If you don't like capitalism, move somewhere that doesn't use it as their economical system so life can be more "fair". You might not like that kids get their parent's wealth without technically earning it, but that's the nature of the game. Want the same wealth? Go earn it. That's the beauty of capitalism. The same reason that wealth was created in the first place is why you can also get it.
Your money doesn't have to go to the government after you die. You could spend it on yourself taking advantage of your doctor's prediction as to how much longer you will live.
I thought about this on my bike ride home tonight: Which part is unfair? The parent choosing to give their own personal wealth to a child, or the child receiving the wealth of their parent?
Surely, a parent who can do whatever he chooses with his wealth while he is alive can be free to choose where it goes upon his demise. As well, a child who has nothing to do with the reasons for receiving the money other than being born to a man of wealth should not be considered to be making an unfair decision.
So I ask you, who (or what part) is unfair in inheritance?
P.S. In response to your question, you can't have that because that's inherently not capitalism. It's not any individuals responsibility to take care of those around them; their taxes paid throughout life go to a government whose goal is (hopefully) to take care of its citizens. Denying a man's right to pass on his wealth as inheritance is essentially a 100% tax upon death. What's the point of that wealth in the first place then? If he made it, it's his. He can do what he wants with it.
Which part is unfair? The parent choosing to give their own personal wealth to a child, or the child receiving the wealth of their parent?
The latter. In fact, it's also unfair for some children to receive more money than others while their parents are alive, so there would need to be limits there.
Once again, what part of it is unfair? Is it unfair to the children receiving it, or do YOU just think it's unfair that some kids are getting a bunch of cash from their rich parents??
If you have no say in what an individual does with his wealth while he is alive, why do you think you are entitled (through voting presumably) to have a say in where that money goes when he dies?
Also, it seems like you even want to go so far as to regulate what a parent does with his money when he is alive?? How about this: What if a parent decides to give every single dime of his wealth to a second rich person to further that person's business? Do you think the government should step in and say no, even if it's classed as an investment?
All you seem to be saying is that it's unfair because you don't have rich parents leaving you a bunch of cash. Am I right?
Comments
If you don't like capitalism, move somewhere that doesn't use it as their economical system so life can be more "fair". You might not like that kids get their parent's wealth without technically earning it, but that's the nature of the game. Want the same wealth? Go earn it. That's the beauty of capitalism. The same reason that wealth was created in the first place is why you can also get it.
Why is it "the nature of the game"? Why can't you have capitalism where you create wealth for yourself and a safety net for everyone?
Because I'm not breaking my back for the benefit of others. Hell, half the time I wonder why I am doing so much work for myself and my family.
Your money doesn't have to go to the government after you die. You could spend it on yourself taking advantage of your doctor's prediction as to how much longer you will live.
Life often ends unexpectedly. I seriously doubt I could time the cash flows to expire at the exact moment I expire.
EDIT: I am absolutely certain I could not time the cash flows to expire at the exact moment I expire.
I thought about this on my bike ride home tonight: Which part is unfair? The parent choosing to give their own personal wealth to a child, or the child receiving the wealth of their parent?
Surely, a parent who can do whatever he chooses with his wealth while he is alive can be free to choose where it goes upon his demise. As well, a child who has nothing to do with the reasons for receiving the money other than being born to a man of wealth should not be considered to be making an unfair decision.
So I ask you, who (or what part) is unfair in inheritance?
P.S. In response to your question, you can't have that because that's inherently not capitalism. It's not any individuals responsibility to take care of those around them; their taxes paid throughout life go to a government whose goal is (hopefully) to take care of its citizens. Denying a man's right to pass on his wealth as inheritance is essentially a 100% tax upon death. What's the point of that wealth in the first place then? If he made it, it's his. He can do what he wants with it.
Which part is unfair? The parent choosing to give their own personal wealth to a child, or the child receiving the wealth of their parent?
The latter. In fact, it's also unfair for some children to receive more money than others while their parents are alive, so there would need to be limits there.
Once again, what part of it is unfair? Is it unfair to the children receiving it, or do YOU just think it's unfair that some kids are getting a bunch of cash from their rich parents??
If you have no say in what an individual does with his wealth while he is alive, why do you think you are entitled (through voting presumably) to have a say in where that money goes when he dies?
Also, it seems like you even want to go so far as to regulate what a parent does with his money when he is alive?? How about this: What if a parent decides to give every single dime of his wealth to a second rich person to further that person's business? Do you think the government should step in and say no, even if it's classed as an investment?
All you seem to be saying is that it's unfair because you don't have rich parents leaving you a bunch of cash. Am I right?