Birth Right and The Secular Basis of Inheritance

[Jolly_Penguin]

Most of us here live in societies where when we die, our stuff gets inherited by our children. This is so entrenched that medieval kingdoms were based on bloodlines. From a religious perspective, of people looking back from the afterlife and seeing their intentions carried out, this makes sense. But does this logic stand up from a purely atheist perspective, and if so, how so?

Should the rich kids of rich parents who die automatically inherit their wealth just because of happenstance of birth? Should this apply in the form of a birth right even if the parent did not wish it? Should it apply if the child is a bastard child, formed out of wedlock?

Could an argument not be made that it is better to distribute the property of the deceased via the state rather than (or to alleviate) the taxation on the person while they were alive. The former would not take any hard earned asset away from the deceased, and society may be less split between rich and poor.

An argument against this would be that people may then give everything to their children while alive, leaving them little to live on if they live beyond their expected age. Could this be accounted for? If so, how?

 

[bilby]

Most of us here live in societies where when we die, our stuff gets inherited by our children. This is so entrenched that medieval kingdoms were based on bloodlines. From a religious perspective, of people looking back from the afterlife and seeing their intentions carried out, this makes sense. But does this logic stand up from a purely atheist perspective, and if so, how so?

Should the rich kids of rich parents who die automatically inherit their wealth just because of happenstance of birth? Should this apply in the form of a birth right even if the parent did not wish it? Should it apply if the child is a bastard child, formed out of wedlock?

Could an argument not be made that it is better to distribute the property of the deceased via the state rather than (or to alleviate) the taxation on the person while they were alive. The former would not take any hard earned asset away from the deceased, and society may be less split between rich and poor.

An argument against this would be that people may then give everything to their children while alive, leaving them little to live on if they live beyond their expected age. Could this be accounted for? If so, how?

You can prevent gifts from parent to child to avoid estate taxes, by taxing all such gifts at the same rate as the estate tax.

I agree that it is far less of an imposition to take someone's wealth after he is dead than when he is still alive, and strongly support very high taxes on inherited wealth.

Ultimately money is a measure of how much society owes you. By passing that debt-holding on to a child who did nothing to justify society's being indebted to him, inheritance undermines the usefulness of that measure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The result of this would the wealth being spent on living large rather than being passed to anyone. That would be worse for society than the current system.

 

[bilby]

The result of this would the wealth being spent on living large rather than being passed to anyone. That would be worse for society than the current system.

How so?

When someone sells goods or services to a rich person who is 'living large', are they required to set fire to the money they are paid for those goods or services? The total amount of money remains the same whether it is spent or bequeathed; The only difference is that when it is spent, it tends to spread around more, while a bequest tends to concentrate it in one (or just a few) hands. How is this a bad thing for society?

 

[ronburgundy]

Most of us here live in societies where when we die, our stuff gets inherited by our children. This is so entrenched that medieval kingdoms were based on bloodlines. From a religious perspective, of people looking back from the afterlife and seeing their intentions carried out, this makes sense. But does this logic stand up from a purely atheist perspective, and if so, how so?

Should the rich kids of rich parents who die automatically inherit their wealth just because of happenstance of birth? Should this apply in the form of a birth right even if the parent did not wish it? Should it apply if the child is a bastard child, formed out of wedlock?

Could an argument not be made that it is better to distribute the property of the deceased via the state rather than (or to alleviate) the taxation on the person while they were alive. The former would not take any hard earned asset away from the deceased, and society may be less split between rich and poor.

An argument against this would be that people may then give everything to their children while alive, leaving them little to live on if they live beyond their expected age. Could this be accounted for? If so, how?

You can prevent gifts from parent to child to avoid estate taxes, by taxing all such gifts at the same rate as the estate tax.
.

Then wouldn't they just give the money as payment for some invented "service" rather than a gift. In fact, they could likely set up some fund to pay their decedents for some annual "service" so they only get % of the $ each year for the rest of their life, thus reducing the tax rate comparing to paying them a lump sum.

 

[bilby]

You can prevent gifts from parent to child to avoid estate taxes, by taxing all such gifts at the same rate as the estate tax.
.

Then wouldn't they just give the money as payment for some invented "service" rather than a gift. In fact, they could likely set up some fund to pay their decedents for some annual "service" so they only get % of the $ each year for the rest of their life, thus reducing the tax rate comparing to paying them a lump sum.

Whether that is or is not possible depends on how the system is implemented. Certainly a poorly implemented system with lots of loopholes could allow that to occur.

The idea that such loopholes are a law of nature and are incapable of being plugged by carefully written legislation is one to which I do not subscribe - but it is a VERY popular argument from opponents of pretty much all tax regimes ever.

 

[Bronzeage]

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

That is certainly a step, but why not take it all the way as bilby has suggested? Distribute to it to the whole of society via added government services or reduced taxes on everyone. What is the moral or ethical argument against that?

 

[LordKiran]

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

Do wealthy people have many children though? I guess more than the average person probably.

 

[Bronzeage]

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

That is certainly a step, but why not take it all the way as bilby has suggested? Distribute to it to the whole of society via added government services or reduced taxes on everyone. What is the moral or ethical argument against that?

Do wealthy people have many children though? I guess more than the average person probably.

At the time of Napoleon, a wealthy family was more likely to have more children survive to become adults.

The real question that must be answered before any government takes wealth from its citizen is, what does the citizen get in return? It's a fair question.

There are a few practical problems of taxation which must be addressed, before any particular tax is assessed. The first problem is determining how much it costs to collect the tax. It's silly to pay your tax collectors more than the taxes they collect. There is a cost, which means a lot of potential revenue sources are just not economically viable. This is why the poor are generally overlooked. What's the point of taking a tiny amount from multiple sources. The cost simply compounds with little return.

On the other extreme, ease of collection by itself does not justify a tax. Large estates are tempting, if only because one transaction can collect more than the accumulated taxes of thousands of less well off citizens.

So, the question remains, Why? Are you going after a rich man's estate simply because it's easy, or has this man and his estate benefited from government services at a higher rate than his poor neighbors?

 

[Sarpedon]

Considering that the law and the organs of the state are generally created and run by the rich for their own benefit, I'd say the answer to that question is yes.

A rich man flies in airplanes more often than a poor one, and probably travels more in general, so he uses our transportation infrastructure more. He probably owns more things, which also need to be transported, imported, inspected, etc. He expects and is in the position to insist that his community be well policed, whereas many poor people have a very different attitude towards police. He uses banks more, which need to be regulated, etc, etc.

 

[Bronzeage]

Considering that the law and the organs of the state are generally created and run by the rich for their own benefit, I'd say the answer to that question is yes.

A rich man flies in airplanes more often than a poor one, and probably travels more in general, so he uses our transportation infrastructure more. He probably owns more things, which also need to be transported, imported, inspected, etc. He expects and is in the position to insist that his community be well policed, whereas many poor people have a very different attitude towards police. He uses banks more, which need to be regulated, etc, etc.

If this is the case, why wait until he's dead? Is the lump sum collection more appealing than a "pay as you go" yearly assessment?

It is a fact that a wealthy person will benefit greatly from government services. If I own a large tract of land, it could practically worthless, if there is no access to transportation. If the government decides to build a road or a bridge next to the property, the value of the land will increase dramatically.


There is another consumption of services which often goes unnoticed. We pay our police and fire departments to protect our property. A wealthy man gets the same(maybe better) protection for his million dollar house as the $50,000 house of his employee. The fire department shows up at either in the same amount of time. It seems only right that the rich man should pay more for this extra protection.

 

[LordKiran]

That is certainly a step, but why not take it all the way as bilby has suggested? Distribute to it to the whole of society via added government services or reduced taxes on everyone. What is the moral or ethical argument against that?

Do wealthy people have many children though? I guess more than the average person probably.

At the time of Napoleon, a wealthy family was more likely to have more children survive to become adults.

The real question that must be answered before any government takes wealth from its citizen is, what does the citizen get in return? It's a fair question.

There are a few practical problems of taxation which must be addressed, before any particular tax is assessed. The first problem is determining how much it costs to collect the tax. It's silly to pay your tax collectors more than the taxes they collect. There is a cost, which means a lot of potential revenue sources are just not economically viable. This is why the poor are generally overlooked. What's the point of taking a tiny amount from multiple sources. The cost simply compounds with little return.

On the other extreme, ease of collection by itself does not justify a tax. Large estates are tempting, if only because one transaction can collect more than the accumulated taxes of thousands of less well off citizens.

So, the question remains, Why? Are you going after a rich man's estate simply because it's easy, or has this man and his estate benefited from government services at a higher rate than his poor neighbors?

I think the justifications used these days are more in line with concepts of social responsibility, and that those responsibilities are proportionate to your personal wealth. "Paying their fair share" as the saying goes. Of course, who is to say what is fair? Who gets to decide, mmm?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The result of this would the wealth being spent on living large rather than being passed to anyone. That would be worse for society than the current system.

How so?

When someone sells goods or services to a rich person who is 'living large', are they required to set fire to the money they are paid for those goods or services? The total amount of money remains the same whether it is spent or bequeathed; The only difference is that when it is spent, it tends to spread around more, while a bequest tends to concentrate it in one (or just a few) hands. How is this a bad thing for society?

But the effort would be expended on the production of luxury goods. In all cases the effort goes somewhere, spending it on luxury good production is the least beneficial for society.

- - - Updated - - -

You can prevent gifts from parent to child to avoid estate taxes, by taxing all such gifts at the same rate as the estate tax.
.

Then wouldn't they just give the money as payment for some invented "service" rather than a gift. In fact, they could likely set up some fund to pay their decedents for some annual "service" so they only get % of the $ each year for the rest of their life, thus reducing the tax rate comparing to paying them a lump sum.

Pay them $<huge x> to say a prayer for them on every anniversary of their death.

- - - Updated - - -

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

Which is the normal fate of huge piles of wealth anyway. A few generations is enough to disperse them even if they aren't spent by then.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Most of us here live in societies where when we die, our stuff gets inherited by our children. This is so entrenched that medieval kingdoms were based on bloodlines. From a religious perspective, of people looking back from the afterlife and seeing their intentions carried out, this makes sense. But does this logic stand up from a purely atheist perspective, and if so, how so?

Should the rich kids of rich parents who die automatically inherit their wealth just because of happenstance of birth? Should this apply in the form of a birth right even if the parent did not wish it? Should it apply if the child is a bastard child, formed out of wedlock?

Could an argument not be made that it is better to distribute the property of the deceased via the state rather than (or to alleviate) the taxation on the person while they were alive. The former would not take any hard earned asset away from the deceased, and society may be less split between rich and poor.

An argument against this would be that people may then give everything to their children while alive, leaving them little to live on if they live beyond their expected age. Could this be accounted for? If so, how?

Any transfer of wealth can be (best) handled by life insurance. Any concern that you outlive your savings can be handled by a life annuity. Any wealth remaining after you die can be given to the state.

Real property could be troublesome - I'm not sure I'd want the state to also run a huge real estate company or pawn shop. Maybe the heirs could still manage the liquidation but be taxed at a really high rate?

aa

 

[J842P]

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

Do wealthy people have many children though? I guess more than the average person probably.

It depends, I'm sure, on the nature of the society. I bet that in Western industrialized nations, wealth is negatively correlated with number of children.

 

[bilby]

That is certainly a step, but why not take it all the way as bilby has suggested? Distribute to it to the whole of society via added government services or reduced taxes on everyone. What is the moral or ethical argument against that?

Do wealthy people have many children though? I guess more than the average person probably.

At the time of Napoleon, a wealthy family was more likely to have more children survive to become adults.

The real question that must be answered before any government takes wealth from its citizen is, what does the citizen get in return? It's a fair question.

There are a few practical problems of taxation which must be addressed, before any particular tax is assessed. The first problem is determining how much it costs to collect the tax. It's silly to pay your tax collectors more than the taxes they collect. There is a cost, which means a lot of potential revenue sources are just not economically viable. This is why the poor are generally overlooked. What's the point of taking a tiny amount from multiple sources. The cost simply compounds with little return.

On the other extreme, ease of collection by itself does not justify a tax. Large estates are tempting, if only because one transaction can collect more than the accumulated taxes of thousands of less well off citizens.

So, the question remains, Why? Are you going after a rich man's estate simply because it's easy, or has this man and his estate benefited from government services at a higher rate than his poor neighbors?

He has benefited from government as much as he is ever going to. He can't take it with him, so the question of whether it's fair to take it from him doesn't arise.

But he didn't get rich without the support of his wider community; and it's vanishingly rare that an heir was in any way a contributor to his father's wealth - and in those rare occasions, he is likely already wealthy in his own right. So why should he get his father's estate, and not be required to share it with the rest of society?

 

[ksen]

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

I play Crusader Kings 2 quite a bit and gavelkind succession is the worst succession.

 

[ksen]

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

That is certainly a step, but why not take it all the way as bilby has suggested? Distribute to it to the whole of society via added government services or reduced taxes on everyone. What is the moral or ethical argument against that?

COMMUNISM!!!

 

[Harry Bosch]

Napoleon solved this problem with forced heirship. Entails and primogeniture were abolished and an estate had to be divided evenly among all the immediate heirs. In a few generations, all the huge noble estates had been broken into small units.

I play Crusader Kings 2 quite a bit and gavelkind succession is the worst succession.

That's pretty funny! I believe that the worse thing a person can do is to rob their children of the joy of working hard and making it on your own. However, my goal is to pay for all my kids education, provide a starter house, and keep a vacation home (that has been in the family for 4 generations) free for all to use. Anything else will be left for the lord to distribute (just kidding, but I do have several charities that I'd support). I think that if we taxed everyone's entire estate away, you'd find great attempts to hide wealth. The desire to help our kids is pretty powerful.