Forums → WEPR → Would this system work?

There's a lack of check's and balances as well as the assumption that the government not only agrees on everything, but also knows everything.

Then have a system where you can not inherit your mom's or dad's company, money, and certain belongings.

I don't know why people are so horrifically offended when it comes to inheritance. I should inherit my house that my father bought so I don't have to waste money on another house. I should be allowed to inherit my father's business because it's his business. Remember, this is America, land of "HOLY **** WE ACTUALLY OWN STUFF". As for other certain belongings, there's nothing the government should be allowed to take from me.

We should be allowed to give whatever we own to other people without the government taking a portion of it. Inheritance is exactly like giving someone a gift, with the only exception being that the gift is given AFTER someone dies.

I am convinced that anyone who is against inheritance should support a gift tax where anyone who bypasses the tax is arrested. Why should people for inheritance support said tax? They need to remain consistent with their views. This means they should support police action against people who trade gifts during Christmas without paying a tax (and support police action if taxes are evaded). They should support police action against anyone who wants someone they trust to run their business.

Sorry, I'm against slavery, which is why the suggestions wouldn't work. Not only would it fail to work, but it is incredibly immoral.

We should be allowed to give whatever we own to other people without the government taking a portion of it. Inheritance is exactly like giving someone a gift, with the only exception being that the gift is given AFTER someone dies.

But the government still tries to tax gifts. ex: The guy who caught the home run baseball and returned it to the stadium for free, so they gave him a bunch of stuff, but he had to pay like $13000 because of the value of the gifts he got.

But the government still tries to tax gifts. ex: The guy who caught the home run baseball and returned it to the stadium for free, so they gave him a bunch of stuff, but he had to pay like $13000 because of the value of the gifts he got.

I heard about this, and it's absolute BS. All officials involved in taxing this man should literally be put in prison for theft.

I have to apologize, but it absolutely boils my blood to think that other people believe we shouldn't be allowed to inherit certain objects.

When I think of a society that works in a world where inheritance is either illegal or severely limited, I think of a society in which people work only for the present and the short term future in which they are still living. Inheritance allows us to not only focus on the short term, but the long term as well. Inheritance allows parents to focus on their child's future, rather than limiting themselves to the present.

When we work, we gain rewards. When one spends years of his life to buy a house, that house becomes his. However, when one spends years of his life to buy someone else a house, people want to step in and say "no, that house should go to the government." If my father worked 30 years to buy a house, then inheriting that house will only save me time and money. In fact, if my father worked so hard for everything in his bank account, I should be able to inherit every penny, which will also save me time and money.

When it comes to business, I see NO REASON why one should not be able to inherit that business. If you own a business, it becomes your property and you should be able to run the business any way you would like.

I understand that some people who inherit businesses become the cause for the failure of that busienss, but this is no reason to take an immoral approach to such a problem. The problem should not be fixed by the government, because some people who pass their business onto their offspring actually pass their business to someone who is either qualified to run the business, or are taught to run the businesses a specific way in which the original owner wants it to be ran.

Basically, to say inheritance is wrong is merely people wanting entitlements to what is not theirs in the first place. That is sickening.

As for the electoral process, why should the "knowledge" given on the test affect whether or not they are fit to lead? And from highschool of all places?

The original reason the framers wanted a representative government was so the educated would get positions.

Dude if I cant pass my business empire to my son than why will i make one?

Because you wanted it? Don't ask me.

The tests, while they sound a good idea, would only test general knowledge. Not morals or leadership qualities or individual integrity or the ability to plan ahead or any other necessary skills a leader must have.

Not morals or leadership qualities or individual integrity or the ability to plan ahead or any other necessary skills a leader must have.

Ok include all those too. What I was trying to get at was that we should have a leader who knows a lot so that he might make the better decision than the person with less leadership skills etc.
And NoNameC68 your just wanting that extra advantage in society. What I was thinking was that their would be a society where we all started at the same place with minimal help from parents so that no one would have an advantage or disadvantage at first. Then based on circumstances they could rise and fall.

What I was thinking was that their would be a society where we all started at the same place with minimal help from parents so that no one would have an advantage or disadvantage at first. Then based on circumstances they could rise and fall.

Life is not a game, it is reality. Although we strive for a society which is fair, we do not live in one in which everyone starts on an identical square.

I understand that we may have Person A and Person B. Person A is an average person, but his family is wealthy and he inherits his wealth. Person B is hard working and intelligent, but he has no wealth to inherit. Person B, being much more beneficial to society, surely should be the wealthy one then should he not?

Consider this then, Person A, who is of less intellect has a rich father who was brilliant in his own right, but Person A remains average at best when it comes to work ethic and intelligence. Person B works hard and is very intelligent. The government makes sure that both Person A and Person B start out poor. Person B becomes wealthy, whereas Person A remains poor. Rightfully so, Person B was obviously the more productive of the two and deserved the wealth. But wait! Is it not but just as unfair that Person B, born at a disadvantage, can not inherit his fathers wealth to in turn help one who is merely average in life?!

If we want to live in a society based around socializing with one another, where everyone helps one another out, then we must allow people to not only give to other outside their family, but within their family as well. We must encourage a society in which parents actually take responsibility for their children, and taking away inheritance is nothing but a sin against such philosophy, for it in no way gives parents any incentive to save for their children's future.

Also, consider two people, Person C and Person D. Both parents are identical when it comes to wealth. Both Persons C and D plan on going to college, and both their parents offer to pay for any fees and debts that they come across.

Person C's parents get into a car accident when Person C is 20 years old. Inheritance is taken by the state. Not only can Person C not afford to finish college, but he can no longer afford to pay off the debts he has accumulated his first year at college.

Person D's parents live long enough to help Person D pay for all his college.

As you can see, Person C was put at a disadvantage purely because his parents died at an earlier age. You can argue that the government can use his parent's money for his education, but what if Person C wanted to start his own business instead? What if Person C wanted to start paying for his own home instead? Taking away one's inheritance does not level the playing field.

As you can see, inheritance does not solve any problems, it merely changes the problems that may occur. I would argue that the problems caused by taking away inheritance are far more detrimental than problems caused by nature and individual errors. Regardless, taking one's property merely to "be fair" is immoral.

Person E and Person F are both born on the same day. Person E is born into 20,000 dollars and Person F is born into 500 dollars. We can not expect the government to take 19,500 dollars from Person E just so things are more "fair". Instead of having one wealthy individual and one poor individual, you now end up with two poor individuals. You can't make one's life harder just because another person doesn't have it as well. We must focus on helping those born poor, not by harming those who are wealthy.