2 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: On Rights of Inheritance - why high inheritance taxes are justified
This is fairly simple to debunk: as inheritors do nothing specifically to inherit, their special lottery by birth to resources is not earned.
As per your own post, you (and by extension those born rich) *do not" have a birthright to limitless opportunity.
There are, in good philosophy, considerations upon what justification one may found their entitlement to rights by which to act. As (until a different paradigm that would allow knowledge may be discovered) the existence of knowledge is anethma to contradiction, these justifications may not be contradictory and still be respected. Therefore that which may be justified to one ethical peer must also be justified to another.
These work in concert to say that which is justified to one is justified to all. If one is justified in having an inheritance, all are justified to that inheritance, for their mere existence.
You are selfishly arguing for things which you did not earn, which others did not have an equal share of. This is trivially selfish, and trivially unethically. But the consequences of this are anything BUT trivial.
Comment by [deleted] at 22/01/2020 at 14:08 UTC
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by Callmejim223 at 22/01/2020 at 17:00 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
their special lottery by birth to resources is not earned.
You know what is earned? The money a parent earns through blood, sweat, and tears, to ensure their children will have a good upbringing, a good education, and also the rest of their money when they pass away.
One of main reasons people work hard to accumulate wealth is to give their children a better life. And society has no right whatsoever to take away a person's right to give that wealth to their children.
And to say otherwise out of some inane and dangerous desire to make life fair is just that, it is absurd.
Comment by bluePizelStudio at 22/01/2020 at 15:09 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
While I would agree that birthright doesn’t entitle you to anything, the right to bequeath is completely valid. I guess that’s the separation. And despite philosophical ponderings on what’s justified and what’s not, I don’t think anyone could ever convince me that people don’t have a birthright to do the best they can to provide for their children. Nobody, no government nor community nor whoever, has a right to take away what I would provide for my children.
The real ethical issues here are that people are being brought up selfishly, and hoard generational wealth in selfish ways.
The ideal situation is poverty -> functional wealth with opportunity (able to comfortably sustain themselves until death without relying on government $$) -> surplus wealth, so that the individual doesn’t rely on any government dollars until they die, and can use surplus for charitable causes (which ideally would support the poverty level people to help them build opportunity for themselves and their children).
This is nearly impossible to achieve without generational wealth. In fact, getting off the poverty level is extremely hard. And the poverty level is basically defined as any living that’s requires government assistance (including into old age!). It’s very hard to personally build up enough wealth to die without require social assistance in your final years.
So generational wealth isn’t inherently bad or evil. In fact, it’s basically the only way to build a society where people can create entirely self-supported existences.
There is no system that can be produced that will eliminate poverty entirely, at least for the forseeable future. Any system that does is likely hinges upon a government, which historically has been a shit lynchpin in your system that has failed 100% of the time eventually.
Our current times like to demonize generational wealth by using the examples of the 1%. But they ignore the functionality of generational wealth for another MASSIVE swathe of people - literally almost everyone who exists above the poverty line, and even some below it, get benefits from this system.
The real issue is a society that glorifies wealth, spending, and consumerism. So long as Gucci shades and Yeezy shoes are valued greatly, and nobody particularly cares about personal virtues. Those are where the non-trivial consequences you refer to are actually stemming from.
Comment by stupendousman at 22/01/2020 at 18:04 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
as inheritors do nothing specifically to inherit, their special lottery by birth to resources is not earned.
The analysis isn't aimed at any actions on the part of inheritors, it's focused on the person(s) who own resources/property and their rights to use/transfer that property.
One definition of ownership is exclusivity. Arguing for transfer of inheritance to a community (however you're able to define this as a contractual party) is arguing the owner isn't the actual owner, or they're just a partial owner.
You are selfishly arguing for things which you did not earn
Only the person(s) who create a contract for resource transfer earned the resources. Some community didn't. Also, arguing inheritors didn't earn inheritance would be false in many cases?
Family business inheritors participated in, participation in family relationships those transferring valued, etc.
But the consequences of this are anything BUT trivial.
You don't know the future outcomes.