The idea of inheritance has always been just a process of society, an unquestionable norm. Those that benefit benefit and those that dont dont, simple.
If one looks further into this topic however how justifued is inheritance? and is there another way of transferring wealth?
The boys at The Blind View investigate:
Dhoya: Against Inheritance
The idea of passing wealth on to family and friends seems terribly nepotistic and yet, as far as I know, it goes virtually unchallenged. In an age in which political inheritance is rapidly brushed aside as being undemocratic (says the Dutch fellow, I know…), why do we believe in a social mechanism that outwardly promotes material inequality? Living in a time in which capitalism is being attacked from all sides for creating vast disparities of wealth, why do we let our shadowy and no doubt crooked economical histories shape today’s future? I probably entertain these ideas precisely because I only have a toothbrush to bestow upon future generations, but still, let us carry the point a bit further. If you get propelled into this world as a Rothschild or Oppenheimer, you will almost certainly have more financial and social success than a Khayelitsha orphan. Is that a problem? If merit is what counts, and equality and social mobility is what we strive for, I believe it is. Kids that are born with excessive riches or undue debts seem to upset our societal egalitarian ambitions.
‘Try joining a Monopoly game late, after the other players have bought nearly all the properties and built houses and hotels on them, and see how [you] fare’ (Allister Sparks comments on SA-transition). For most of the world population, life is like joining such a game. If we want fair-play, one option would be to reset the game as players drop out and join in. A postmortem redistribution of wealth may present us with such a reset-button. Even if we establish a hybrid model which keeps the classical model of favoritism up to a degree (say for instance that 50.000 Euros of sentimental goods may be preferentially dispensed), this mechanism should crank up the rate of redistribution by some notches.
Yes, of course there are practical issues. Who will govern such redistribution? How will it be governed? What prevents me from giving it away to my kids before I die? How to tackle debts? How would one enforce the system?
There is not enough space to comment on these issues here, but they don’t appear to be impregnable. Especially not if we look at the ambitious aspiration of promoting equal opportunities, swift, fair transformation and a higher degree of freedom. The message then is clear:
Stop leaning on your parents and disown your kids!
Gilbert: For Inheritance
Is inheritance morally justified? Probably not. Is it effective? Quite possibly. Homo economicus is a selfish beast, given to self aggrandisement, notions of immortality, and in more sober moments, legacy building. If the world is full of greedy capitalists out to benefit only themselves and their kin, then allowing them to keep their wealth in the family may be a strong incentive.
Why work hard if all that will happen is your money will be given away? Consider American voters: very few of the majority of Republicans who supported the Bush Administration's tax reforms which benefited only the wealthiest Americas at the expense of the majority, will ever benefit from them. However, many supported the reforms due to a deep seated ambition to be wealthy and bequeath riches to their progeny, even though they were far more likely to benefit from the redistribution of wealth than be penalised by having their estates taxed. Selfish people work hard for themselves and their families, not for the greater good through inheritance tax and wealth redistribution. Can you imagine the world's foremost capitalists over cocktails at the country club discussing their ambitions to earn a big bonus out of a desperate need to pay more tax? "I can't wait to see all the road maintenance the government will be able to do if I reach my targets and get to pay that extra tax on my bonus!?"
Good luck selling that to the voters. Without the raw incentives of capitalism and the significant value and employment created through economic development, little would not be possible. Allowing inheritance facilitates the greed that drives most people, our economy, and our world.
For more on Inheritance and its justification check this out:
- D.W. Haslett Is Inheritance Justified? Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Spring, 1986), pp. 122-155.
And what about talent?
ReplyDeleteSomeone born talented or intelligent is equally far more likely to succeed in life than someone born stupid and talentless. In a world where genetic modification becomes possible will there be checks on what genetic traits you are allowed to hand down and what traits should be dispersed or deleted in the interest of fairness? Being gifted is often seen as something that one 'earned' while being born rich something one 'got'. In reality they are often equally as random. Imagine a world in which everyone had equal talent and equal drive, was given a standard handout of cash at birth, sported crew cuts and grey uniforms with equal lenght sleeves, and black buttons. This may sound like a sci-fi nightmare, but this is the sort of world we are heading towards if the likes of the first writer are allowed to develop their ideas any further. An unfair world is the only guarantee against a monotonous wasteland!
Dick Von Kicker
I believe Mark Twain said, "It's a lottery of the womb".
ReplyDeleteThe sad fact is wealth creates wealth. Any individual who has embraced entrepreneurship realises that with vasts amount of starting capital, you can succeed in anything, or at least keep going until something works.
It is the incentive that drives people, so distributing inheritance post death, would just see a "flight of the riches" to tax havens, or trusts becoming more popular.
Luckily in SA, Mr. Ghordan is looking to eliminate estate duty, as "most individuals do not have estates above the rebatement". So we should see alot more passing on of wealth, outside complex tax structures.
Gareth Rees
ReplyDeleteI am in agreement with the genetic argument, as there is unfortunately no such thing as egalitarianism, outside of the constructs of our own moral dilemma. To say so would imply that natural selection was unfairly bias. And to assume this would be to deconstruct the evolution of species, and in fact our very own existence. The conundrum is well articulated in the concept and actualization of communism. Where a great idea leads to a community barren of innovation and thought, with even more wide spread suffering than one based on “natural selection”.
The simple truth, as Gilbert so beautifully articulated, is that without incentive there is no impetus.
Now to spark some debate.
The physical evolution of man has taken a back seat to our social evolution, whereby anyone despite their “fitness” is allowed to continue the species. This calls for a new fitness criteria, which in the medium term will be finances. As an example, if the world had to have some major tragedy who would survive? The ones who could afford the opportunity to, those with bunkers, those with respirators, those with medicine, those with…. Etc.
The truth is that money is the new natural selection, and when tragedy comes it will be these fortunate few who will survive to continue our species. The struggle for egalitarianism is the struggle to end our species.
@gareth
ReplyDeleteEgalitarinism is the struggle to end our species..... are you out of your mind?
Besides being completely off the topic how can you even think that? If your type of thinking was the social norm we would have absolute chaos, anarchy crazyness people would be in constant war to try and save their riches so as to preserve life.
I do agree with you on one point though our world is becoming smaller and smaller and more and more people occupy it. There will come a point when a mandatory licensing system will be coming in for children.
@gilbert: Gilbert I feel that you are stating the obvious why not challenge the norm is it so hard to just believe that society will be able to change and not be selfish.
What about a Hybrid model between the two I agree that incentive and selfishness drives the world so what about this: upon your passing a percentage of your estate goes to cause that you have preset within a government portfolio. If you like animals then upon your death 15% of your net worth goes to a wildlife fund so as to preserve our world. This would keep the incentive selfish as you not only assign you wealth to a cause you support but you will also make a better world for your lineage which surely should count for something.
Luther
THe truth is we have an interesting situation in South Africa where because of the past an entire race has been favoured.
ReplyDeleteHow do we level the playing fields because as been stated the wealth create wealth. How do we give oppertunities to a majority in a country like SA where everyone thinks its fair and just. Just taking from the white people is not an option however I think all people will agree regardless of race that a civil war or a massive uprising due to restlessness of the masses is a situation we would all like to avoid. Maybe Dhoya has some sort of point with inheritance maybe its time we start breaking social norms to find new solutions.
Botswana thought out the social norm to give wealth to the masses while appeasing the rich. How did they do that well they let their cows, which is peoples wealth in alot of Africa, be looked after by poor people. When the cows gave birth the rich recieved a percentage of the calfs and the poor recieved a percentage. Effectively incentivising the poor to look after the cows well so as to build their wealth and appease the rich at the same time.
Awesome out the box thinking
So whats our big idea??
Spike
Benoni
So sad to read some of those comments.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, incentive does not imply just $ for everybody, nor does justice mean egalitarism or charitable solidarity.
It is always easier to blame the current processes we are all in, rather than examining our own responsibility and avarice. But we can avoid to do it, because we are not among those who are worst hit.
If we look around, if we read the news, if we just check few figures, the only conclusion we can draw is that we really don't care about those who really suffer due to an unjust distribution (by birth or inheritance).
But maybe it is already time for us to use the advantages of our privileged situation (due to whatever reason: genetics, wealthy ancestors...) for the sake of others.
It is interresting that even the most educated persist in talking about social constructions as if they are inherent. This topic (inheritance) has been dealt with a hundred times in the last two centuries, since before Marx, and his most valuable contribution to, not the debate, but the semantics we use to reconsider the topic is the principle of object fetishes. Wealth exist not because of the inherent value of anyting, but because of the value we have been convinced something has. Case in point is currency... the bulk of which is in the hands of the rich, and consist in our three dimensional reality as NOTHING MORE THAN 1'S AND 0'S IN CYBERSPACE. This debate is pointless if we wrongly assume that morality has any impact on social mechanics, especially the economy; that there is something such as justice; and that wealth and power is not exactly the same thing.
ReplyDeleteDhoya:
To redistribute wealth is to reditribute power and that will not happen as long as a global politico-economic elite exists in North America and Europe. Instead one should consider disassembling ownership as we understand it, and kill all rich people. (SBTW: 'political inheritance is rapidly brushed aside' ... is that a joke?)
Gilbert:
Capitalists do not work hard! Not even for their families! The people who they underpay, whether back home, or in sweat shops overseas, at less than a dollar a day to feed their families... THEY work hard. Then the capitalistS swing by and take their money away again selling food, clothes, and small homes at profit. Capitalists do not work hard!
To redefine the passing on of wealth from one dead individual to a living individual is ineffectual. It will make no difference to spread it. Instead one should think of ways on say: redistributing global wealth... what about returning inherited wealth to the ex-colonies on which current Europeans still thrive?
There must be some arguments for inheritance, come on - feel challenged! I am not convinced that we should keep the mechanism of inheritance in place after reading these comments.
ReplyDeleteVoters
Gilbert, I like your take on the paradoxically egoistical voters. But who cares about voters? Politicians! You present a politician’s argument, but seem to be against material inheritance and even suggest it is morally unjustified. The obvious reply is: popular opinions should be challenged for societies to move. What if nobody challenged racism, slavery, exclusion of women, just out of fear of the voter?
Laziness & Incentives
Would you stop working if the taxes on material inheritance were raised incredibly? You can earn money all your life and become as rich as you want. I was watching skating last night (did you see the Dutch blunder, OMG!?) - a sportsman wants to win in this life, not because of the cash for his kids. It’s because of recognition during life, I’d say. Is it different for you?
@ the geneticist guys
The text is on unearned advantages resulting from material inheritance and the possibility of eliminating them. The argument is not much different than income taxes for big earners or reduced tuition fees for economically disadvantaged persons, it is WORLDS APART from genetic modification!
@ Johan
Are you really challenging capitalism and ownership completely? What would that mean for society, I can't grasp it.
“Unearned advantages” When an organism is born more genetically fit than another, did it earn this status? No, thus I think the arguments are highly comparable, and to ignore similarity would be short sighted.
ReplyDeleteLet me outline my point briefly before I am labelled as a meandering bigot.
Society allows anyone capable of breeding to do so, and to prevent this would be to infringe upon their human rights.
Thus organisms that would not normally pass on their genetic inheritance do, and survival of the fittest loses its teeth.
Finances hugely govern our ability to influence, attract and succeed. I am sure there is a minority argument that can be made here, but in principle this is the case. In the absence of true natural selection our finances offer us the ability to do better.
Thus this unearned advantage of financial inheritance can be likened to an orchestrated jump into the genetic deep end, when considered against the backdrop of our socio-evolution. However in this case there is the opportunity to earn such “genetic” advantage, which is far more than you could say for the DNA in your body. Thus it is a far more equitable way of discrimination when compared to direct natural selection.
To summarise. In order to for me to give my children the best chance of success, which is a core principle of evolution, I need to ensure they inherit at least enough money to have a good start. This is the “genetic” advantage I can bring to them. To remove this would be to strip both socio and physical evolutionary impetus from our species.
In South Africa, there are broadly two types of inheritance:
ReplyDelete- a privileged up-bringing, including a tertiary education, international travel, a car, and even the deposit on a first house
- an impoverished up-bringing, including a premature end to an inferior education, a daily struggle to survive on margins of the economy through unsecure temporary manual labour, hawking, and crime, and a plastic and corrugated roof under which to wait for the illusive RDP house which is 15 years over-due
This sort of inequality drives another mechanism of redistribution: crime. Inheritance, or the hoarding wealth for the benefit of the previously advantaged, simply deepens the inequality and social tension.
Imagine now, you were able to make a choice, before you were born, as to whether you would:
(a) Take your chances with lady luck, and have, let’s say, an equal probability of landing either alternative.
OR
(b) Have a guaranteed outcome, somewhere between the two.
Which would you choose?
@ anonymous III (FEB25) - sounds like social darwinism to me: how does human society relate to your version of natural selection? Should society facilitate "core principals of evolution"? Do we even understand evolution enough to bring it into societal realms such as policy-making?
ReplyDelete