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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerArduaAdAstra)
    I would be completely ok with someone being far wealthier than me through inheritance. Absolutely fair play in my opinion.
    And if they purchase all of the productive capital and continue to pass it onto their heirs, so that your heirs can be certain that they will never, ever have a chance of a better life? That's still fine with you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Allot of good points i think the focus should be on how much inheritance is moral. Should someone born with a 'silver spoon' in mouth who has been put through private education, given a flat to live in, university etc etc by their parents then receive a huge lump sum on their death?

    I personally would say no everyday of the week as this is part of he reason our society is so unequal in the first place.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerArduaAdAstra)
    I would be completely ok with someone being far wealthier than me through inheritance. Absolutely fair play in my opinion.
    Then you can admit that your okay with inequality within our own already terribly unequal society??
    There's a great study called the Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett, i suggest giving that a read.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    And if they purchase all of the productive capital and continue to pass it onto their heirs, so that your heirs can be certain that they will never, ever have a chance of a better life? That's still fine with you?
    That's a bit extreme - where there's a will, there's a way and if my "heirs" really wanted wealth that badly, I'm sure they'd eventually work hard enough to at least have a modest, comfortable life. In any case, I don't want children, but I personally see great wealth/success as something to strive for, that's why I'm ok with it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerArduaAdAstra)
    That's a bit extreme - where there's a will, there's a way and if my "heirs" really wanted wealth that badly, I'm sure they'd eventually work hard enough to at least have a modest, comfortable life. In any case, I don't want children, but I personally see great wealth/success as something to strive for, that's why I'm ok with it.
    I phrased it that way because the inevitable effect of having no tax on inheritance is that more and more wealth is concentrated in a few hands. Therefore the opportunities for "success by striving" become fewer - those who have wealth tend to want to retain control of it and prevent others from joining their ranks. The rich do not surrender power voluntarily. The opportunity society is one where mobility is possible, but that declines when the only access to wealth is through birth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luca-cunn)
    Allot of good points i think the focus should be on how much inheritance is moral. Should someone born with a 'silver spoon' in mouth who has been put through private education, given a flat to live in, university etc etc by their parents then receive a huge lump sum on their death?

    I personally would say no everyday of the week as this is part of he reason our society is so unequal in the first place.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree.

    (Original post by PerArduaAdAstra)
    I would be completely ok with someone being far wealthier than me through inheritance. Absolutely fair play in my opinion.
    I'm not even sure whether you're trolling.


    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I phrased it that way because the inevitable effect of having no tax on inheritance is that more and more wealth is concentrated in a few hands. Therefore the opportunities for "success by striving" become fewer - those who have wealth tend to want to retain control of it and prevent others from joining their ranks. The rich do not surrender power voluntarily. The opportunity society is one where mobility is possible, but that declines when the only access to wealth is through birth.
    I agree with you too, you seem like a smart cookie :yy: No surprises really, given that you're at nothing less than the UK's third-best university!
    That's right ;)
    Cambridge, Hull, Oxford
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    I agree.



    I'm not even sure whether you're trolling.




    I agree with you too, you seem like a smart cookie :yy: No surprises really, given that you're at nothing less than the UK's third-best university!
    That's right ;)
    Cambridge, Hull, Oxford
    Good only got on here yesterday and most of what I've read so far has been very depressing!
    Im sure napier's in there somewhere......

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Which clan do we think the OP belongs to?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your example is too simple.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Upper Echelons)
    I agree.



    I'm not even sure whether you're trolling.




    I agree with you too, you seem like a smart cookie :yy: No surprises really, given that you're at nothing less than the UK's third-best university!
    That's right ;)
    Cambridge, Hull, Oxford

    Not trolling at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If i was the king of the fools clan there would be two things i would do and exactly in that order
    first i would try to offer a service of coconut cracking
    assuming the other islands dont have as man appropriate rocks!
    and for every ten cracked coconuts i would take the 11th coconut as payment
    same with fish andshell fish clams!

    then i would make stone tools
    and offer to butcher and take out the fish for a fee
    then i would take the waste form the coconuts and make clothing from the fiber
    Offline

    0
    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."
    Read history. Yeah, medieval societies gave a **** about the lower classes lol...

    You do realise that social equality is just a recent notion?

    in many past societies, and even in some today, one's lot is simply that and was/is often determined by birth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PerArduaAdAstra)
    That's a bit extreme - where there's a will, there's a way and if my "heirs" really wanted wealth that badly, I'm sure they'd eventually work hard enough to at least have a modest, comfortable life. In any case, I don't want children, but I personally see great wealth/success as something to strive for, that's why I'm ok with it.
    Er, property rights?

    A person has total prerogative to hand down his or her property to his or her progeny.

    Also, family/friends trump strangers. this is human nature, and frankly only a fool will disagree with that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JollyGreenAtheist)
    I can certainly see that there are moral issues raised with the topic of inheritance. Unregulated inheritance perpetuates an expansive divide between rich and poor, hence high taxation on it, which I definitely support.

    The "slavery" that the fool clan sell themselves into can be viewed as "wage slavery" a modern, capitalist economy. The working class do not own any capital of their own, and must sell their labour in exchange for a disproportionately small amount of money. The reason that the amount of money is so small, at least at the beginning of their lives, is entirely predicated by the circumstances of birth.

    Posters saying "life isn't fair, get over it" are foolish, IMO. It's a bit like saying "we can't cure cancer at the mo', let's not bother funding research". Total equality may never happen, but is it not desirable to get as close as damnit?

    Put into modern context, I wouldn't ban inheritance, because it sparks a debate on ownership - do you truly own wealth, or does the state, since the state has enabled you to generate it, and your wealth is the product of a mutual trust in value between yourself, everyone else, and the state. I don't really know the answer to that question, but I do support high taxation of inheritance.
    Who says we need total equality?

    Also, who says inheritance only occurs in a capitalist economy? Do you realise that in pre-early modern times, they had inheritance? Was England during the War of the Roses a truly capitalist economy?

    The issue of inheritance as I see it is based on property rights, and frankly love of one's children. Unless one detests property rights in all forms, or is a sociopath and hates their children, I don't see how those two things are "evil".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wortandbeer)
    Read history. Yeah, medieval societies gave a **** about the lower classes lol...

    You do realise that social equality is just a recent notion?

    in many past societies, and even in some today, one's lot is simply that and was/is often determined by birth.
    Au contraire, it's you who needs to read some history. Here is a brief look at inheritance (or "transfer") taxes in past societies from the Heritage Foundation, which is hardly left wing. They go back a long way.
    http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...al-perspective
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    Imagine an island....

    Three clans and an Emperor (and his soldiers) live on this island.

    The Monkey Clan lives on one third which contains a coconut tree. They own this part of the island.

    The Zebra Clan lives on one third which contains a fish pond. They own this part of the island.

    The Fool Clan lives on one third which contains barren rocks. They own this part of the island.


    The Monkey Clan and Zebra Clan trade each other coconut and fish and that satisfies there daily needs. (They also give some of their produce to the Emperor who takes care of law and order).

    The Fool Clan have no produce to trade. Sometimes they sell themselves into slavery for the other two clans for scraps of food. Which makes the other two clans even more fat and lazy.

    The law of inheritance says that land passes from father to son.

    Every year the Emperor is voted in by 2 votes to 1.

    The Fool Clan have a new baby boy. For no fault of its own it is destined to live in poverty or death.

    Does this example mean that inheritance is wrong and that capitalism is unfair? Even though there is nothing undemocratic about this scenario. Does it just mean life is unfair? Or maybe it means welfare is unfair and the Fool Clan should just be allowed to starve?
    A lot of facets of life are unfair. Capitalism or, more broadly, the adoption of free market principles is the best method we've encountered of creating growth, which the poor benefits from.

    Property rights are an integral part of the system. If the state or emperor were in charge of these funds do you think that the situation would be preferable, especially in a larger, more heterogeneous population? You would have to think about the negative consequences of the alternative.
    Offline

    1
    When I consider inheritance, I think of the person who originally made the money in the first place. If that individual were a member of the aristocracy, that throws up problems as it is not their capital; rather it is the capital of the public who were likely taxed into paying them. So this argument only really applies to the rest of society; that being people who earn their own money.

    Most people would be inclined to believe that an individual is entitled to the money they earn, and they can subsequently invest it in any way they choose. If an individual wanted to give some of their money to someone else, we would have no objection to this; it's their money. If a person were to decide to give someone all their money and worldly possessions, we also cannot find a way to deny them that -- these items are theirs, so they are allowed to give them it by right. So what is the difference now that a person wants to transfer their possessions and capital to a certain party, their heir, after they die? I struggle to find them; it's the will of the individual to do whatever with their money, and if they wish to give it to their young after they die, it's a fair exertion of their right to their own property and money.

    So subsequently the heir becomes the trustee of the money -- they are appointed by their late beneficiary to do as they please with their money, and subsequently are allowed to to invest the money in the name of whom gave it to them. The trustee's money is spent with the knowledge that the trustee is carrying out the will of the original owner of the money. If it were a fortune to sustain generations, trusteeship would simply pass along through the line; and as it was the will of the original owner of the money to entrust it to an heir, there is no moral objection to it being passed on, as the heirs are trustees of the money.

    The will of the owner is paramount, and even after death it is their money. We think too much about those who inherit, and too little about the desires of those who provide.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think the answer lies in that no one clan should be able to own the islands natural resources. If all clans each owned "shares" in both the pond and the orchard then that would solve the problem to some extent. Or alternatively there could be a natural resources tax. In other words I think it would be fairest to nationalize the orchard and pond. Maybe this would just end up with the fool clan sitting around on welfare. But then again why not? After all isn't it humanity's goal to sit around doing nothing while robots service our every need? Why are human beings only valued if they work? If there are no jobs then why try and make people work? Cats don't have jobs yet we still value them. I'm rambling.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Expert #7451)
    When I consider inheritance, I think of the person who originally made the money in the first place. If that individual were a member of the aristocracy, that throws up problems as it is not their capital; rather it is the capital of the public who were likely taxed into paying them. So this argument only really applies to the rest of society; that being people who earn their own money.

    Most people would be inclined to believe that an individual is entitled to the money they earn, and they can subsequently invest it in any way they choose. If an individual wanted to give some of their money to someone else, we would have no objection to this; it's their money. If a person were to decide to give someone all their money and worldly possessions, we also cannot find a way to deny them that -- these items are theirs, so they are allowed to give them it by right. So what is the difference now that a person wants to transfer their possessions and capital to a certain party, their heir, after they die? I struggle to find them; it's the will of the individual to do whatever with their money, and if they wish to give it to their young after they die, it's a fair exertion of their right to their own property and money.

    So subsequently the heir becomes the trustee of the money -- they are appointed by their late beneficiary to do as they please with their money, and subsequently are allowed to to invest the money in the name of whom gave it to them. The trustee's money is spent with the knowledge that the trustee is carrying out the will of the original owner of the money. If it were a fortune to sustain generations, trusteeship would simply pass along through the line; and as it was the will of the original owner of the money to entrust it to an heir, there is no moral objection to it being passed on, as the heirs are trustees of the money.

    The will of the owner is paramount, and even after death it is their money. We think too much about those who inherit, and too little about the desires of those who provide.
    Exactly, it's an issue of basic property rights.

    One can and should what they want with his or her property, within reason of course.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luca-cunn)
    Then you can admit that your okay with inequality within our own already terribly unequal society??
    There's a great study called the Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett, i suggest giving that a read.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I personally don't care, since we all hold equal opportunities. Why should a person who studied/worked hard be "hated" because s/he is wealthy, has a nice house and a good job?

    Also, people often detest the rich because they are rich and "have more", not because they are interested in social equity/fairness. it's just large-scale envy at play.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.