by Thomas R. Wells
Lots of people think that a few people controlling a very large share of a society’s economic power is a bad thing. It is unfair that some should have so much while so many have so much less. It is inefficient that so much wealth lies in the hands of people who already have everything they could reasonably desire. It gives some people an outsized influence on decisions that affect the whole society, and on democratic politics itself (previously). And so on.
These people often also worry that economic inequality is increasing and becoming entrenched as the rich pass their excessive wealth on to their children and more and more wealth ends up concentrated in ever fewer hands. Many of them think increasing inheritance tax is necessary to stop this. But this solution relies on a mistaken understanding of how wealth is actually transmitted between generations.
Many leftist commentators seem to believe something like the following argument:
Premise 1: Rich people passing on their wealth to their children after they die is an important cause of rising economic inequality
Premise 2: Rising economic inequality is bad
Premise 3: Without higher inheritance taxes economic inequality will continue to rise
Conclusion: Therefore, inheritance taxes should be raised
I accept premise 2, but reject premises 1 and 3 because they are based on significant misunderstandings of how the world actually works. Read more »
In the context of growing concern about educational equity, the persistent racial disparities associated with the Specialized High School Admissions Test in New York City continue to spark debate. As cities and school systems nationwide reconsider the role of standardized testing, the story of the origins of this test shed light on how deeply embedded policies can appear neutral while, in reality, reinforcing inequality.