[thisisbad]

Good looking, tall people have literally won the genetic lottery without trying.

Look at inheritance as a payment for providing happiness and support. If a wealthy man has a wife that makes him happy and supports him, then why would it be a problem if he leaves her 50% of his wealth?

Children, especially your own, are a great source of happiness and motivation. Some people work mainly to leave wealth to their children and other family members - it's their main motivation.

I don't understand people who have problems with other people giving their money to those they love (children, spouse, relatives, friends etc.).

It's kinda funny - people who are for forced redistribution at a gunpoint, want to give people money just for existing. But, if someone wants to give their own children money for existing and making them happy, then it's a problem.

[adamlett]

Look at inheritance as a payment for providing happiness and support.

In that case, shouldn't inheritance be taxed as income?

I don't understand people who have problems with other people giving their money to those they love

The problem I have is that some people receive large fortunes effectively tax-free that they have done literally nothing to deserve. I have no objections to people donating their wealth to whomever they choose, just as long as those who receive are taxed like everyone else.

[gambiting]

>>In that case, shouldn't inheritance be taxed as income?

But it was taxed as income already. I literally don't see any reason to tax it as such again. And there's plenty of people to get money they don't "deserve" - I would argue a lot of us software programmers don't deserve to be paid what we get paid and yet, we are. If I want to leave my child money that I earned and paid tax on - who are you to say if my child deserved that money or not?

[adamlett]

That's a silly argument. All money has already been taxed many times over. If you hire a plumber, she has to pay taxes on the amount you pay her, even though you've already been taxed once. Why should it be any different with gifts or inheritance?

I didn't express myself clearly when I talked about deserving money. What I meant was that you don't pick your parents. Weather you are born to wealthy or poor parents has enormous impact on your opportunities in life. You may not agree, but I believe society should strive to ensure that we all have the same opportunities in life. Only when the playing field is level, can one person's success in life really be labeled deserved.

[jhbadger]

I don't understand people who have problems with other people giving their money to those they love

Because inherited wealth creates idle aristocrats, who traditionally have contributed little to society, and pretty much all societal progress since the Middle Ages has been how to limit the power and wealth of aristocrats. You seem to be big on providing motivation for people to work. Well, not having an inheritance is an excellent one.

[gambiting]

And yet, most jobless people everywhere are not jobless because they have inherited money. What should be the motivation for them to work?

[jhbadger]

They didn't inherit enough money to not work? In part because their inheritance was taxed by laws that the 1% is working to dismantle?

[gambiting]

If you inherit less than hundreds of thousands of dollars the inheritance is not taxed at all in almost every country of the world so that's an unlikely excuse.

>>They didn't inherit enough money to not work?

And yet.....they still don't work?

[pjc50]

There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions. Especially if that means the inheritor refuses to acknowledge that not everyone has it that easy. It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving.

Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages.

[thisisbad]

  There's a difference between leaving a modest family house/farm to your kids versus someone inheriting a business empire worth millions.

What difference? Inheritance = payment for providing happiness and support in life. The amount can be whatever you want - millions, billions or nothing at all.

If someone has a business worth millions and decides to leave it to his wife or children, then that would be a financial compensation for making his life better. It's up to them to decide what to do with the money they've made.

  It's not so much the giving that's objected to as the receiving.

Who is objecting to other people receiving money from someone who wants to give it to them voluntarily? It's crazy what envy does to people.

Beautiful people receive more positive attention and get compliments all the time. Should they mutilate themselves, so they don't receive attention anymore?

  Especially when there are other children suffering the effects of poverty in childhood that will give them lifelong disadvantages.

So what? Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people? There are ugly people, which doesn't mean beautiful people should mutilate themselves and make previously ugly people look better in comparison.

[pjc50]

There's no need to make the Harrison Bergeron argument. It all comes down to:

> Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people?

Well, this is a whole question of what a "society" is and the nature of mutual obligation towards both other members of our society and other humans in general. If one day I should find you collapsed in the street, remind me that we don't have any obligations towards each other.

[thisisbad]

  There's no need to make the Harrison Bergeron argument

If there is no need, then why are you writing about inheritance (paying someone who made you happy) in a negative way? Why are you focusing on money, but not on beauty, fame, intelligence etc. ?

  It all comes down to: > Why would wealthy people have an obligation to help poor people?

It doesn't.

It also comes down to:

> Why would beautiful people have an obligation to help ugly people?

Nobody is making the argument that beautiful people should mutilate themselves to make ugly people look better in comparison, right? But, why not? Beauty, wealth, fame, intelligence etc. are all examples of privilege. So, why focus on money? Why does it all come down to money?

  Well, this is a whole question of what a "society" is and the nature of mutual obligation towards both other members of our society and other humans in general.

What is your answer to that and why should I accept it? It seems that society is different things to different people. If you're envious and bitter, then society is about helping losers. If you're healthy and wealthy, then society is about stability.

  If one day I should find you collapsed in the street, remind me that we don't have any obligations towards each other.

Of course we don't. You might help someone because it makes you feel good or your social status will increase (which in turn makes you feel good). Not because of some vague, abstract concept like obligation/duty that you have towards members of homo sapiens species.

[pjc50]

People need money to live, not any of the other things.

[thisisbad]

That's false, since money is a recent invention. It's like saying "Cats need Whiskas to live".

Even if it were true, so what? If someone needs money to live, how does that imply that money should be taken from those who have it and be given to those who don't?

You might need positive attention to feel good about yourself (since you're ugly). Does that mean that the attention beautiful people receive should be directed towards ugly people (by mutilating beautiful people)?

[mac01021]

Inheriting a modest family farm can also make it hard for you to acknowledge that not everyone has it that easy.

[pjc50]

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, other than some sort of salami-slicing of easiness?

(Ironically a small farm is one of the harder things to inherit, especially if you feel morally obliged to keep it running as a business)