Birth Right and The Secular Basis of Inheritance

[Business]

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?

An ethical argument against that would be a wealthy and famous families' businesses and property being taken and the children would now be quite vulnerable to very unsavory and dangerous type lowlifes. Wealth is a barrier as much as it is steep priveledges.

 

[Business]

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

Here is an article on that.

 

[Business]

So, the question remains, Why? Are you going after a rich man's estate simply because it's easy,

To put this in perspective, imagine a shrewed man in the IRS with a vendetta against wealthy people because he's a comcom Marxyist. He launches a full-scale attack on a recently deceased wealthy man's estate. This IRS man doesn't get a cut of the estate, so really he's like the little kid that gets power over adults. His power isn't of his own, it is borrowed through his government. Completely asinine. Inheritance should stand as irrevocable.

 

[Business]

I think that family contributes greatly to a person's success.

Bingo!

 

[Business]

I feel like this is over-thought. People have the right to control the property they own. If they choose to give their property to their children as they die, then so be it.

I agree with this statement. No reasons needed, I think this subject of inheritance goes without saying and that those who oppose birthright inheritance are rare. Yet, so passionate...

- - - Updated - - -

I largely agree with all the replies Rousseau made on this thread.

 

[bigfield]

So, the question remains, Why? Are you going after a rich man's estate simply because it's easy,

To put this in perspective, imagine a shrewed man in the IRS with a vendetta against wealthy people because he's a comcom Marxyist. He launches a full-scale attack on a recently deceased wealthy man's estate. This IRS man doesn't get a cut of the estate, so really he's like the little kid that gets power over adults. His power isn't of his own, it is borrowed through his government. Completely asinine. Inheritance should stand as irrevocable.

Resorting to imaginary bogeymen (like a diabolical Marxist in the IRS) is a sure sign that your position is weak.

 

[Business]

Resorting to imaginary bogeymen (like a diabolical Marxist in the IRS) is a sure sign that your position is weak.

I was supporting another poster's statement with an illustrative stereotype, how is that weak? I think it was quite charming.

 

[bilby]

To put this in perspective, imagine a shrewed man in the IRS with a vendetta against wealthy people because he's a comcom Marxyist. He launches a full-scale attack on a recently deceased wealthy man's estate. This IRS man doesn't get a cut of the estate, so really he's like the little kid that gets power over adults. His power isn't of his own, it is borrowed through his government. Completely asinine. Inheritance should stand as irrevocable.

Resorting to imaginary bogeymen (like a diabolical Marxist in the IRS) is a sure sign that your position is weak.

Not a diabolical Marxist; a 'comcom marxyist', which sounds like something a three year old might fear.

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

An ethical argument against that would be a wealthy and famous families' businesses and property being taken and the children would now be quite vulnerable to very unsavory and dangerous type lowlifes. Wealth is a barrier as much as it is steep priveledges.

This is a use of the word "barrier" with which I am unfamiliar. What barriers does wealth provide, unless it's a barrier to hunger and other symptoms of poverty?

 

[bigfield]

Resorting to imaginary bogeymen (like a diabolical Marxist in the IRS) is a sure sign that your position is weak.

I was supporting another poster's statement with an illustrative stereotype, how is that weak? I think it was quite charming.

It is weak in the sense that resorting to far-fetched imaginary scenarios doesn't actually provide support for anyone's statement. If anything it is evidence that you are grasping at straws in order to justify your position.

 

[Business]

It is weak in the sense that resorting to far-fetched imaginary scenarios doesn't actually provide support for anyone's statement. If anything it is evidence that you are grasping at straws in order to justify your position.

I wasn't trying to prove anything and there was no element of machismo. You know, "I concur with this statement". Without the android.

 

[Business]

This is a use of the word "barrier" with which I am unfamiliar. What barriers does wealth provide, unless it's a barrier to hunger and other symptoms of poverty

A barrier in English is a wall or obstacle to keep unwanted people out. Wealth provides a higher level of safety and security, a much thicker barrier.

So, in my other reply I say that to take the wealth away puts the family of the deceased in danger because they lose that barrier and must provide it for themselves. This would be unbalanced as wealthy people are often the target of stalkers and nutcases. Add the dimension of fame to the equation and it would be cruel to take that barrier away and let the crazies get nearer. This would be disregarding their social status and not considering all faucets of the situation.

And really, as you get deeper into the details of this idea called, "no inheritance state asset liquidation" it becomes clearer that this idea is very immature and probably thought up in a mentally unstable adolescents' mind. Society couldn't survive with someone hitting the reset button repeatedly.

 

[Juma]

This is a use of the word "barrier" with which I am unfamiliar. What barriers does wealth provide, unless it's a barrier to hunger and other symptoms of poverty

A barrier in English is a wall or obstacle to keep unwanted people out. Wealth provides a higher level of safety and security, a much thicker barrier.

So, in my other reply I say that to take the wealth away puts the family of the deceased in danger because they lose that barrier and must provide it for themselves. This would be unbalanced as wealthy people are often the target of stalkers and nutcases. Add the dimension of fame to the equation and it would be cruel to take that barrier away and let the crazies get nearer. This would be disregarding their social status and not considering all faucets of the situation.

And really, as you get deeper into the details of this idea called, "no inheritance state asset liquidation" it becomes clearer that this idea is very immature and probably thought up in a mentally unstable adolescents' mind. Society couldn't survive with someone hitting the reset button repeatedly.

With a real social security (not the laughable US one) that is no problem.
In a properly managed country all children should have the same possibilities.


And what reset button? The society isnt reset.

 

[bigfield]

It is weak in the sense that resorting to far-fetched imaginary scenarios doesn't actually provide support for anyone's statement. If anything it is evidence that you are grasping at straws in order to justify your position.

I wasn't trying to prove anything and there was no element of machismo. You know, "I concur with this statement". Without the android.

Describing your argument (the 'comcom Marxyist' at the IRS) as weak has nothing to do with machismo or androids. It's a judgement of the soundness of the position you have argued for.

You claim to concur with the post you quoted, but you actually quote-mined Bronzeage to make it look like he said the opposite of what he actually said:

So, the question remains, Why? Are you going after a rich man's estate simply because it's easy,

To put this in perspective, imagine a shrewed man in the IRS with a vendetta against wealthy people because he's a comcom Marxyist. He launches a full-scale attack on a recently deceased wealthy man's estate. This IRS man doesn't get a cut of the estate, so really he's like the little kid that gets power over adults. His power isn't of his own, it is borrowed through his government. Completely asinine. Inheritance should stand as irrevocable.

In context:

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?

In Bronzeage's post, the statement was part of a rhetorical question that had the opposite meaning of what you turned it into.

You--not Bronzeage--make the claim that "Inheritance should stand as irrevocable". That is your claim, and you justify it with a hypothetical 'comcom marxyist' IRS officer who is out to steal a dead man's estate simply because he can.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

Sure. It's just arbitrary rules. There's no wrong or right here. Whatever works and makes society better is what we should go for. The prime argument for inheritance is that it means people who own capital and have children will keep their capital intact up until they die. This is generally good for society. The alternative is that they would blow the cash on hookers and blow. Which might be food for the individual. But hardly for society.

But a problem with it is when it creates a wealthy elite. This makes society less dynamic.

So we need a balance. But there's no right or wrong. This is something we can play around with.

 

[Business]

And what reset button? The society isnt reset.

No commint.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, in my other reply I say that to take the wealth away puts the family of the deceased in danger because they lose that barrier and must provide it for themselves. This would be unbalanced as wealthy people are often the target of stalkers and nutcases. Add the dimension of fame to the equation and it would be cruel to take that barrier away and let the crazies get nearer. This would be disregarding their social status and not considering all faucets of the situation.

They would still have the benefit of growing up with wealthy parents, and all of the benefits, connections, and advice that brings. On the whole they would still be much better off than the children of the poor, who may even grow up hungry.

And really, as you get deeper into the details of this idea called, "no inheritance state asset liquidation" it becomes clearer that this idea is very immature and probably thought up in a mentally unstable adolescents' mind. Society couldn't survive with someone hitting the reset button repeatedly.

Do you mean bankruptcies? I oppose that sort of reset button.

But birth and death are natural resets. When you die, absent a spiritual argument, there is no more you, and taking your money/stuff isn't taking anything from you. The state then has to decide how it should be distributed.

Why should that be done based on birth circumstances, and how is doing so not discrimination by the state equal to racist or sexist discrimination?