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
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?