1. Productive people create wealth and thereby become wealthier.
2. Such wealthy people pass on their wealth to their children.
3. These children do not need to be productive to be wealthy.
4. Therefore, these children will tend not to be productive.
5. The process of financial inheritance, in which children get their parents' wealth, is detrimental to productivity.
6. Productivity is valuable because as 1 shows it creates wealth, which is itself valuable.
7. THEREFORE, the system of financial inheritance is a problem in society that should be modified or eliminated.
Thoughts?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungGinger or MaryAnn?
1. Productive people create wealth and thereby become wealthier.
2. Such wealthy people pass on their wealth to their children.
3. These children do not need to be productive to be wealthy.
4. Therefore, these children will tend not to be productive.
5. The process of financial inheritance, in which children get their parents' wealth, is detriment ...[text shortened]... nancial inheritance is a problem in society that should be modified or eliminated.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Whoops, I meant to ask Marx or Engels?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree with these points 100%. However, I don't think it's feasible to imagine a world where inheritance is not passed on to the next generation. Where else would it go? The Government? Charities? The Third World?
1. Productive people create wealth and thereby become wealthier.
2. Such wealthy people pass on their wealth to their children.
3. These children do not need to be productive to be wealthy.
4. Therefore, these children will tend not to be productive.
5. The process of financial inheritance, in which children get their parents' wealth, is detriment ...[text shortened]... nancial inheritance is a problem in society that should be modified or eliminated.
Thoughts?
B.
Originally posted by BromageI don't see why it shouldn't be feasible. There must already be laws in place for people who don't have descendants. The same or similar laws might be applied to everybody. Maybe people could have a choice where the money is going to go. I think the most problematic part would be everything which is not money. Some of these things may be very valuable to the descendants not because of the material value, but because of the memories connected to it, and I wouldn't want to take these things from people. But where do you draw the line?
I agree with these points 100%. However, I don't think it's feasible to imagine a world where inheritance is not passed on to the next generation. Where else would it go? The Government? Charities? The Third World?
B.
Think about it not from a wealthy or not-wealthy position.
Think about it from a parent's position.
Parents want to give their kids the best possible start to their adult lives. For some parents, this means giving them some money, or other resources, to be financially secure in their adult lives.
To deny these parents their ability to do this for their children would be awful.
As an alternative, it might be possible to imagine teaching parents - or potential parents - that it might be better to give our kids the skills to fend for themselves, rather than loads of cash ...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYour premises are flawed. Point 6 suggests that wealth itself is valuable. If this is the case point 7 is mute, since inheritance creates wealth.
1. Productive people create wealth and thereby become wealthier.
2. Such wealthy people pass on their wealth to their children.
3. These children do not need to be productive to be wealthy.
4. Therefore, these children will tend not to be productive.
5. The process of financial inheritance, in which children get their parents' wealth, is detriment ...[text shortened]... nancial inheritance is a problem in society that should be modified or eliminated.
Thoughts?
Originally posted by Starrmanditto.....the assumption that someone who is wealthy will not be productive is a very flawed argument. One may argue that someone with wealth has a better chance at using it and being more productive.
Your premises are flawed. Point 6 suggests that wealth itself is valuable. If this is the case point 7 is mute, since inheritance creates wealth.
Your statements are fallaciouis across the board.
Originally posted by StarrmanAnything that has a monetary value, has also a value to someone personally. If not, it's monetary value would also disappear.
Your premises are flawed. Point 6 suggests that wealth itself is valuable. If this is the case point 7 is mute, since inheritance creates wealth.
One cannot make the opposite claim (all things with value have monetary value), but this one is perfectly valid.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree with your points. But not allowing parents to provide for their children is also unethical. After all, there aren't many things more important than one's children for a large part of the population.
1. Productive people create wealth and thereby become wealthier.
2. Such wealthy people pass on their wealth to their children.
3. These children do not need to be productive to be wealthy.
4. Therefore, these children will tend not to be productive.
5. The process of financial inheritance, in which children get their parents' wealth, is detriment ...[text shortened]... nancial inheritance is a problem in society that should be modified or eliminated.
Thoughts?
Here is a clear example where taxation can be both redistributive and increase efficience.
There's an argument for periodic redistribution (or even Distributionism, if you go back to Chesterton), but I don't see any strong argument in favour of any disparity, and the sight of liberals who support legal equality opposing it is invariably nauseating to me - at least your average conservative is consistent. Having said that, every defender of inherited wealth would do well to remember that the institution itself is artificial and now relies on statutory law just as much as it does customary law - and even customary law is contrived and counter-intuitive, hence its variability over thousands of years.