Originally posted by Will EverittNot at all, but trying to convince people that taking their possessions away from them and redistributing them is a good thing that they benefit from is like trying to convince people that taxes are a good thing.
The way you talk about it makes it sound like the buildings/land would just be destroyed.
Originally posted by VargIt really does depend on where those taxes go. Into healthcare and education then that’s great but into war, armies and pointless wastes of money such as campaigns trying to teach old people how to put there slippers on are wastes of money. Taxes are fine as long as they are wisely spend and not to high the problem is when either occurs.
Not at all, but trying to convince people that taking their possessions away from them and redistributing them is a good thing that they benefit from is like trying to convince people that taxes are a good thing.
Originally posted by VargOn what do you base that last conclusion? Social mobility, as I say, has been virtually non-existent for the past twenty years. The fact that the institution of inheritance benefits some people is merely stating the obvious...the fact that it acts to the detriment of many others is equally undeniable, and is the inevitable corollary.
This sounds like bitterness on your part.
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 ...[text shortened]... the early 90's and I didn't buy until 3 years ago. It has nothing to do with family money.
As a matter of fact, I don't necessarily oppose inheritance, with the caveat that that inheritance be equal for everyone, with no unfair starts. Why should the son of A do better than the son of B because A merely happens to be that bit luckier or genetically-gifted? If you really believe in a meritocracy, you should be in favour of engendering and promoting all of society's talents instead of gratuitously wasting them.
Originally posted by Will Everittthis sounds like communism to me.
I 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 ...[text shortened]... ibute it this would be more equal but would get many more complaints and be harder to implement.
you can live under this system if u like... Russia, China....
Good luck to you.
Originally posted by bbi2Ignoring the old, the young, the retarded or imparied, the rest of the world can be divided into 3 :
this sounds like communism to me.
you can live under this system if u like... Russia, China....
Good luck to you.
1. The lazy good-for-nothing bums who dont mind sitting glued to the TV and living on welfare and sponging off their family and friends or hoping they win the jackpot.
2. The whole continuum between 1 and 3.
3. The industrious, enterprising and hardworking who know that success will not come from handouts or be given to them on a platter.
Those who fall clealy into 1. are those that would love to get their grubby greedy hands other people's property that they have no right to.
Originally posted by VargCan you explain why you think this is necesarily a good thing ?
Not at all, but trying to convince people that taking their possessions away from them and redistributing them is a good thing that they benefit from is like trying to convince people that taxes are a good thing.
Originally posted by bbi2Why do you people always come out with this nonsense whenever anyones says anything remotely left-wing?
this sounds like communism to me.
you can live under this system if u like... Russia, China....
Good luck to you.
Are you saying people who hold certain views should be deported from capitalist countries?
Or have you just nothing original to say at all?
Originally posted by AmauroteYou think life is unfair when opportunities aren't equal? I would be terrified to enter a society that tried to make opportunities equal. Of course there would have to be a super powerful state (and hence super powerful politicians) to enforce the equality. The Soviet Union murdered around 50 million for just such a dream.
Even 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 prod ...[text shortened]... ased on the sanctity of coin and the will of the cemetery. Both concepts are equally insane.
Send your kid to college? Forget it, that's unfair. Buy your kid a book? Too bad, poor kids can't afford them, so you can't provide them either. What an insane vision.
Originally posted by techsouthYes. Doesn't that seem logical to you?
You think life is unfair when opportunities aren't equal?
I would be terrified to enter a society that tried to make opportunities equal.
Of course. The society that realizes all its talents is a scary place for the privileged, who lose their comfort zone. But in the long run it's a better place for everyone.
Of course there would have to be a super powerful state (and hence super powerful politicians) to enforce the equality. The Soviet Union murdered around 50 million for just such a dream.
I think you're confusing "equality of opportunity" with control of the means of production, and productive efficiency with an episode of The Invaders. There isn't anything insane about utilizing the talents of the poor instead of wasting them on a pseudo-meritocracy; quite the opposite.
Originally posted by AmauroteI said I'm scared and you presumed to know why. I guess I shouldn't be surprised because those who support some utopian society along the lines of communism often go to great lengths to force fit all into their world view.
Yes. Doesn't that seem logical to you?
I would be terrified to enter a society that tried to make opportunities equal.
Of course. The society that realizes all its talents is a scary place for the privileged, who lose their comfort zone. But in the long run it's a better place for everyone.
[i]Of course there would have to be a super powerf ...[text shortened]... e talents of the poor instead of wasting them on a pseudo-meritocracy; quite the opposite.
I said I was scared due to the implied all powerful state. You can't get around it. Equality means, in spite of all mans self destructive behaviour such as drug abuse only comes about via an all powerful state, which incidentally results in extreme oppression and poverty.
The only way we'll attain equal means is if we also accept oppression and poverty.
Why exactly would the poor choose to develop and use talents when they are given plenty of money for food and vodka? Don't tell me that if man were given more opporunity that he wouldn't choose self-destructive behaviour instead, because there are plenty of examples of people who squander opportunity all around us, and that is when there is some reward for using talents. You want to take away most reward and think that human nature is going to magically just so you'll be right.
By the way, I've choosen at times to live in some humble circumstances, well outside the comfort zone of most reading this.
Originally posted by Rajk999
Oh Yeah .. right .. imagine nobody else thought of that. Just utilise the talents of the poor !!!
No, I’m afraid you haven’t understood the point at all. Novelty has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate.
Originally posted by techsouth
I said I was scared due to the implied all powerful state. You can't get around it. Equality means, in spite of all mans self destructive behaviour such as drug abuse only comes about via an all powerful state, which incidentally results in extreme oppression and poverty.
The only way we'll attain equal means is if we also accept oppression and poverty.
Why exactly would the poor choose to develop and use talents when they are given plenty of money for food and vodka? Don't tell me that if man were given more opporunity that he wouldn't choose self-destructive behaviour instead, because there are plenty of examples of people who squander opportunity all around us, and that is when there is some reward for using talents. You want to take away most reward and think that human nature is going to magically just so you'll be right.
By the way, I've choosen at times to live in some humble circumstances, well outside the comfort zone of most reading this..
Leaving aside your rather odd reference to choosing to live in humble circumstances “at times” (while for the vast majority of the poor it is not a lifestyle choice, nor a passage in a space of time), or that drug users abuse their bodies because of an over-mighty state (as someone who sees them on a regular basis, I have to say that I suspect poverty, low self-esteem and sexual abuse are rather more effective drivers for addiction than a libertarian's masochistic fantasy of an over-mighty state) I think all the posts here evince fear of and contempt for the poor, in your case in your penultimate paragraph, which is the kind of class prejudice that would have looked at home on a leader in the mid-nineteenth century Telegraph. I think that shows what a joke meritocracy is – because meritocracy is based on the premise of free competition of all the merits for the good of society and none of you believe in it. If you were really meritocrats, you would support the free competition of merit instead of supporting a state of affairs which subsidizes one talent (or lack of talent) at the expense of another. That is wasteful; scandalously, horribly wasteful.
Meanwhile, why is everyone here so quick to assume that the institution of inheritance requires less state support than the institution of levelling it, or that a society which squanders the talents of many of its citizens when it has endemic technical skills shortages is not naive? How many of the things you inherit are liquid or pecuniary as distinct from concrete, physical assets like property or petty moveables? The irony is, for a bunch of self-professed individualists and anti-utopians, you’re actually all more than happy to suckle at the state’s tit and hope for the best.
Originally posted by AmauroteOn the basis that I explained.
On what do you base that last conclusion? Social mobility, as I say, has been virtually non-existent for the past twenty years. The fact that the institution of inheritance benefits some people is merely stating the obvious...the fact that it acts to the detriment of many others is equally undeniable, and is the inevitable corollary.
As a matter of fact, ...[text shortened]... ur of engendering and promoting all of society's talents instead of gratuitously wasting them.
I know plenty of people who have big houses, flash cars, go on outrageously expensive foreign holidays, even send their kids to private school and none of them, not a single one was born into privilage.
What you say about no social mobility in the last 20 years is rubbish - in the 80's and early 90's poor, working class kids who had been to comprehensive schools could get a grant to go and study at university (I did myself), whereas kids with richer parents got no grant (although everybody got their tuition fees paid). I was the first person ever in my family to go to univeristy, and most of my friends were in the same boat. Is this not social mobility? We certainly couldn't have done it without grants and no fees.
Why should the son of A do better than the son of B because A merely happens to be that bit luckier or genetically-gifted?
Because that's life! You can legislate all you like for equality but cannot change natural ability. That people vary in intelligence, ability, etc, is no-body's fault, not even the Tories.
inheritance is a curse.
the kids that know they're going to inherit big money grow up lazy.
sure they end up rich, but not as rich as mummy and daddy.
and eventually these dynasties collapse in a lethargic heap of booze and large country properties which are expensive to maintain.
increasingly it's the kids from a relatively poor background who have nothing to lose who end up gambling the lot and making the big money.
some filthy rich people realise this and declare that they won't leave money to their kids (or only a 'limited' amount - bill gates).
for the rest i can't see any strong argument for actually banning inheritance.
perhaps what would help is education to show people that it's not always the 'start in life' it's cracked up to be.