...where it arises not from hard work and risk-taking enterprise, but from ''brute-luck'' factors. - Inheritance is a form of "brute-luck" inequality. - Meritocracy is incoherent and impossible without redistribution, because one generation's successful individuals become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they accumulate. - Social justice demands that high incomes and large concentrations of wealth be spread more widely, in order to recognise the contribution made by all sections of the community to building the nation's wealth. - Outcomes and opportunities are closely connected, and inequalities of income and wealth undermine serious efforts to equalise opportunities, affecting real outcomes. - Economic dynamism and fairness MUST be absolutely equal pillars in any society claiming democratic underpinnings. Discuss and debate, please. My thoughts? Well, the above assertions were proffered by Diamond and Giddens in The New Egalitarianism (Polity Press), and I think that while they leave unsaid larger issues that themselves deserve substantive interrogation, the above are accurate statements within that larger, missing critique.
What's wrong with inheretence? To leave substantial assets to children one of the main goals for every person.
Not me... while I'm not against the idea of leaving wealth to my children, I'm more concerned with providing them the education and support so they can accumulate their own wealth. Sure, if I was obscenely wealthy I might leave them enough for security, but philanthropy would be my #1 goal.
I agree. It would help others. I would be picky but honest. Most recentcy, The Kentucky Derby's superfecta pay hefty. Nobody won. You pic four horses. The payout was a record breaking $1,000,000.00 (roughly). The Trifect (3 horses) pay $100,000.00. On TVG website, you can put $999.00 on a ticket. All longshots made payment except one. 70-1, 50-1, 4-1 and 14-1 would have broke the bank. A billion dollor bet. Now with winnings, I would give brother and sisters a cool $25,000,000.00 to start. I would let parents reside with me and not worry about finance unless choice. Their brothers and sisters would get $5,000,000.00 apeice. Consumership plays tool here and they would dives it to children. By these individuals, I would grant for a spaceflight for $150,000.00. Of course, only whom qualify. I think and would spend $100,000,000.00. End of story. After taxes, I should have around $500,000,000.00. Then would go to each Collegiate Conference (maybe) and hire one person for team. I would try to fix problems. Here is small problem but local gas stations say "Roll, your own coins." I would try to go to court over matter against all. I think. They cannot do that. Once I master steps, others would see light. This escaped would take fifteen years maybe twenty. I would check on family. If they need more, I would re-up offer and after problem solving. I should have 100,000,000.00 at least. Enough to retire and enjoy rest of life. In conclusion, $400,000,000.00 on problems. If there were smaller more reachable amount. Lets say $1,000,000.00. I would cut out Aunts and Uncles and look after household leadership. Morality is big money + big family = millionaries the limit.
Perhaps, but 2 factors make the system is fine the way it is. A) it is up to the parents/relatives to where the money should go. Be it child, spouse, charity, etc. Let those who have earned it decide. Bill Gates is always been an example who has always said he will give most of what he has to charity rather than pass it down (not that 1% of what he has you will starve on, but that isnt the point..) And b) estate taxes/death taxes already take a sizeable portion away from the benefactor.
Security for one's children and relatives is one of the primary motivators to accumulation of wealth. I believe its called a "legacy" and a desire for one's offspring to have a better life.
Yeeowza. While the authors may simply be speaking of inheriting money, many many other things can be inherited that could be catagorized into "brute-luck" inequality. For instance, I inherited about 20m in the 110m high-hurdles of life, simply by being born white and to a family that valued education above everything else. (That I spent a good deal of time leaning up against the first hurdle complaining about having to run on cinders vs. a rubberized track is another issue altogether, but that metaphor deserved a quick death-beating). Inheriting birth in a first-world country vs. third-world is another karmic gift. I know the author has visions of some rich 20-something dilletant named Trent wandering around in madras and linen with a faux English accent complaning about his gardeners' work ethics, but the sentence condemns much more than him. Horsepucky. Thanks to drugs, anyone can become a loser, no matter how rich their parents are. Besides, the Chinese (was it Mencius?) talked about this at some length, and decided it was the reason for the dynastic cycle. Fat, dumb and happy kids. Equal pay for equal work? 'Cause a CEO doesn't bring 200 times more value to her firm than a mail-clerk? Works for me. Now, was that really what the author had in mind? Not so sure. If it was, using terms like "wealth be spread more widely" isn't going to win over too terribly many supporters outside of the already-convinced. Lots and lots of other things undermine serious efforts to equalize (don't forget where you came from...) opportunites. Discrimination of Others isn't a soley economic phenomenon, although economics does have its place there. Power-lust isn't soley economic. Money has a part in this equation, but it's only one part. well, duh. Well, I guess I'd have to see that critique, 'cause by and large the above smacks of knee-jerk anti-capitalism, which are two things that I've grown to reject. Granted I'm reading the connotation more than the actual black words on beige screen to bring that verdict, but they speak much more loudly. FWIW: Capital isn't an evil. The pursuit of capital isn't evil. Capital is merely a force -- an energy, like electricity or air. Hoarding it and denying its benefit to others is harmful. So is spending more of it than you have. Using it wisely isn't, even if that means one is blessed to have a whole bunch of it to use. Having a whole bunch of it just makes it a wee bit harder to remember to use it wisely.
While being born into wealth may accurately be branded "Brute luck", calling it "injustice" is inaccurate; I am unaware of any civil or criminal liability incurred or warranted. Yep. I'm all for a "more-progressive" progressive tax system, but the vast majority of those, who most of us would call successful, have earned the priviledge of disposing their wealth as they see fit. Most earned it by their choices and actions. Regardless of exceptions to that rule (e.g., the Hilton girls), where is the "merit" in simply taking wealth from one who has it and giving it to one who hasn't? I don't know about "social justice" demanding it, but people who don't have wealth sure do (strange how it doesn't occur to many of them that they bear any responsibility for that fact). There is no question each further increment of wealth (outcome) becomes easier to accumulate, the more wealth I accumulate (opportunity). That is why I believe in a progressive tax system, cleansed of loopholes; in general, I don't feel I work as hard for each incremental dollar, so it's fair to give up more in taxes on those incremental dollars. But, when we die, it should be up to us how our financial "remains" are distributed. That said, I would not be opposed to greater incentives to donate charitably. Why? Because those who don't have it want it? That's meritcocracy and/or democracy? I agree that those born into a higher economic class have more economic opportunity, but few have their futures handed to them so cleanly (a la the Hilton girls). The most important factors required for success, economic or otherwise, that we pass to our children are denominated in character, not dollars.
Why is being a member of the "lucky sperm club" righteous at all? I said I'd make sure they were well educated and financially secure. Why should I be obligated to give them everything? To be honest, my goals are much more modest... I plan to make sure they are well educated, have a solid moral compass, and that I am not a burden on them in my old age.
I couldn't think of 5 more un-American statements ever. you all can go ahead and feel guilty about what you and you linage have achieved, I will have no part in it.
Interesting topic. I would say depending on how much the father passed down. Give the children each over 1 million is absurd. So in my world, no children would be allowed to receive more than 1 million from their dead parents. However, they are allowed to work in the enterprise created by their parents if they wish (to earn their salary). Actually, I suggest that each child is given 1 million when their parents passed away. Government makes up the difference if the parents are poor. And also, every infant should be given 100 thousand when they are born as their venture capital of good causes (education, healthcare, travel, etc.) Humans should strike to discard classes in society in order to live in a better world.
Mel, any figures on the number of American millionares that got rich from hard work and risk-taking enterprise vs. ''brute-luck'' factors? That would be a very telling stat.
You might want to read up on what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the "aristocracy" of inherited wealth.
I only half-jokingly believe the auther would support deportation of the wealthy to third-world countries as a form of wealth redistribution.
You might want to read up on what I think about Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton was more in touch with the real America.
In this matter, you and I have some of the same ideas, but I don't think government should be the one to define "righteous" for us.
Jefferson based his reality on his reasoning. Hamilton based his reasoning on reality. Both were great Americans, but Hamilton had a much better grasp on what America was and what could become.
Who exactly is the government? Aren't they just people too? Why would you put less faith in yourself and your posessions than someone else?