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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogInABog)
    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.
    You said it's morally justified due to your freedom to do what you will with your money.

    By that logic alone, it's moral to burn your money rather than giving it away to help others. What exactly are we defining moral as, because your definition seems a little odd?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    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?
    If the benefits ( im assuming you are talking about welfare gain - happiness) outweigh the gains in welfare due to increased wealth due to incentives then sure that is great obviously.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I know this is not going to be popular, but I kind of think that once you die you no longer "own" anything or have any rights.

    I'd rather inheritance was taxed than the everyday income of living, working people. Naturally both need to be taxed, but it makes sense to take from the dead before the living. Not to mention the promotion of meritocracy and equality in society.

    I'm not convinced people strive to earn wealth simply so they can leave it to others. If anything, having very high inheritance tax means people are less likely to hoard money away and more likely to put it back into the economy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    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?
    The theoretical situation above states a welfare ( a gain in happiness) overall, therefore it is great. As long as people's rights are respected in this process of course. Sorry for taking so long to reply, laptop ran out of charge and I had to get home before I could charge it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    You said it's morally justified due to your freedom to do what you will with your money.

    By that logic alone, it's moral to burn your money rather than giving it away to help others. What exactly are we defining moral as, because your definition seems a little odd?
    Morality is far from black and white, and there are many instances in which it is blurred, including this one. It is moral that I am allowed to do as I please with my money, as it is (in my opinion) simply an extension of my rights. However, my decision to burn the money would not be morally justified, and I would not claim otherwise. The two things are very slightly different, as the former could be viewed as the morals of society as a whole, whereas the latter is my personal morals. To put it another way, the moral burden of burning the money would rest solely on me, as it is not society's (ie. the state's) responsibility to prevent me from acting in this way.

    I apologise if that was exceedingly convoluted, I'm not sure I did a very good job of explaining what I mean... I blame the time (11:30 PM here)!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FrogInABog)
    Morality is far from black and white, and there are many instances in which it is blurred, including this one. It is moral that I am allowed to do as I please with my money, as it is (in my opinion) simply an extension of my rights. However, my decision to burn the money would not be morally justified, and I would not claim otherwise. The two things are very slightly different, as the former could be viewed as the morals of society as a whole, whereas the latter is my personal morals. To put it another way, the moral burden of burning the money would rest solely on me, as it is not society's (ie. the state's) responsibility to prevent me from acting in this way.

    I apologise if that was exceedingly convoluted, I'm not sure I did a very good job of explaining what I mean... I blame the time (11:30 PM here)!
    I didn't say it wasn't moral that you're allowed to do what you like with your money. I said it was immoral to then give it to your children (same distinction as you made, funnily enough).

    We're both agreed (for the sake of argument anyway) that it's moral that you at least have the right to do what you want with your money - the question is, now that you have that choice, is it moral to give inheritance?

    In the same way, I have the choice to simply scrounge off the state when I could be working. Is it moral? No. Is it moral that I have that right? Yes. Clear distinction (as you mentioned).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    The theoretical situation above states a welfare ( a gain in happiness) overall, therefore it is great. As long as people's rights are respected in this process of course. Sorry for taking so long to reply, laptop ran out of charge and I had to get home before I could charge it
    Good stuff :yy:

    (Original post by Jelkin)
    I know this is not going to be popular, but I kind of think that once you die you no longer "own" anything or have any rights.

    I'd rather inheritance was taxed than the everyday income of living, working people. Naturally both need to be taxed, but it makes sense to take from the dead before the living. Not to mention the promotion of meritocracy and equality in society.

    I'm not convinced people strive to earn wealth simply so they can leave it to others. If anything, having very high inheritance tax means people are less likely to hoard money away and more likely to put it back into the economy.
    It's interesting that you should say this, as it's exactly what I thought when I first considered inheritance I agree with you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    But why should the Fool Child have to work for the other two rich clans for no fault of his own. Plus the other two clans have all their daily needs catered for so there are no jobs.
    Because that's life, and it's unfair at times. Who decided who got which bit of land? Why did the fool clan have the land with rocks?

    Maybe it happened like this:

    There was a large clan, of which everyone had they're own role either working within the coconut trees, fishing in the pond or working around the huts. One day, one person said 'I don't want to work anymore' so they said if you don't work you can't eat our food or live within our huts. He said fine and walked to the other side of the island with his family.

    Later on the large clan decided to split into two smaller clans as a large clan under one leader was too much. The two clans carried on normally and traded with one another. But, the 'fool' clan was greedy and didn't think about sustainability so they cut down all the coconut trees for wood and polluted their small pond. As the land wasn't worked nor had no trees it turned into desert and rock.

    The 'Fool' clan had nothing, except each other and a bad work ethic.

    Why should the other two clans fund the Fool clan? They had the opportunity and they have the opportunity to work as 'slaves' to the other clan for food.

    My Dad worked hard from the day he left college to proved for our family. He died when I was 14 and we were left his house, car and some savings. All the inheritance was taxed so he was taxed when he earned the money and then taxed again before we got it. Why should that money go to somebody else who didn't work hard at school or decided not to get a job?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    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
    I think you're taking it slightly too literally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    I know this is not going to be popular, but I kind of think that once you die you no longer "own" anything or have any rights.

    I'd rather inheritance was taxed than the everyday income of living, working people. Naturally both need to be taxed, but it makes sense to take from the dead before the living. Not to mention the promotion of meritocracy and equality in society.

    I'm not convinced people strive to earn wealth simply so they can leave it to others. If anything, having very high inheritance tax means people are less likely to hoard money away and more likely to put it back into the economy.
    Let me put it like this, you have £5 which you are giving to charity, would you rather choose the charity where your money goes or would you rather someone else choose on your behalf. Most people would rather make the choice themselves, point - people like to choose where their money goes, even after they die, thus allowing them to do so acts as an incentive to strive to gain more money as they have more choices as to what to do with it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    I didn't say it wasn't moral that you're allowed to do what you like with your money. I said it was immoral to then give it to your children (same distinction as you made, funnily enough).

    We're both agreed (for the sake of argument anyway) that it's moral that you at least have the right to do what you want with your money - the question is, now that you have that choice, is it moral to give inheritance?

    In the same way, I have the choice to simply scrounge off the state when I could be working. Is it moral? No. Is it moral that I have that right? Yes. Clear distinction (as you mentioned).
    Good, I'm glad we've established our respective positions on the rest of the matter.

    Burning the money is quite different to giving it to your children. It is a moral duty of any parent to look after their children (or indeed other members of their family) to the best of their ability, and if this includes passing on their possessions when they die, then the morality stands.

    If it is possible to say that giving the money to your children instead of a charity is morally wrong, one could equally argue that it is morally wrong to spend a single penny on items that are not absolutely necessary to life. One could say that the mere fact that I spent ~£500 on the laptop I am using to write this message is morally wrong, as it could have been put to better use in a third world country.

    To me, at least, morality has to be treated as a balance. Perhaps it would be best to give all your money to charitable causes, but I do not think that this necessarily makes it morally wrong to do otherwise. Undoubtedly, it is a very complex issue, but essentially I would not feel that I had done wrong in providing an inheritance for my children.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Let me put it like this, you have £5 which you are giving to charity, would you rather choose the charity where your money goes or would you rather someone else choose on your behalf. Most people would rather make the choice themselves, point - people like to choose where their money goes, even after they die, thus allowing them to do so acts as an incentive to strive to gain more money as they have more choices as to what to do with it.
    I understand the concept. But I can't imagine it makes a whole lot of difference, except perhaps in a few very poor families where the parents (more particularly) want to leave a legacy for their kids. I'd argue that most people think more about their own retirement funds and whatnot. Is there any evidence that it makes a great deal of difference?

    I think it would be more significant that people would be encouraged to put money back into the economy via expenditure rather than (like I said) hoard it away where it's no use.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    I understand the concept. But I can't imagine it makes a whole lot of difference, except perhaps in a few very poor families where the parents want to leave a legacy for their kids. I'd argue that most people think more about their own retirement funds and whatnot. Is there any evidence that it makes a great deal of difference?

    I think it would be more significant that people would be encouraged to put money back into the economy via expenditure rather than (like I said) hoard it away where it's no use.
    The logic of the concept is the evidence,outlined above, which you have self - professed to understand. However I feel the need for another example to demonstrate my point. Say you are a doctor, with two children and inheritance tax is at 100%. You are going to accumulate enough wealth up to the point were you have enough to support you + your children until you die. If inheritance tax is at a more reasonable level say 40% you are incentivised to continue to work in order to provide for your children in the future, thus generating more wealth for you + society.

    Now your other point, people putting money back into the economy. It is illogical to simply 'hoard away' money as it will quickly loose its value due to inflation, also it is very hard to hoard away money without putting it into the economy somehow, for example if you put it in a trust/bank you are essentially loaning money to that organisation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.


    Are you aware that the demographic claiming the most from the welfare state, where inheritance SHOULD be going are the elderly? In the form of pensions etc. Are they the idle ****ers you are referring to?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    The logic of the concept is the evidence,outlined above, which you have self - professed to understand. However I feel the need for another example to demonstrate my point. Say you are a doctor, with two children and inheritance tax is at 100%. You are going to accumulate enough wealth up to the point were you have enough to support you + your children until you die. If inheritance tax is at a more reasonable level say 40% you are incentivised to continue to work in order to provide for your children in the future, thus generating more wealth for you + society.

    Now your other point, people putting money back into the economy. It is illogical to simply 'hoard away' money as it will quickly loose its value due to inflation, also it is very hard to hoard away money without putting it into the economy somehow, for example if you put it in a trust/bank you are essentially loaning money to that organisation.
    That doesn't count as evidence. You assume that all people are motivated by the same things. For example, my parents will probably leave me a decent amount when they go (shudder), but they're not and have never actively saved for that occasion, to my knowledge. The number of holidays they go on, I'd be very surprised!

    As a counter-example, it would make logical sense for people to actively save for pensions so they can retire in comfort. But clearly many don't, as demonstrated by the need for the recent auto-enrolment legislation. Saying that they logically should isn't evidence that they will.

    I will concede that your second point is valid. I will think about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Totally agree
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    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
    See post 26. All is explained!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by josh_cook)
    I think you're taking it slightly too literally.
    I disagree

    The OP devised the extreme scenario ... he talked of the Fool Child starving ... in fact he thinks that it is better to starve than to accept welfare and he does not even want the Fool child to work for a living

    If he is not willing to accept that there are alternatives to starvation that do not require the re-distriution of all wealth and land then of course he will see inheritance as immoral ... my question was designed to point out that there are alternatives to starvation and the the Fool child's parents must be taking advantage of these alternatives
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    See post 26. All is explained!
    So the parents dug coal and the Fool child is first generation poverty?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jelkin)
    That doesn't count as evidence. You assume that all people are motivated by the same things. For example, my parents will probably leave me a decent amount when they go (shudder), but they're not and have never actively saved for that occasion, to my knowledge. The number of holidays they go on, I'd be very surprised!

    As a counter-example, it would make logical sense for people to actively save for pensions so they can retire in comfort. But clearly many don't, as demonstrated by the need for the recent auto-enrolment legislation. Saying that they logically should isn't evidence that they will.

    I will concede that your second point is valid. I will think about it.
    Whilst not everyone is motivated by the same things, the majority of us are motivated by certain things. Disregarding these things due to a minority not being motivated by them is impractical, it is natural for us as humans to want to decide where our wealth goes, thus granting greater freedoms over where people can allocate their wealth helps encourage people to collect more wealth. Would you not concede that this is logical and human nature?
 
 
 
  • 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.