After three decades in the business world I believe I have seen more large fortunes lost than gained.

Rarely is the cause of business loss or failure the result of personal shortcomings or character flaws.  Some of the failures were well respected in their industry.  Poor luck, poorly timed debt, and family squabbles were more at fault than incompetence or greed.

Normal business risk is probably the biggest factor that redistributes wealth.  Entrepreneurs who rode a wave that built a large company often hand the enterprise off to a generation that is unable to face a significant change in the markets for their products or services.

Inherited wealth also seems to have a way of dissipating itself.  Wealth in the hands of those who did not create it- whether in the hands of bureaucrats who tax it away or in the hands of those who inherited it- seems to go away. There are a few dynasties who have instilled certain values in the next generation who learn to sustain family wealth such as the Waltons and the Kennedys, but it is far more common that the subsequent generations not only fail to hold on to the wealth; they often waste it on consumptive extravagance or lose it in poorly thought out enterprises.

This occurred to me as I looked over a membership list of our local chamber of commerce as I counted the members, once active and vibrant participants of the business community that no longer existed.  It occurred to me as I read the obituary of a still young businessman, once a respected local developer who had fallen on hard financial times, found dead after three days in an extended stay hotel.  It occurred to me as I watched the documentary, The Queen of Versailles, about the fabulously wealthy time share entrepreneurs having to cease construction of their 90,000 square foot ridiculously extravagant home after their empire collapsed in the recent real estate collapse (that I would characterize as a return to reality.)

The point here is that it really unnecessary for the government to seek estate taxes to restore fairness in the distribution of wealth; the normal path of family and wealth evolution seems to accomplish this task on its own.

Destroying the essence of the ownership of wealth would seem to limit the proper use of it to create more wealth and economic growth.  A high tax on inherited wealth also encourages conspicuous consumption at the cost of decreasing investment capital which would benefit us all much more.

It is not the business of the government to determine who should own the wealth that is created or to seek fairer distribution based on some moral supremacist notion.  When you focus on individuals instead of categories the imagined problem of wealth distribution largely goes away. It is more important to maintain the mobility between the income brackets than to minimize their inequality.

This economy is hampered by fewer startups than normal. The established rich are getting richer and living well, but hyper regulation is making it hard for people to become wealthy.  The government and the class warriors should not fret over the advantages the wealthy have, whether it is deserved or not (by whose standards?).

Most of them will blow it on their own.

print