Tolentino
2022-08-11 09:35:26
- #1
Because others then have more starting capital in life than I do? Because it is totally unfair that some generations have worked hard in another family and through risk, business sense, and economic action have built up a fortune? Sorry, I can't understand that.
That is just tendentiously presented. First of all, the generations didn't do it alone, but in a safe and infrastructurally developed environment that was created through state services. In a society where it is reasonably ensured that everyone has more or less the same opportunities. Inheriting wealth without any redistribution would consequently lead to a few becoming richer and thus more powerful, and thus the starting advantage would become greater from generation to generation. And then it actually becomes unfair. For example, the richest eventually pay no taxes net at all through tax avoidance models but on the contrary even collect subsidies. Only possible because they can afford the appropriate tax advisors and lawyers.
Who says the generations of dockworkers didn't work hard? Why should the child of a dockworker have to work everything out anew while the shipping heir simply gets his father's house without giving anything up and has had better nutrition, education, and medical care all his life anyway?
And I say this as someone who could probably inherit quite well if it weren't for the care costs. I mean, inheriting wealth is a privilege. I don't really need it. I also don't want to leave particularly much to my children. They should receive the best possible care and the tools to stand on their own two feet, and when they are mature I will certainly never abandon them, but why should I put something aside so that after my death they argue about who stays in the house or at what price it is sold? No, I will spend it all.