 1:01:00 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It has to do with anxieties about concentrations of property in a democracy, and the desire to put a brake on wealth by inheritance. That's precisely what I originally said. the idea that unearned wealth (by the heir) is more vulnerable to confiscation than earned wealth would be. And in fact the wealth of the estate is not nearly as unguarded as it might appear. The heirs and the estate's executor and attorneys are there to protect it. The horror of concentrations of property is not as great as it might have been, considering that we are no longer an agrarian society, and most wealth is invested; and considering the size of the population, so that even the top 5% of the wealthy translates into millions of people.......... And the increasing pace of technological and economic change make holding onto wealth for long periods of time increasingly difficult. One misstep and one can be bankrupt or lose a major opportunity that someone else - quite possibly a relative pauper, soon to be newly rich - got.