fordy said:
Viper1 said:
Let's focus on the bold for a moment. If their children do not deserve it, who does? And why does one deserve something when someone else doesn't? Further, if you take the inheritence and property away, then doesn't that make the child now poor and just as derserving of their share as anyone else? Lastely, how do you auction off a mansion, a yacht, a business? Esepecially if no one else is wealthy enough to afford it? And say a poor family buys a mansion at auction and then sells it off immdiately for several million. How did that balance things? That was a tranfer of wealth from rich, to poor, to rich in very short time.
I want to bring something else in now. Moral hazard. You saw that the rich create work and then enjoy the fruits of the labor of their employees. This is a moral hazard that breeds laziness and contempt to you. But if people are given a balance of wealth, does that not also breed laziness? Why strive to work hard if A) the government will take care of you anyway or B) your hard work gives very little to show for it?
|
As I mentioned before, it would not be a full distribution across society more an incentive for people to strive to become entrepreneurs. Ingenuity is stagnant at the moment because the good ideas are being shot down by the semi-good ideas with a lot of money behind them. The current wealthy don't want the best of ingenuity. They want small increments of technology that will promise a higher return, and then introduce the better technology at a later date to slug people again.
I didn't say it was getting evenly distributed. I said the comunity gets the earnings. From them on, what they decide to do with it is another argument altogether. I'd like to see it put up as incentive for ingenuity, promote competition of technologies and let the consumer decide.
|
Fordy, this thread has long since changed topic but if you'd like to continue, make a new thread starting with what I quoted above and we'll continue.
