Hereditary political and economic power

[devilsadvocate]

Quote from Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy"

It is curious that the rejection of the hereditary principle in politics has had almost no effect in the economic sphere in democratic countries. (In totalitarian states, economic power has been absorbed by political power.) We still think it natural that a man should leave his property to his children; that is to say, we accept the hereditary principle as regards economic power while rejecting it as regards political power. Political dynasties have disappeared, but economic dynasties survive.

Should we abandon hereditary economic power on the same (or different) principles we reject hereditary political power?

 

[RichardMNixon]

That's a really interesting idea.

Frankly I think the world would be a better place without a bunch of trust-fund snots like Paris Hilton, but this doesn't really seem possible. Power is a lot easier to transfer than wealth because wealth has physical roots. Where does a millionaire's mansion go when (s)he dies? And of course it's definitely worth thinking about when discussing estate taxes.

 

[borrofburi]

Should we abandon hereditary economic power on the same (or different) principles we reject hereditary political power?

It's tricky because on the one hand we can't truly have a meritocracy while still allowing these sorts of economic dynasties. On the other hand, part of the reason I work my ass off is to ensure good lives for my children (and even my grandchildren).

Perhaps we should allow money to be passed down exactly one generation before having to be donated to a charity? No clue how the accounting would work there though... But then I could work hard for money, and my kids could benefit from that (which is half the goal of having lots of money anyway), but it would end the concept of "old money".

 

[devilsadvocate]

On the other hand, part of the reason I work my ass off is to ensure good lives for my children (and even my grandchildren).

Depending on the distribution of the inherited wealth by the government, I don't think you would need to worry about that. I know this is pretty much already the case in the welfare state I am living in. Education is free, government gives you money to support yourself while you study and so on. That leaves one free to worry about the actual parenting.

Power is a lot easier to transfer than wealth because wealth has physical roots. Where does a millionaire's mansion go when (s)he dies?

Redistribution is a real problem. After all, without distribution government would own everything after a generation. Maybe mansions and such could be sold (and must be sold) by the government to the highest bidder (would that mean that government eventually has all the money, then?). Maybe people in the area could vote on who deserves or has the best use for it? A shop or similar small businesses could be given to the most qualified person to run it. Just throwing some ideas around as I haven't actually given that much thought to practical side of things.

 

[Aught3]

What's wrong with a good ol' inheritance tax?

 

[lrkun]

Quote from Bertrand Russell's "History of Western Philosophy"

It is curious that the rejection of the hereditary principle in politics has had almost no effect in the economic sphere in democratic countries. (In totalitarian states, economic power has been absorbed by political power.) We still think it natural that a man should leave his property to his children; that is to say, we accept the hereditary principle as regards economic power while rejecting it as regards political power. Political dynasties have disappeared, but economic dynasties survive.

Should we abandon hereditary economic power on the same (or different) principles we reject hereditary political power?

It reminds me of the book titled, the prince, by niccolo machiaveli. . It's just that some find it immoral, though, it's only amoral in a way, that some know how to keep their money going. And those well trained in politics take advantage of this.

 

[televator]

What's wrong with a good ol' inheritance tax?

My thought exactly. You can ensure your kid is in a good spot, while dissolving wealth back into the system.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The money is mine and I decide that it belongs to my children when I die, period. Would it be a good idea or even improve society if you do nt inherit your parent's legacy but rather it gets destributed equally among everyone? Short answer, No! Long answer, HELL NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Many people have money out of the fact that they are more economicaly savy then their less unfortunate counterparts. And the kids of smart people are generaly smarter (of course some do fall far from the tree). I rather that the money stays in the family and gets into the hands of a child prodigy haunted with idea that he will never live up to his father legacy, than have the money hacked into pieces (which you can't do much in the first place) and get it into the hands of cockfaces whos main business strategy is to get more booze (and that is the reality of it).
If it happens that some worthy poor guy happens to be born along with asshat rich dude, even tough one starts to hardly and the other is a spoiled brat, invariably the smart guy gets richer and the dumb one gets poor (i.e. smart guys tend to get the money out of stupid people). So in the end it kind of works out.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Invariably the smart guy gets richer and the dumb one gets poor (i.e. smart guys tend to get the money out of stupid people). So in the end it kind of works out.

Are you suggesting that Paris Hilton is smarter than you are? Money loves company. If you have it lots of it, then you'll get more; if you have little of it, then you're fucked.

And the kids of smart people are generaly smarter

A thousand kinds of wrong - correlation does not prove causation. Kids with affluent parents get better educations and more opportunities in life, full stop.

I rather that the money stays in the family and gets into the hands of a child prodigy... get it into the hands of cockfaces whos main business strategy is to get more booze

WT-fucking-F? Only rich people give birth to child prodigies and always do? And all poor people (and their children) are alcoholic "cockfaces"? Holy fucking shit. :facepalm:

 

[lrkun]

I think what our prior to the previous poster meant is that rich kids, unlike poor kids, have more access to education. It's the opportunity, provided they use it, that makes them smarter.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

No I do not mean that rich kids get better education and therefore do better in life, what I say is that rich kids tend to have smarter kids without any sort of special education due to the genetic pre-dispusition of being smarter, reason why they are rich in the first place. This does not mean that it is allways the case that smart people have allways smart kids or that dumb people allways have dumb kids, it is just that they are heavily correlated.

To think that sucess is a single function of the education provided by large amounts of money is just pure nonsense, with my experience that is not what I observe at all.

 

[RichardMNixon]

My post is getting pretty far OT re: money inheritance, so I started a new thread: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=61&t=7594