Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    ...
    So

    I still want to know

    How do the Fool child's parents survive
    What do they live on
    Where does their food come from
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    It interesting that a lot of people have said "there have to be jobs". Even though I very carefully described a situation in which two clans are living quite self sufficiently gathering their coconuts and exchanging them for fish. And have not need for anything else. Where are the jobs? Sometimes there just are no jobs.
    They do have need of something else. They have need of manpower to process the abundant coconuts and fish of which there is no shortage. The owner of a coal mine does not go down the shaft to personally dig out every lump of coal.


    Island B has one person and his coconut tree he is quite self sufficient.

    Then along washes up on shore a boat of 100 immigrants wanting jobs. But there ARE NO JOBS. There is just one man and his coconut tree and he aint giving them out for free.
    There are still possible jobs. He might decide that he's bored of constantly eating coconut, and pay the immigrants in coconuts to go fishing. He might decide that he's in need of entertainment, and pay the immigrants to put on a play. He might decide he wants more fish and more plays, and pay the immigrants to plant and tend more coconut trees. There can never be no jobs whatsoever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    So in my example. Is it fair that the Fool Clan will starve to death?
    My heart bleeds for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Inheritance is needed to provide incentive for individuals to strive to gain wealth, however it should also be taxed in order to help prevent wealth inequality being generational.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To those of you who believe that inheritance is moral:

    Chiefly these two users

    (Original post by Emma:-))
    I agree.
    Id rather leave my goods to my family and close friends than it end up going god knows where. Its up to you who you leave your things to.
    (Original post by Chadya)
    Inheritance is extremely moral. I'd far rather my worldly goods go to my flesh and blood rather than some idle ****ers claiming welfare.


    You claim that you would rather pass on your assets to your children than to other less deserving people.

    Answer me this: Why not instead give all of your assets to charity, or even better, directly to those who are most in need?

    Certainly your own children, who have benefited from your love and care and attention, deserve it less than starving children in India?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    To those of you who believe that inheritance is moral:

    Chiefly these two users





    You claim that you would rather pass on your assets to your children than to other less deserving people.

    Answer me this: Why not instead give all of your assets to charity, or even better, directly to those who are most in need?

    Certainly your own children, who have benefited from your love and care and attention, deserve it less than starving children in India?
    I already give £20 a month to charity. If I continue that for the next 40 something years then as far as I'm concerned they've had enough from me.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    To those of you who believe that inheritance is moral:

    Chiefly these two users





    You claim that you would rather pass on your assets to your children than to other less deserving people.

    Answer me this: Why not instead give all of your assets to charity, or even better, directly to those who are most in need?

    Certainly your own children, who have benefited from your love and care and attention, deserve it less than starving children in India?
    This. I agree with you completely. Instead of your children inheriting the money, it should go to a more worthwhile cause and help make the world a better place.

    Report to Room 101
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    I already give £20 a month to charity. If I continue that for the next 40 something years then as far as I'm concerned they've had enough from me.
    Your sole excuse for not simply distributing your wealth to others (as opposed to your children) was that you disliked the uncertainty of where the money might end up, that it were better that your children received it than a potentially undeserving 'scrounger'.

    What would be interesting is a moral explanation as to why your children would be better recipients of your wealth, compared to an underprivileged child in the UK. It would be very little effort to locate a suitable person in need to whom to donate your wealth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    To those of you who believe that inheritance is moral:

    Chiefly these two users





    You claim that you would rather pass on your assets to your children than to other less deserving people.

    Answer me this: Why not instead give all of your assets to charity, or even better, directly to those who are most in need?

    Certainly your own children, who have benefited from your love and care and attention, deserve it less than starving children in India?
    Because it's easier for people to care about the well being of those close to them. Yes if all inheritance money was given directly to starving children we would have a happier world than if it was given to children from middle class families, however there needs to be inheritance to help provide incentive for people to accumulate wealth. IMO a progressive tax should be placed on inheritance.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    No matter how much we care about our own and wish to advance our own children and grandchildren, the reality is that we all also live in a complex and deeply interconnected society, where many people are strongly motivated and affected by issues of fairness. It gets harder and harder to maintain good order, a caring attitude and concern for all if a small group become much, much richer than everyone else over the generations due to inheritance.

    For this reason, many thoughtful societies since very early times have introduced forms of taxation on inheritance to ensure that wealth does not continue to aggregate exponentially in too few hands.

    Large inheritance is also often not very good for heirs. They get spoilt by it, they become lazy and very good at frittering it away. "There are plenty of rich children and grandchildren, but not so many rich great-grandchildren."
    When you think of inheritance you think of a billionaire and his heir. What about a normal middle class family.man who wants to give his son his house when he dies.

    God help us.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    To those of you who believe that inheritance is moral:

    Chiefly these two users





    You claim that you would rather pass on your assets to your children than to other less deserving people.

    Answer me this: Why not instead give all of your assets to charity, or even better, directly to those who are most in need?

    Certainly your own children, who have benefited from your love and care and attention, deserve it less than starving children in India?
    Realistically family is probably a top priority to most people and they feel that if they give their kids the money then it will keep them safe when they aren't there to protect them anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Albino)
    Realistically family is probably a top priority to most people and they feel that if they give their kids the money then it will keep them safe when they aren't there to protect them anymore.
    You haven't explained why, morally, children of a wealthy family ought to enjoy an inheritance, over a starving child in India.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Because it's easier for people to care about the well being of those close to them. Yes if all inheritance money was given directly to starving children we would have a happier world than if it was given to children from middle class families, however there needs to be inheritance to help provide incentive for people to accumulate wealth. IMO a progressive tax should be placed on inheritance.
    Wealth accumulated with the intention of providing it to spoilt children is hardly worth being incentivised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    Wealth accumulated with the intention of providing it to spoilt children is hardly worth being incentivised.
    People will be less incentivised to accumlate wealth if they cannot choose where any of it goes after they die, we need people to be incentivised to create wealth in order to accumlate resources which can be distributed within society . However in order to help curve generational wealth inequality a progressive tax is needed ( as the sum of the inheritance increases the % of tax applied also increases).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    You haven't explained why, morally, children of a wealthy family ought to enjoy an inheritance, over a starving child in India.
    The answer is morally they do not deserve it, however pragmatically we also need to realize that only a % of wealth may be taken in inheritance tax/being distributed to charity, to help preserve an incentive for people to generate wealth within society. ( People like to have choice in where their money goes).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    People will be less incentivised to accumlate wealth if they cannot choose where any of it goes after they die, we need people to be incentivised to create wealth in order to accumlate resources which can be distributed within society . However in order to help curve generational wealth inequality a progressive tax is needed ( as the sum of the inheritance increases the % of tax applied also increases).
    An interesting response.

    What if the benefits of having children beginning life on an equal footing (which encourages a meritocratic culture, makes the children of rich people work) outweigh the incentive for people to earn a little more to give it to their kids?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    The answer is morally they do not deserve it, however pragmatically we also need to realize that only a % of wealth may be taken in inheritance tax/being distributed to charity, to help preserve an incentive for people to generate wealth within society. ( People like to have choice in where their money goes).
    The thread is asking whether inheritance is immoral, so I think we're done here

    I do agree that it could potentially be beneficial for the economy, but the question of morality seems to have been answered.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    You haven't explained why, morally, children of a wealthy family ought to enjoy an inheritance, over a starving child in India.
    That's because they probably shouldn't but it happens because people are more likely to support their family, people they've been around all their life and have brought them up, rather than someone they have never met before. I guess people don't want to die with the feeling they've let their family down by not leaving them anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Albino)
    That's because they probably shouldn't but it happens because people are more likely to support their family, people they've been around all their life and have brought them up, rather than someone they have never met before. I guess people don't want to die with the feeling they've let their family down by not leaving them anything.
    I know (why) it happens. The thread is about whether it's moral. It seems to me that we're agreed on that then :chaplin:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    To those of you who believe that inheritance is moral:

    Chiefly these two users





    You claim that you would rather pass on your assets to your children than to other less deserving people.

    Answer me this: Why not instead give all of your assets to charity, or even better, directly to those who are most in need?

    Certainly your own children, who have benefited from your love and care and attention, deserve it less than starving children in India?
    Inheritance is morally justified by the fact that it is simply an extension of the freedom to do as I desire with my possessions. Personally, I hope to have enough money when I die to be able to donate some to charity, but also to be able to provide for my children beyond my time on earth. If I have a house, or a car, or a lump sum of cash, it is mine to do with as I please, and there is little or no justification for the state taking control of it merely because I have died.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.