If we think about the problem really, really hard and long, some genius among us can figure out something reasonable. I'm pretty sure of that.lucy said:So how would you do it exactly? Would the middle and upper middle class also not be allowed to pass on their wealth?
The rich currently establish trust funds for that purpose. There are also scholarships, gifts, etc.lucy said:What about the tidy sum that the grandparents acquired to help their grandchild go to law school?
Sounds like simply banning all inheritance for everyone might not be the way to go. Your point?lucy said:To ban inheritance for one would ban it for everyone.
I don't plan on being able to do anything at all after I am dead, and do not regard curbs on my post-mortem activities as of much import in the freedom department.lucy said:Also do you think you can do this and still consider yourself living in a free society , since you would not be free to do what you want with what you worked for?
On the other hand, people who live in societies dominated by generations of accumulated wealth in a small number of families do seem to face certain common restrictions and difficulties in exercising various freedoms, civil liberties, etc. And we see the trend in the US, toward that misfortunate situation.
Oh bullshit. The average hedge fund, check cashing "service", casino, or medical insurance firm is of negative benefit, and the average public school or post office or fire department pulls far more than its weight.fraggle said:I worked for a government agency for many, many years, and geeze there is nobody in America who contributes less to the economy than the civil "service" sector.
You want an entire sector of suspect contribution? Try "C students from Yale".
Last edited: