4 ms·

Good luck with that. The daughter of a wealthy estate might receive the very best in private education, music lessons, etc. She might take her allowance and st

Good luck with that. The daughter of a wealthy estate might receive the very best in private education, music lessons, etc. She might take her allowance and start a successful business. She might just have a successful business because of all her parents' social connections. Then dad dies. How do you propose to nullify all the advantages she still enjoys because of her father's wealth? Can you take away the child's business that was started with a few million dollars from dad? No? But you can take away the million dollars still sitting in the bank? How about the farm? the house? the boat? Can those not be inherited? If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism. EDIT: better English

dragonwriter 10y ago
> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism. I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death. I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly in GP. OTOH, I'm also not a big fan of capitalism as a system, am glad that it has generally been displaced by the modern mixed economy since being described by its critics, and think that the influence it has on the general shape of modern economies needs to be further curtailed, so I'm not particularly worried that limiting inheritance might further undermine the influence of capitalism; that's a benefit, not a cost.
- terryf 10y ago
  So where's the line? I was born and grew up under an actual communist rule. It was terrible. Also, it didn't really work due to fundamental human nature. What human nature you ask? Well, mine for example. I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have. So that I can leave my wealth to my children (three so far) so that they can continue from a better position than where I started from (almost nothing, except the education my single mother gave me) to get an edge in life. You want to take that option away from me? Sorry, not gonna work.
  - pikzen 10y ago
    No, I only want to take 75% of that option from you if it didn't return into the economy during your lifetime.
    - terryf 10y ago
      Good luck trying, you're not getting it :)
      - pikzen 10y ago
        Unfortunately for you, that is not up to you to decide, but to society as a whole. And society has those pretty fun tools like police forces, etc. But don't worry, there are much bigger fish to fry than you. You probably won't even be impacted, given the amount of wealth that can be recuperated from the leeches at the top, we can probably already make a much more egalitarian society.
        terryf 10y ago
        I can vote, just as everyone else :) So, the problem here is that I don't understand why you think Jeff Bezos is a "leech" exactly. The guy built a business and became very successful. What the heck is wrong with that? I'm building a house for me and my family. I mean literally building it myself, not hiring people to build it for me. It's fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating. I've also been involved in building three companies so far. That has been fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating. If one of those companies is/was successful, would I also be a "leech" by your definition?
        pikzen 10y ago
        Absolutely! And in most likelihood, such a system will never be put in place, so you can sleep soundly. Amazon could run very well without Bezos, at this point, solely through workers. Bezos at this point serves nothing but effectively leeching the wealth produced by employees. But appropriation of the means of production is not the subject. Bezos being successful is not the issue. However, he is effectively an annuitant, and produces very little of value. This brings up the question of why does he deserve that money now? As he's been building the company, yes, eventually (and even then, his only contribution is capital. The rest of his work can be done by anyone else). Nowadays? I'm doubtful. Secondly, this fortune would much better serve society as a whole than be passed through generations, effectively creating a lineage of oligarchs. If I have to choose between bettering the living conditions of millions or letting Bezos keep his net worth... I'm not going to cry for him. The most important question is of course, how much should be taxed, and what amount of wealth is too much? Everyone will have different answers. But there are other solutions to taxation. Capping salaries and profits from shares to a factor of the lowest salary in the company, etc. If one of those companies is successful, that you have managers upon managers doing most of the work for you, yes, you would be a leech. Good luck on that house, however. I know from first hand experience that it is a tough thing to do. Make sure everything's done properly.
- averagewall 10y ago
  People care about what's going to happen after they die. You can see this from any global warming activist. They're not concerned about their own live but about future generations. Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    that's not the same type of thing as inheritance of material property and money. the inhabitability of the earth is an existential priority. what we do with leftover bank account balances when someone dies is not.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines? No, I'm not. I'm saying that once they're dead, what they cared about when they were alive matters, if at all, because and to the extent people still living care about it, and that there is no inherent right that the dead have to have their will dictate actions or rights of the living once they have died.
metaphorm 10y ago
you're arguing against a strawman, the post you're replying to was discussing the posthumous will specifically.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism. I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death. I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly in GP. OTOH, I'm also not a big fan of capitalism as a system, am glad that it has generally been displaced by the modern mixed economy since being described by its critics, and think that the influence it has on the general shape of modern economies needs to be further curtailed, so I'm not particularly worried that limiting inheritance might further undermine the influence of capitalism; that's a benefit, not a cost.

terryf 10y ago
So where's the line? I was born and grew up under an actual communist rule. It was terrible. Also, it didn't really work due to fundamental human nature. What human nature you ask? Well, mine for example. I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have. So that I can leave my wealth to my children (three so far) so that they can continue from a better position than where I started from (almost nothing, except the education my single mother gave me) to get an edge in life. You want to take that option away from me? Sorry, not gonna work.
- pikzen 10y ago
  No, I only want to take 75% of that option from you if it didn't return into the economy during your lifetime.
  - terryf 10y ago
    Good luck trying, you're not getting it :)
    - pikzen 10y ago
      Unfortunately for you, that is not up to you to decide, but to society as a whole. And society has those pretty fun tools like police forces, etc. But don't worry, there are much bigger fish to fry than you. You probably won't even be impacted, given the amount of wealth that can be recuperated from the leeches at the top, we can probably already make a much more egalitarian society.
      - terryf 10y ago
        I can vote, just as everyone else :) So, the problem here is that I don't understand why you think Jeff Bezos is a "leech" exactly. The guy built a business and became very successful. What the heck is wrong with that? I'm building a house for me and my family. I mean literally building it myself, not hiring people to build it for me. It's fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating. I've also been involved in building three companies so far. That has been fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating. If one of those companies is/was successful, would I also be a "leech" by your definition?
        pikzen 10y ago
        Absolutely! And in most likelihood, such a system will never be put in place, so you can sleep soundly. Amazon could run very well without Bezos, at this point, solely through workers. Bezos at this point serves nothing but effectively leeching the wealth produced by employees. But appropriation of the means of production is not the subject. Bezos being successful is not the issue. However, he is effectively an annuitant, and produces very little of value. This brings up the question of why does he deserve that money now? As he's been building the company, yes, eventually (and even then, his only contribution is capital. The rest of his work can be done by anyone else). Nowadays? I'm doubtful. Secondly, this fortune would much better serve society as a whole than be passed through generations, effectively creating a lineage of oligarchs. If I have to choose between bettering the living conditions of millions or letting Bezos keep his net worth... I'm not going to cry for him. The most important question is of course, how much should be taxed, and what amount of wealth is too much? Everyone will have different answers. But there are other solutions to taxation. Capping salaries and profits from shares to a factor of the lowest salary in the company, etc. If one of those companies is successful, that you have managers upon managers doing most of the work for you, yes, you would be a leech. Good luck on that house, however. I know from first hand experience that it is a tough thing to do. Make sure everything's done properly.
averagewall 10y ago
People care about what's going to happen after they die. You can see this from any global warming activist. They're not concerned about their own live but about future generations. Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?
- metaphorm 10y ago
  that's not the same type of thing as inheritance of material property and money. the inhabitability of the earth is an existential priority. what we do with leftover bank account balances when someone dies is not.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines? No, I'm not. I'm saying that once they're dead, what they cared about when they were alive matters, if at all, because and to the extent people still living care about it, and that there is no inherent right that the dead have to have their will dictate actions or rights of the living once they have died.

metaphorm 10y ago

you're arguing against a strawman, the post you're replying to was discussing the posthumous will specifically.