5 ms·

How's amassing through inheritance instead of squandering is a bad thing? I know a lot of people who are poor because of lack of skill or bad habits.

• digging 3y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Redistributing =/= squandering.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • bertjk 3y ago
    How is it different? Squandering typically means spending, which means the money is re-entering the economy, typically to people at lower rungs of the wealth ladder, and is not much different than other forms of redistribution. Unless you mean the squandered billions was through literal setting piles of money ablaze or losing it all in a poker game to bigger billionaires, it seems if redistribution was the goal then squandering should be encouraged.
    • spencerflem 3y ago
      To me, the true horror is when its spent on worthless or awful things, wasting limited resources, and the better part of peoples lives
    • digging 3y ago
      > Squandering typically means spending Squander means to spend thoughtlessly or foolishly or wastefully. It's not a synonym of "spend".
      • fsckboy 3y ago
        in terms of usage, if I say "people should buy what they need and on top of that they should not spend (lest they find themselves spent)" you know exactly what i mean. Especially expensive items are spendy. Spend carries a connotation of waste and exhaustion. Save and invest your surplus, don't spend it, don't spend your savings.
    • saalweachter 3y ago
      Concentrated inheritance is investing in one person's (or a small number of people's) success. Taxing inherited wealth, and using the revenue to support infrastructure, education and research, is investing in many people's success.
• hellotomyrars 3y ago
  If the bar for being successful is to inherit a pile of money that means you never have to worry about anything ever without losing it all, then boy is that a low bar. Plenty of people with a stupid amount of money lack skills and have bad habits. The difference is if you’re born poor you’re at a disadvantage from the jump. It is harder to climb out of poverty than to lose hundreds of millions of dollars of your inherited wealth. Give me a break. Good grief. Obtaining skills costs money and time. People in poverty are less likely to have the money needed and the free time to do so because they’re working a ton of hours at a low pay rate. Someone born into extravagant wealth doesn’t have to worry about survival and can do whatever the hell they want, even if it is to work hard and obtain skills via education, they have the time and resources to invest. I’m not going to claim everyone with money didn’t earn it, but many don’t and the generational transfer of wealth is a problematic at the scale it has gotten to.
  • fsckboy 3y ago
    > Plenty of people with a stupid amount of money lack skills and have bad habits. The difference is if you’re born poor you’re at a disadvantage from the jump. the glaring error here is to bring up people's lack of skills and good habits, and to conclude that the main disadvantage of being poor is the lack of money. It's a bit of an assumption that abolishing the rich is going to lift people from poverty to the middle class.
    • hellotomyrars 3y ago
      Are you kidding? How does someone go about obtaining skills? Education is expensive, even trade school. Not having to worry about living expenses or being one unforeseen major expense sinking you gives you huge leg up on obtaining skills. Sure you can work from an entry-level job all the up to the top. How many people can do this? Meanwhile if your parents pay for you Ivy League education you walk your way in to a well-paying job. Being poor is a disadvantage and to pretend like it isn’t is to literally deny reality. It impacts literally every aspect of your life in negative ways. Terrible food is cheaper. Healthcare is expensive. Meeting your basic needs as a human is an incredibly taxing process when you’re living paycheck to paycheck and trying to support yourself. I’m not saying “Abolish the rich” even. But the kind of transfer of generational wealth we have now is a detriment to society. We let the rich have and keep more of their money than ever before. The wealth gap isn’t a gap anymore, it’s an abyss that you couldn’t ever hope to see the bottom of.
• pjot 3y ago
  Your edited comment brings to light the concept of survivorship bias. It’s important to recognize that there could have been farmers with superior skills and work ethic who, due to factors beyond their control like luck or chance events, still find themselves in poverty. To attribute financial success or failure solely to personal habits or skills is an oversimplification that ignores the multifaceted nature of wealth and poverty.
• JKCalhoun 3y ago
  I grew up with a lot of people who lack skills and have bad habits because they were poor.