08 Feb 06
I've heard some people suggest that all inheritance should be banned.
The argument was that nobody should have a natural advantage in life because of how well their parents (or distant ancestors) did for themselves. Everybody should have the same start in life and, obviously, the same opportunity.
At first glance this seems aimed at aristocratic, old money types but thinking about it, everyone will be punished - even people who were born with nothing and built up just a small amount, maybe just about paid off their mortgage before they died.
Of course there would be no incentive to buy your own home, or indeed any property. I suppose the proponents of the idea see that as a good thing.
Any thoughts?
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by VargWhere do you suppose all this banned inheretance would end up? Do you assume it just evaporates? What if it were placed into a common fund to be used among all the surviving people of the world? People would stil be free to prosper in their own life, but their legacy would be to raise the standard of living for all of humanity another notch.
I've heard some people suggest that all inheritance should be banned.
The argument was that nobody should have a natural advantage in life because of how well their parents (or distant ancestors) did for themselves. Everybody should have the same start in life and, obviously, the same opportunity.
At first glance this seems aimed at aristocratic, old money ty ...[text shortened]... eed any property. I suppose the proponents of the idea see that as a good thing.
Any thoughts?
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by VargPeople will just give away their assets to their loved ones before they die.
I've heard some people suggest that all inheritance should be banned.
The argument was that nobody should have a natural advantage in life because of how well their parents (or distant ancestors) did for themselves. Everybody should have the same start in life and, obviously, the same opportunity.
At first glance this seems aimed at aristocratic, old money ty ...[text shortened]... eed any property. I suppose the proponents of the idea see that as a good thing.
Any thoughts?
40% tax is pretty tough but this can be avoided with proper planning.
Besides in the UK people who got rich in land battles of the middle ages have been making the laws ever since. The desendents of these people are still filthy rich, which whilst unfair is just the way of the world.
08 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Vargwhat would be a reasonable alternative? the state take control of those assets and redistribute it to those less fortunate, or share the wealth with the people who directly or indirectly by their labour made it possible?
I've heard some people suggest that all inheritance should be banned......
Any thoughts?
Would you need govt to pass laws to make sure that wealth was not divested to family prior to death?
Would the long run tendency of all this levelling in society rob humanity of those who, spured on by the prospect of wealth engage in risky endevours and develop ideas into technology that we all derive benefit from, through the "invisible hand" of free market forces.
08 Feb 06
3 edits
Originally posted by VargHang on, that's a bit of a nonsequitur: I don't have any kids, and I feel pretty incentivized on both counts. In contradistinction, I'm considerably disincentivized by the existence of those who can simply price me out of an already over-heated market because their unequitable origins have given them a head-start in life I would require two or three incarnations to overhaul.
Of course there would be no incentive to buy your own home, or indeed any property.
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by rwingettNo, of course not - it would have to be taken by the state I suppose.
Where do you suppose all this banned inheretance would end up? Do you assume it just evaporates?
But nobody likes taxes.
If you thought any spare money left when you die went to the government I'm sure there'd be a lot more people with nothing left when they died.
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by AmauroteYou are probably being priced out of the market by people who have made their money in this life.
Hang on, that's a bit of a nonsequitur: I don't have any kids, and I feel pretty incentivized on both counts. In contradistinction, I'm considerably disincentivized by the existence of those who can simply price me out of an already over-heated market because their unequitable origins have given them a head-start in life I would require two or three incarnations to overhaul.
But some of the incentive for accumulating wealth is in order to provide your offspring with an easier ride than you had.
If you don't plan on having kids that incentive will never be there for you, but it exists for most.
08 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by VargSince social mobility in the UK (and, incidentally, the US) has been static for nearly twenty years, I think that the probability is quite the opposite. I know plenty of hard-working people who find it impossible to afford even the first step onto the housing ladder until entering their thirties, and equally I once worked for a family of hardware vendors who was able to spoon all his kids into flats the moment they wanted them, which in turn impacts on social development, life chances and so on. I don't really think the incentive to do well for yourself is any less important than the incentive to do well for your future or actual children, but either way it seems pretty clear that the desire to abolish unequal inheritance is far from a significant economic brake in an age of concentration and monopoly. If anything, our current indifference to inequality of opportunity is a scandalous waste of social resources.
You are probably being priced out of the market by people who have made their money in this life.
But some of the incentive for accumulating wealth is in order to provide your offspring with an easier ride than you had.
If you don't plan on having kids that incentive will never be there for you, but it exists for most.
08 Feb 06
Originally posted by eamondoEven ignoring the datum behind that view, which is that dead people have more legal rights than the living, I really don't see anything useful in a system that works to the detriment of society. There was a time in the Middle Ages when inheritance worked for society's gain (when production was based on land and scale), but we aren't talking about small producers here, we're talking about inequality of opportunity based on the sanctity of coin and the will of the cemetery. Both concepts are equally insane.
the point is that people have a right to decide who should have their money after they have gone, right?
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by AmauroteThis sounds like bitterness on your part.
Since social mobility in the UK (and, incidentally, the US) has been static for nearly twenty years, I think that the probability is quite the opposite. I know plenty of hard-working people who find it impossible to afford even the first step onto the housing ladder until entering their thirties, and equally I once worked for a family of hardware vendors wh ...[text shortened]... ur current indifference to inequality of opportunity is a scandalous waste of social resources.
Most people in the UK (at least in the part where I live) had nothing at the beginning of the 20th C.
My grandparents were poor, my parents did better and now have a little more. They certainly couldn't buy me a house but they helped me through uni.
A lot of people made money through property in the 80's and 90's.
I know people who are paid less than me but have nice big houses because they bought in the early 90's and I didn't buy until 3 years ago. It has nothing to do with family money.
09 Feb 06
Originally posted by VargI think you are mistaken if inheritance was banned then you have to consider what would happen to the land/houses you say the poor will be punished but assume that the land that is taken would be equally distributed between everyone who wants some for a garden/allotment then the poorest people would gain and the richest would lose out. The way you talk about it makes it sound like the buildings/land would just be destroyed. I think the best way to do it would be if everyone got a small allowance, say the average price of a houses worth of land or buildings of their choice, and everything they owned over that went into common ownership.
I've heard some people suggest that all inheritance should be banned.
The argument was that nobody should have a natural advantage in life because of how well their parents (or distant ancestors) did for themselves. Everybody should have the same start in life and, obviously, the same opportunity.
At first glance this seems aimed at aristocratic, old money ty ...[text shortened]... eed any property. I suppose the proponents of the idea see that as a good thing.
Any thoughts?
Just my view on one way to get a more equal system you could go all the way and take everything and redistribute it this would be more equal but would get many more complaints and be harder to implement.