4 ms·
If you’re dead you don’t get to make decisions anymore. These sorts of arguments would have more weight if the parents actually transferred the wealth earlier t
by lovich 5y ago
If you’re dead you don’t get to make decisions anymore. These sorts of arguments would have more weight if the parents actually transferred the wealth earlier than their death or shortly before it, but they want to retain all the power that comes with that capital and then pick the winners in the next round of the economy by bequeathing it to their children.
If we want any sort of system even approaching a meritocracy then you should not be able to will away such vast estates that people can control entire companies or never work again a day in their life solely off the inherited assets
- leetcrew 5y agoif the "after death" silliness is your main concern here, that seems easy to satisfy with the abstraction of a will or trust that is set up before death. personally I find it pretty reasonable that I get to decide who gets the lion's share of assets I have worked for my whole life. at the same time, it seems bad when enormous amounts of wealth are passed down over generations (and having known a couple people in this situation, it seems bad for them too). the question is, where do we strike the balance?
- lovich 5y agoYou might find it reasonable, but it’s not meritocratic at all to will it away to someone else. You also are effecting society in a negative fashion after you are dead and gone and no longer have to deal with the consequences. Setting up a trust where the money removed before you’re at end of life seems far more acceptable because you are willingly giving up the power associated with the money, but deciding to maintain sole control over that power until you’re done with it and then passing it on to your chosen winner afterwards is antithetical to capitalism working correctly.