Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.

Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.

In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.

This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All people are essentially born with no assets

False. The children of rich people are born rich. That's a major part of the problem. It creates dynasties.

[–] DataDecay@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I'm convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, you have to sell off 80% of your dead mother's mementos unless you're rich? Careful—your proposal is good in spirit, but has ugly side effects that need to be carefully avoided.

[–] DataDecay@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd rather sell off mementos than lose livelihood. We all know the top 1% shelter and live off non income based tax shelters, and then just pass those shelters on through legacies. Given the arbitrary caps on assets your grandmother's Polaroids would likely be safe. You wont see good faith attempts to fix taxes regardless though, as politicians are in the business of making money, so would never go after their own livelihood.