3 ms·

Sorry for your loss, and apology to bring up what I'm about too. Since you didn't contribute anything for this house, why should it go to you? Why shouldn't it

Sorry for your loss, and apology to bring up what I'm about too. Since you didn't contribute anything for this house, why should it go to you? Why shouldn't it go back to society at large? I understand that we've all grown with this cultural idea of legacy and inheritance, but I find it more and more problematic and morally unjustifiable as I get older. It just seems like as much as we try to create equal opportunities for all children, we keep around this massive inequality where children whose parents have more wealth pass it along and create privilege classes, giving some unfair advantages over others. Already we see that the wealthier the parents the more successful the child, due to better education and care. To also have them inherit wealth they didn't amass themselves seems a tad too much in my opinion. I can see some reasonable scenarios, like when the child is still a dependent, or leaving behind a certain amount of sentimental goods, but beyond that it seems unfair to me. I tend to be very much aligned with the idea of equal opportunities, unequal outcomes. Each one of us should be able to compete on an even playing field with the rest for a bigger slice of the pie, and so if you contribute more to making the pie bigger you deserve a bigger slice and can enjoy it for yourself. Your kids though didn't, and shouldn't have unfair advantages of opportunities. Similarly, I think everyone deserves a minimum, which allows you to again have the necessary safety net to be able to equally compete with others. Traditionally this safety net has been provided through these inheritance schemes and the parents you have determined if you get a safety net or not.

throwawaytaxes1 6y ago
I hope this is satire.
- didibus 6y ago
  No, I've seriously been rethinking the assumptions, benefits and merits of inheritance. I'm actually curious to learn what is the history behind it and the current philosophies for it. I'm not yet at a point where I'd fight against it, but it's been gestating in my head that it seems to be a wart to the system more than anything. Here's some literature around it: * http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html#:~:text=No%2C%20Haslett%20contends%2C%20inheritance%20is,they%20fail%20to%20do%20so http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html#:~:text=No%2C%20Hasl.... * https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/why-do-we-allow-inheritance-at-all/240004/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/why-do-... It also appears that Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson similarly were against inheritance, or at least struggled to fit it in a capitalist model.
  - throwawaytaxes1 6y ago
    Gestating in your head is fitting - based on the flatulent ideas coming out of it. Please kindly fuck off back to Reddit with this nonsense.
nybble41 6y ago
> Since you didn't contribute anything for this house, why should it go to you? That's the wrong way to look at it. The former (deceased) owner of the house did contribute to it. It belonged to her and she had every right to dispose of it as she wished. That includes giving it away to someone else of her choosing upon her death. It's not the recipient's property rights that are being infringed upon here, but rather the donor's. The only thing "unfair" about this situation is that the effort of earning and deferring consumption and investing which the deceased put into acquiring the property is being stolen by uninvolved parties who contributed nothing toward it for their own enrichment contrary to the explicit wishes of the owner, and not left to the beneficiary the owner intended.
- didibus 6y ago
  > It belonged to her and she had every right to dispose of it as she wished That's a moral argument, but the issue with moral arguments is they can be made in every direction just as easily. For example, Thomas Jefferson said: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." And Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." Morally speaking, the founding fathers were against inheritance and the right of one person to be binding over future generations after their death. - https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you... Morally I agree with this, as I can't really see the justification for it. But as I said before, that's the issue with moralist arguments, they can be made both ways. So I'm more interested in practical aspects, maybe inheritance is actually responsible for greater wealth inequality, free market inneficiencies, political instability, and other downsides, but maybe it has upsides as well, though more and more I'm starting to see it as a net negative personally. Haslett argues the practical angle pretty well, summarized here: http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html I recommend reading it, it's a short read.
  - nybble41 6y ago

throwawaytaxes1 6y ago

I hope this is satire.

didibus 6y ago
No, I've seriously been rethinking the assumptions, benefits and merits of inheritance. I'm actually curious to learn what is the history behind it and the current philosophies for it. I'm not yet at a point where I'd fight against it, but it's been gestating in my head that it seems to be a wart to the system more than anything. Here's some literature around it: * http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html#:~:text=No%2C%20Haslett%20contends%2C%20inheritance%20is,they%20fail%20to%20do%20so http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html#:~:text=No%2C%20Hasl.... * https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/why-do-we-allow-inheritance-at-all/240004/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/why-do-... It also appears that Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson similarly were against inheritance, or at least struggled to fit it in a capitalist model.
- throwawaytaxes1 6y ago
  Gestating in your head is fitting - based on the flatulent ideas coming out of it. Please kindly fuck off back to Reddit with this nonsense.

nybble41 6y ago

> Since you didn't contribute anything for this house, why should it go to you? That's the wrong way to look at it. The former (deceased) owner of the house did contribute to it. It belonged to her and she had every right to dispose of it as she wished. That includes giving it away to someone else of her choosing upon her death. It's not the recipient's property rights that are being infringed upon here, but rather the donor's. The only thing "unfair" about this situation is that the effort of earning and deferring consumption and investing which the deceased put into acquiring the property is being stolen by uninvolved parties who contributed nothing toward it for their own enrichment contrary to the explicit wishes of the owner, and not left to the beneficiary the owner intended.

didibus 6y ago
> It belonged to her and she had every right to dispose of it as she wished That's a moral argument, but the issue with moral arguments is they can be made in every direction just as easily. For example, Thomas Jefferson said: "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." And Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death." Morally speaking, the founding fathers were against inheritance and the right of one person to be binding over future generations after their death. - https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you... Morally I agree with this, as I can't really see the justification for it. But as I said before, that's the issue with moralist arguments, they can be made both ways. So I'm more interested in practical aspects, maybe inheritance is actually responsible for greater wealth inequality, free market inneficiencies, political instability, and other downsides, but maybe it has upsides as well, though more and more I'm starting to see it as a net negative personally. Haslett argues the practical angle pretty well, summarized here: http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html http://www.ditext.com/current/0022.html I recommend reading it, it's a short read.
- nybble41 6y ago