4 ms·
> we are not forced to pay their debts, yet, we're somehow entitled to any riches they may have left behind? Uh. The debts are paid with the riches before any
by krallja 6y ago
> we are not forced to pay their debts, yet, we're somehow entitled to any riches they may have left behind?
Uh. The debts are paid with the riches before any inheritance is passed on. That’s part of the process.
https://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/estate-planning/how-to-pay-the-decedents-debts-and-when-to-declare-insolvency/ https://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/estate-planning/how...
- dusted 6y agoWhat I mean is, that if someone creates a net negative, the descendants are not forced to pay it, yet, if they generate a net positive, they are entitled to receive it.
- sokoloff 6y agoI think that's thinking about it backwards (at least partly). My children are not entitled to my estate. My wealth is my private property, not theirs; I am free to direct its disposition as (my spouse and) I see fit. That's the essence of private property rights for the net-positive case. For the net-negative case, it's a matter of practicality. Your personal debts die with you (they are settled as part of the estate settlement process and if the estate runs out of money, some creditors go without). If you think inter-generational wealth continuity is a problem now, just imagine how much worse it would be if debt were passed along via negative inheritance.