5 ms·

The notion that children don't deserve the spoils of their parents is really crazy to me. Parents work so that they can give their children a better life. Heck,

The notion that children don't deserve the spoils of their parents is really crazy to me. Parents work so that they can give their children a better life. Heck, they even choose their partners to maximize odds for a better life for their offspring (wealth, good genes, and so on - it does not even depend on capitalism). To take that away from people is truly dehumanizing, but sounds like a typical socialist scheme (destroy the family, destroy individualism, everything has to be the same).

whimsicalism 6y ago
So you are only deserving of a life free of poverty (even if you're lazy) if your parents happened to be rich? Yeah, I disagree. We're talking about on the order of tens of millions of dollars or more being passed from one parent to one child.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  You're right. We should kick that kid out on the street, sell all his belongings, and write a check to ever american for a fat 10 cents. Problem solved. > So you are only deserving of a life free of poverty (even if you're lazy) if your parents happened to be rich? This is such a twisting of my words I am not even sure how to respond. Are you saying the only way out of poverty is to steal everything you want from the rich?
- criticaljudge 6y ago
  Why don't parents who work hard to give their children a good live deserve to do so? It is not their fault if other people have children while they are poor. Everybody should have a fair chance, but people who worked harder should also be allowed to benefit. Why should anybody be entitled to the fruits of their labor?
overlords 6y ago
1 rich person saving his money so his 3 children never have to work is bad for the economy. It's better the 1 rich person is forced to consume that in his lifetime. By doing so that money is redistributed back to the economy, and his 3 kids are also productive. In scenario 1 only 1 out 4 people work. In scenario 2, 4 out of 4 people work. Also - it's hypocritical for 'pull yourself by your bootstraps' for children born poor, and 'guaranteed basic income' for children born rich. That is more dehumanizing than not being allowed to pass off inheritance.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  Its hard for me to imagine being so full of envy that you would like to see the children of rich people stripped of everything they have. Equality means nothing if you achieve it by pulling everyone down to the lowest level. > 1 rich person saving his money so his 3 children never have to work is bad for the economy. "Your rights are bad for the economy, we are taking everything from you. Back to work, pleb".
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > Its hard for me to imagine being so full of envy that you would like to see the children of rich people stripped of everything they have. I think you misread the sentiment. What a lot of us would like to see is a more meritocratic system, where children start off on more equal footing and either earn their wealth or not. But inherited works against that. It is difficult to listen to arguments against taxing the wealthy heavily "because they earned it" while at the same time hearing support for what amounts to aristocracy.
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      Right, but you're trying to achieve your meritocracy by pulling people down instead of helping people up. This isn't a footrace, and it's not a zero sum game. When you say something like "we need to take money away from rich kids so they have to work like everyone else", you're doing nothing but harm. You may feel the people you're harming have it coming, but that's still what you're doing. The idea that we have to come up with a good reason _not_ to heavily tax people is backwards. The only reason you need is that people have rights. A man owns what is his and you have absolutely no right to it. This is all beside the pont anyway. Increasing tax revenue will not solve any of the problems you are trying to solve. As I said elsewhere, you could tax 100% of every billionaire in this country, leaving them homeless, and you would not have collected enough money to fund the federal government for even one year. You could sell off your entire "aristocracy" and it wouldn't make a dent. The strategy of "just spend more money" does not work.
      - 6y ago

whimsicalism 6y ago

So you are only deserving of a life free of poverty (even if you're lazy) if your parents happened to be rich? Yeah, I disagree. We're talking about on the order of tens of millions of dollars or more being passed from one parent to one child.

dahfizz 6y ago
You're right. We should kick that kid out on the street, sell all his belongings, and write a check to ever american for a fat 10 cents. Problem solved. > So you are only deserving of a life free of poverty (even if you're lazy) if your parents happened to be rich? This is such a twisting of my words I am not even sure how to respond. Are you saying the only way out of poverty is to steal everything you want from the rich?
criticaljudge 6y ago
Why don't parents who work hard to give their children a good live deserve to do so? It is not their fault if other people have children while they are poor. Everybody should have a fair chance, but people who worked harder should also be allowed to benefit. Why should anybody be entitled to the fruits of their labor?

overlords 6y ago

1 rich person saving his money so his 3 children never have to work is bad for the economy. It's better the 1 rich person is forced to consume that in his lifetime. By doing so that money is redistributed back to the economy, and his 3 kids are also productive. In scenario 1 only 1 out 4 people work. In scenario 2, 4 out of 4 people work. Also - it's hypocritical for 'pull yourself by your bootstraps' for children born poor, and 'guaranteed basic income' for children born rich. That is more dehumanizing than not being allowed to pass off inheritance.

dahfizz 6y ago
Its hard for me to imagine being so full of envy that you would like to see the children of rich people stripped of everything they have. Equality means nothing if you achieve it by pulling everyone down to the lowest level. > 1 rich person saving his money so his 3 children never have to work is bad for the economy. "Your rights are bad for the economy, we are taking everything from you. Back to work, pleb".
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > Its hard for me to imagine being so full of envy that you would like to see the children of rich people stripped of everything they have. I think you misread the sentiment. What a lot of us would like to see is a more meritocratic system, where children start off on more equal footing and either earn their wealth or not. But inherited works against that. It is difficult to listen to arguments against taxing the wealthy heavily "because they earned it" while at the same time hearing support for what amounts to aristocracy.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    Right, but you're trying to achieve your meritocracy by pulling people down instead of helping people up. This isn't a footrace, and it's not a zero sum game. When you say something like "we need to take money away from rich kids so they have to work like everyone else", you're doing nothing but harm. You may feel the people you're harming have it coming, but that's still what you're doing. The idea that we have to come up with a good reason _not_ to heavily tax people is backwards. The only reason you need is that people have rights. A man owns what is his and you have absolutely no right to it. This is all beside the pont anyway. Increasing tax revenue will not solve any of the problems you are trying to solve. As I said elsewhere, you could tax 100% of every billionaire in this country, leaving them homeless, and you would not have collected enough money to fund the federal government for even one year. You could sell off your entire "aristocracy" and it wouldn't make a dent. The strategy of "just spend more money" does not work.
    - 6y ago