Inheritance

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 43 comments
  • 1,036 views

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
Thanks to @NotThePrez for handling this one, but I just have to hit it again because... wow.

therefore it’s in the interest of society to kill EVERYONE with assets which is absurd.

Sigh.
Again the strawman. Where in the world did you come to the conclusion it’s kill everyone?
That was never said except by you.
:lol: I especially love how "everyone" is in all caps.
Perhaps I should have clarified significant positive assets above dollar amount such and such and above the average.
You'd still run into the problem with the bezos example. You're describing America, and you call it some kind of unworkable dystopian wasteland.

But that’s the very premise of socialism.
You still don't seem to understand what that term means.
 
Last edited:

ryzno

Slowest of the Fastest!!
Premium
5,547
United States
Dahlonega, GA
ryzno
His other premise is even more absurd that somehow everyone needs to start life equally?
While I get your point, we technically do.
;)
Slap on the butt, pray they cry...
After that you can have the best childhood, millions in your bank account from your parents and still screw up life.
You can come from nothing and buy everyone in your family everything they want 20 years later.
Or, you can teach you kid to be humble and do what needs to be done when it needs to be done to survive on their own.
Not everyone began eating from a silver spoon. :D
 

NotThePrez

Wa-psh-wa-psh-pssh!
Premium
2,651
United States
St.Pete, FL
NotThePrez
NotThePrez
Perhaps I should have clarified significant positive assets above dollar amount such and such and above the average.
Which doesn't make your argument any stronger, because that would still require homicide (as well as fraud) to be allowed under law.
But that’s the very premise of socialism.
Why do you keep on bringing up a topic that A) You clearly don't understand, and refuse to understand for that matter, in a significant capacity, and B) was not at all brought up in this thread by anybody except yourself?
 

NotThePrez

Wa-psh-wa-psh-pssh!
Premium
2,651
United States
St.Pete, FL
NotThePrez
NotThePrez
^^^^
KEEF invited the devil lolol
In that case I stand corrected. My other points still stand, though, including your continued demonstration of not understanding the concept of socialism (which is an active topic in a somewhat more appropriate thread).

I would like to know what happens with your system @Keef in the event of an untimely demise, though. I feel like in a situation like that there's a good chance that the deceased would probably have not had an opportunity to decide on either spending their assets in a constructive manner or allowing the state to acquire them.
 
Last edited:
2,569
United States
Connecticut
Ridley-X4
I don't really know what to say, except that if it weren't for my parents, I'd be proper hosed. I try my best to be very grateful for my net worth, which I don't even know. But I know it's a positive number, and it's far beyond that of most of my contemporaries, so I really try to express thanks to my parents whenever I can.
 

TonyJZX

(Banned)
3,945
Australia
Australia
I think we all know people or even are people who have inherited nothing, maybe orphans or what have you.

If you're solidly middle class and your parents provided for you after 18 then you have had an advantage others didnt have.

I can tell you right now, even the minor stuff my parents did, ie. they let me borrow their cars, they did the basics for my degree and they helped me with deposit for my place.. so I never to really bother with car loans or rent etc.

My parents bought me computers to do stuff and even when I found work I wasted a lot of money on... performance cars.... because my parents covered the living arrangements.

A lot of people will get on the roundabout of earning $750 a week, needing $250 a month on car payments, $300 a week on rent etc. and you got all the slew of bills like water electricity land tax/council rates etc. Then add in kids.

Its hard going if your parents dont help you out.

This is before any inheritance!

People will say that in your parents day you could afford house two kids and a car on the wage of a janitor.

Well it aint 1960s any more.
 
Last edited:

Dave A

TreVoR fan for life
Premium
28,202
United Kingdom
Cuddington, Cheshire
JDA1982
When you consider what is and isn’t fair you have to acknowledge that life itself isn’t fair and never will be. We‘re you born tall and handsome or short and dumpy? In a poor country to wealthy parents or a rich country to poor parents? We’re you born healthy or with a disability? You can’t steal from people to force a fake sense of fairness.

The concept of inheritance is not wrong or immoral. I’m 40 next year and haven’t inherited yet. I will, but my inheritance hasn’t bought me my house, got me my job, wife, car or friends. Nor is it responsible for the fact I can’t see clearly more than a couple of feet away without glasses or lenses.

I will inherit one day, and it’ll ensure me and my wife will be financially stable, likely for life, but isn’t that a parents dream? The catch is, you have to lose someone you probably love to inherit. You don’t tend to inherit at birth, so having an inheritance or not isn’t going to change the status quo and make the world fairer and ensure children are being raised in equal wealth households. If anything it’ll be more unjust with the wealthy families becoming poor after one generation and the cycle repeating whenever anyone makes a success of their lives.

It’s good to help people out, but that should always be a personal choice each and every one of us has to make. To force people to give up wealth is dictating, and we know how great the most famous dictators were.

If you want to create economic fairness, you probably need to get rid of the money system. But what you’d replace it with that’d work is, well, not something I think I could figure out.
 
11,916
Australia
Melbourne
Neomone/GTP_Imari
I think the "injustice" that some people see in inheritances is actually just a specific example of wealth distribution inequality. It's something easy and concrete to demonstrate how having money makes it significantly easier to make more money, and how having no money makes it really hard to survive let alone get to the point where you can actually get on the gravy train and start working your way out of poverty.

I don't think inheritance is a problem that needs solving, the "problem" solves itself if you have an economy where the scaling on using money to make more money is reduced. In computer games, this idea of balancing the economy so that you don't have a small number of people with enormous economic power is quite important, MMOs spend a reasonable amount of time on it. I imagine that there are people spending even more time trying to figure out what is optimal for the real life economy. I don't have any idea what the answer is, but from current events I'd suggest that they haven't got it quite right yet.
 

TonyJZX

(Banned)
3,945
Australia
Australia
Inheritance comes too late for most. I've gotten to a position where money isnt that big a deal. The cost is the cost and I pay it to get things done.

But things were different when I was younger.

A gross example would be someone like Tim Gurner. Google him. He's a multi millionaire who came from nothing. He worked hard when he was young to be what he is now.

To me there's some survivor bias there. He came from nothing, so why cant everyone?

And to me that sums it up. Young people should be given a go.

I think its clear every generation is getting it harder. We shouldnt be in a situation where older folk have all the opportunities and the young have to carry the can.

Because politicians are old, and older folk are the millionaires. the property owners, the CEOs the managers then its them that society favours.

Of course there's always going to be some exceptional younger folks, the zuckerbergs of the world.

A good example would be any younger person living in the most expensive cities in the world. Pretty much every Australian capital is exceedingly expensive and its close to impossible for the young to own property. This is the same in Canada and parts of the US.

I did it. It was hard when I did it. Its exponentially hard now. Because I made the right choices when I was younger I got it easy now.

I hope younger folks will have it easy as it me but I doubt it.
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
We shouldnt be in a situation where older folk have all the opportunities and the young have to carry the can.
You do kinda want your older people to have been able to provide for themselves, amass wealth, and be able to care for themselves in old age. If someone who has worked all their lives shouldn't have more than someone who has worked 2 years out of school, we've got a big big problem.
 

TonyJZX

(Banned)
3,945
Australia
Australia
ah but there's the flip side you're ignoring

should only older folk with '401k' or superannuation be the only people comfortable in old age

here's a thing thats happening in my country... many older folk do not having enough retirement funds, many dont own their own house and many end up relying on pension especailly women, and women who have broken marriages

further older folks may have to provide for their own medical expenses

so is retiring comfortably only reserved for those with means??

its my assertion that that should not be the case

anyone in a rich western society should have a comforatable retirement without worry about medical expenses

i guess that makes me a dirty communist

but heres the flipside... in dirty communist china there is no such thing as pension that is liveable or free medical care nor is there much in the way of a '401k'

over there i hope you saved up enough once you retire because the govt wont give you enough to live on

so 'rugged individualism' I guess?
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,058
United States
Mile High City
ah but there's the flip side you're ignoring

should only older folk with '401k' or superannuation be the only people comfortable in old age

here's a thing thats happening in my country... many older folk do not having enough retirement funds, many dont own their own house and many end up relying on pension especailly women, and women who have broken marriages

further older folks may have to provide for their own medical expenses

so is retiring comfortably only reserved for those with means??

its my assertion that that should not be the case

anyone in a rich western society should have a comforatable retirement without worry about medical expenses

i guess that makes me a dirty communist

but heres the flipside... in dirty communist china there is no such thing as pension that is liveable or free medical care nor is there much in the way of a '401k'

over there i hope you saved up enough once you retire because the govt wont give you enough to live on

so 'rugged individualism' I guess?
In the US, this line of reasoning translated to social security and medicare.
 
Last edited: