3 ms·
This is against the grain, but I am against inheritance. It seems most egalitarian for us all to start at the same level. I would of course like the "lower boun
by howeyc 6y ago
This is against the grain, but I am against inheritance. It seems most egalitarian for us all to start at the same level. I would of course like the "lower bound" to be much higher than the state currently provides, but that's a different issue.
In The History of Western Philosopy, Bertrand Russell made an observation (to which I'm parapharsing):
In modern society, we have come to expect, almost demand, and seem to inherently know it is best that no political power be transferred by heredity. Curiously, we have not made the same conclusion with economic power.
- flashgordon 6y agoIf not inheritance how do you feel about parents spending on their kids (and grand kids and great grand kids and nieces and uncles ...) directly? Not being sarcastic. No money, No problems applies to me so I myself am trying to find where Id fall if I ever came to this kind of wealth!
- _dps 6y agoAnother related aspect to consider is that it's really not very hard for the wealthy to create an inheritance-like legal vehicle even without special cases like trusts. Should it be legal to contract with someone that you will give them $1B now, and they will provide each of your descendants at least $X/year (or guaranteed job, housing, etc.) for the next 50 years? If this kind of contract remains legal — and I don't see how you could make it illegal without stomping on a lot of contract principles — then the only thing we're really changing is the timing and quantity of taxation. Allowing inheritance makes intergenerational economic development possible for far more than the ultra-rich (who could already do it anyway). That doesn't mean taxation policy shouldn't be considered, of course.