I was all set for an interesting discussion on inheritance vs composition in OO design, and instead I got this?
Ah well, I'll answer the question posed. To me the only reason to reward different people differently is to create incentives to motivate people to produce more. Inheriting great wealth takes people who likely have the ability to produce and robs them of the incentive. Therefore I find myself in complete agreement with Warren Buffett that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing.
Except that you didn't, you know. You said what rich people should do with their money. The question was what rich people should be allowed to do with their money. And that is really a very different question.
"The question was what rich people should be allowed to do with their money."
No, the question was, what people should be allowed to do with their money.
My answer: rich or poor, it's your money, and you should be allowed to buy anything you want with your money, including comfort for your children and fish.
"Why not give away the money to a charity or the government once someone dies?"
If anyone is less deserving of my money than my children after I die, it's the government. They squander it now while I'm watching, I shudder to think what they'll do with it when my eyes are closed.
Something to consider. It is only your money because the rest of society enforces rules that keep it being your money. How, why and when should they do so?
The problem with extreme libertarianism is that property rights fall apart without the constant intervention of the legal profession, including government run police. This requires more government and consent from fellow citizens than most libertarians seem to want to acknowledge.
Comments
I was all set for an interesting discussion on inheritance vs composition in OO design, and instead I got this?
Ah well, I'll answer the question posed. To me the only reason to reward different people differently is to create incentives to motivate people to produce more. Inheriting great wealth takes people who likely have the ability to produce and robs them of the incentive. Therefore I find myself in complete agreement with Warren Buffett that a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing.
> Ah well, I'll answer the question posed.
Except that you didn't, you know. You said what rich people should do with their money. The question was what rich people should be allowed to do with their money. And that is really a very different question.
"The question was what rich people should be allowed to do with their money."
No, the question was, what people should be allowed to do with their money.
My answer: rich or poor, it's your money, and you should be allowed to buy anything you want with your money, including comfort for your children and fish.
"Why not give away the money to a charity or the government once someone dies?"
If anyone is less deserving of my money than my children after I die, it's the government. They squander it now while I'm watching, I shudder to think what they'll do with it when my eyes are closed.
Something to consider. It is only your money because the rest of society enforces rules that keep it being your money. How, why and when should they do so?
The problem with extreme libertarianism is that property rights fall apart without the constant intervention of the legal profession, including government run police. This requires more government and consent from fellow citizens than most libertarians seem to want to acknowledge.
> "The question was what rich people should be allowed to do with their money."
> No, the question was, what people should be allowed to do with their money.
You are correct, of course.
I'll answer the question then. I think that rich people should be made to do what they should do. I like the idea of an estate tax on large estates.
I ended up here under exactly the same pretense, ready to rumble having just been abused by a particularly knarly bit of Java...