Forum Post: Inherited Wealth
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 10:40 a.m. EST by mattjiggy
(31)
from Durham, NC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In this post, I'll ask the reader to grant 3 assumptions:
1) There exists a group of citizens -- we'll label them "Category A" -- who, within their own lifetime, create/amass/earn wealth enough to raise their income level a certain number of percentage points, placing them now in the top 10% of wealthy in the country after being born into the middle or even lower class.
2) There exists a group of citizens -- "Category B" -- who are descended from Category A, inheriting their wealth from their ancestors, however many generations removed they may be. This inheritance allows them an advantage over those born into "pre"-Category A status.
3) However many generations must be considered and retraced, every Category B citizen must necessarily have a Category A citizen in his/her ancestry.
Given those 3 assumptions, is it wrong/evil/immoral for each Category A citizen to ensure the comfort and security (defined by those individuals to their liking) of their Category B descendants? If so, should wealth redistribution occur every 50 years to ensure that no generation enjoys benefits that he/she did not earn on their own?
Since I find it unfair to post a question without being courageous enough to post a response, here is mine:
If we all believe in an evolutionary model, including survival of the fittest, I believe it is not ours to say that one family or individual should forfeit their earnings and advantages in order to help someone else. That may be a moral good, but it is not a moral obligation.
I want to be clear that there are exceptions: there are wealthy people who are philanthropists, help the poor, treat people with respect and dignity, and are moral people. Yet they are the minority of that group, and it does not look at where their wealth came from...
Nice logic, but you fail to account for the human nature involved in amassing great wealth. It often entails taking advantage of others in some way: low pay, over charging for products or services, croneyism, land grabs, cheating the system, colonizing or neo colonialism, polluting instead of paying for proper waste treatment/disposal, and a host of other sociopathic behaviors. And while the wealthy like to use the term "entitlement" in relation to helping the disadvantaged as if it is a slur, they have their own system of entitlements to maintain their position, and they absolutely believe they are deserving of it. In their logic they are rich, therefore they deserve to be rich and have their own code of treatment and behavior, while if you are not rich you clearly do not deserve to be, and fall under a separate code of treatment and behavior. Ask people who work for wealthy households how they are paid and treated. Most will probably tell you they are treated as sub human, and the wealthy pay them extremely poorly while demanding long hours and ridiculous amounts of work.
People will inevitably act upon incentives and certainly, providing for one's young is one of the strongest which drives people to achieve highly. In order to keep this motivation and at the same time prevent plutocracy, there should be a cap placed upon inheritance. The 1% should not be allowed to pass down hundreds or even tens of millions of dollars when the other 99% can work their whole lives and never have a chance to see that kind of wealth.
They worked for it, they should be able to do what they want with it. If that is give it to their children, so be it. People have been talking about the evil rich but just take a look at most of them. They make a lot of money but they also give a crap ton away. Bill Gates for example. How about we go ahead and let Obomba (yes, I know I spelled it wrong) pass his tax increases, then all the rich should stop giving to charity. Then we will see just how much they give back.