Question about Inheritance

[Capitalist Lawyer]

You guys always complain about how a son or daughter of an executive who gets a handout or assitance from their rich elder. For instance, they receive an inheritance from their father or grandfather who was an executive or owner of some big company or they receive some sort of promotion within the company. Such as starting as a "bagboy" or "cart attendant" and then moving up to senior management.

This seems to bother you, claiming that they didn't "work hard" and just merely received a helping hand along the way.

That is certainly true, BUT!

How did his father or grandfather become an executive or the owner? Could it be, *gasp*, hard work and determination?!

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Eh? The point is, you get a shitload of money while there's people out there who need it way more than you.
Besides, if your grandaddy worked so hard, what gives you the right to *gasp* not work hard and just live off the man's earnings?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I thought about my post and realized it didn't really make that much sense.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by White trash trucker
How did his father or grandfather become an executive or the owner? Could it be, *gasp*, hard work and determination?!

Probably.

I'm sure many different people "workerd hard" to purchase their master a house next to Puff Daddy's silly ass.

Chances are the fat cat hasn't even wiped his own ass in 50 years since more than 9 out of 10 individuals with "big money" received it through inheritence rather than "hard work and determination".

"The royal penis is clean your highness".

Do your research before you bother posting this drivel you dumb fuck.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 19 2006, 03:13 AM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 19 2006, 03:13 AM)
White trash trucker
How did his father or grandfather become an executive or the owner? Could it be, *gasp*, hard work and determination?!

Probably.

I'm sure many different people "workerd hard" to purchase their master a house next to Puff Daddy's silly ass.

Chances are the fat cat hasn't even wiped his own ass in 50 years since more than 9 out of 10 individuals with "big money" received it through inheritence rather than "hard work and determination".

"The royal penis is clean your highness".

Do your research before you bother posting this drivel you dumb fuck. [/b]
It's P.Diddy now, he's less like a dessert and more like urine now, see?. Anyways The origins of that money are probably filthy. i.e Didn't need to work or pay anybody back in the day because the slaves would do everything so the slave masters could get a very close to 100% profit without having to pay anybody.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Capitalist Lawyer"+--> ("Capitalist Lawyer")You guys always complain about how a son or daughter of an executive who gets a handout or assitance from their rich elder.[/b]
And we have reason to. People who do no work are rising to the top.


Originally posted by "Capitalist Lawyer"@
For instance, they receive an inheritance from their father or grandfather who was an executive or owner of some big company or they receive some sort of promotion within the company. Such as starting as a "bagboy" or "cart attendant" and then moving up to senior management.

This seems to bother you, claiming that they didn't "work hard" and just merely received a helping hand along the way.
I personally don't claim that in every scenario, but it is justifiably a point. If you have a son or daughter in a company, as well as wife, or whatever you will treat them differently than Joe employee. We are all human, therefore we cannot justifiably rule over one another with a supremely equal hand. Or if we can; not forever. This is the problem with social hierarchy. Power corrupts us because of the vary nature of these institutions. Abolish the institutions and you abolish the draw of authority, and force people to reclaim power over their own bodies. You saw the power of this in the 60s.


"Capitalist Lawyer"
How did his father or grandfather become an executive or the owner? Could it be, *gasp*, hard work and determination?!
Very rarely do you see a rags to riches story, even less in the business world outside of gambling and the lottery. When was the last time you heard of a business that sprang up out of nowhere to lead a industry? Microsoft is the only one that comes to mind; and considering they can't even push out halfway decent products I don't really take them seriously.

Though really this is somewhat subjective and situationist. Everyone is different.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 11:45 AM
Eh? The point is, you get a shitload of money while there's people out there who need it way more than you.
Besides, if your grandaddy worked so hard, what gives you the right to *gasp* not work hard and just live off the man's earnings?
your grandaddy voluntarilly giving it too you for whatever reason he wants?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Then both you and your grandad are rather selfish. See the first point adressed in my original post.

[red team]

Eh? The point is, you get a shitload of money while there's people out there who need it way more than you.
Besides, if your grandaddy worked so hard, what gives you the right to *gasp* not work hard and just live off the man's earnings?

Because he has fictional pieces of paper that he can use to indicate a debt in trade even though what has been physically produced to accumulate that debt has long been consumed and lying in the landfills as garbage. Do you think the British royal family has anything of value to support the total accumulation of value of $400 million that can be used as a debt in a trade? People still swallow the fiction of money as being equal to real wealth, so we keep on playing the game.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 04:42 PM
Then both you and your grandad are rather selfish. See the first point adressed in my original post.
why shouldn't he be? its his money.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 18 2006, 05:18 PM

Eh? The point is, you get a shitload of money while there's people out there who need it way more than you.
Besides, if your grandaddy worked so hard, what gives you the right to *gasp* not work hard and just live off the man's earnings?

Because he has fictional pieces of paper that he can use to indicate a debt in trade even though what has been physically produced to accumulate that debt has long been consumed and lying in the landfills as garbage. Do you think the British royal family has anything of value to support the total accumulation of value of $400 million that can be used as a debt in a trade? People still swallow the fiction of money as being equal to real wealth, so we keep on playing the game.
well with a fiat money system your kind of right, but it doesn't matter because cash has high liquidity, so its as good real wealth.

oh and the british royal family has a shitload in realestate and stock holdings, ie real wealth.

[Avtomatov]

Saying a person deserves his inheritance because he is Donal Trumps son, is like saying an American deserves the good wages because he is an American. Basically you are saying that people with certain bloodlines or nationalities deserve more.

[Janus]

How did his father or grandfather become an executive or the owner? Could it be, *gasp*, hard work and determination?!
And what are the chances of that happening as opposed to not advancing upwards at all? :o

[apathy maybe]

Why do the dead get to choose?

All that hard work people crap on about, sure, that is why they accumulate all that stuff. But once they are dead, what do they care for it? They are dead.

Where should it go after a person is dead? I would say back to the community.

See http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...heritance&st=25 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38814&hl=Inheritance&st=25) for a thread I started a while back on this very topic. Why do the dead get to choose?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

And what are the chances of that happening as opposed to not advancing upwards at all?

Well, atleast your admitting that people can advance at all!

You know, it is possible and it is very common that people who come from a poverty background to make it up to atleast a modest, middle-class standard of living. Most people do fail at becoming billionaires and millionaires, but so what?

Many more make it to the middle-class.


Why do the dead get to choose?

They don't, the alive get to.

It's called an 'inheritance will'...ever heard of one? It's something that a person with disposable income ( either a couple million or maybe even a few thousand bucks) writes up before their inevitable death; usually during their retirement.

Duh!


why shouldn't he be? its his money.

Nobody answered this man's question.

(I know, I know....they got their money by cracking the whips on the backs of the working-class.)

It may surprise you that people who worked for "him" might even have some disposable income of their own that THEY MAY like to pass down to their children and grandchildren.

It may not be a million, but who cares?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19 2006, 06:19 AM
Why do the dead get to choose?
they don't choose when they're dead.

[Rollo]

So if I was to come kidnap you in the night and you woke up infront of a sewing machine and a half made shoe you'de support me?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 11:32 AM
So if I was to come kidnap you in the night and you woke up infront of a sewing machine and a half made shoe you'de support me?
is this in the wrong thread?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Does class mobility exist? Well yes, just not in quite the meritocratic way that many capitalists would like you to believe as justification for a system that benifits people in a pyrimid style.

It doesn't matter if grandaddy was the hardest working person ever, enough time spent with the top jobs/share of wealth going to people that are chosen not for their ability but for their ties to the wealthy and there is less room for the genuinely hardworking to pogress. This means that life at the top is not just earnt, but to a large extent granted. This goes against the competition that is essential to the eficiency of a capitalist market. If the top jobs don't go to those that can actually perform them the best, then companies will not run at their max potential and this will be felt right down the chain. The incentive of the genuinely hardworking is also reduced, so societal disenchantment becomes another hurdle for the aspiring worker to overcome.

Meritocracy has its problems, but fewer than the bastardised version of "capitalism" resulting from inheritence.

As for your repeated question of "who cares?" well me for one, and I am guesisng the majority of the board. Consider your audience :P

[Rollo]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 20 2006, 02:38 AM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 20 2006, 02:38 AM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 11:32 AM
So if I was to come kidnap you in the night and you woke up infront of a sewing machine and a half made shoe you'de support me?
is this in the wrong thread? [/b]
Wrong forum.

[Jazzratt]

Why respect what the dead would have wanted to happen. They're dead, they've had their life.

Inheritance is just another way of making sure the ruling class stays made up of the same families.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:48 PM
Why respect what the dead would have wanted to happen. They're dead, they've had their life.

Inheritance is just another way of making sure the ruling class stays made up of the same families.
inheritance doesn't go all to the family all the time.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 19 2006, 07:15 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 19 2006, 07:15 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 12:48 PM
Why respect what the dead would have wanted to happen. They're dead, they've had their life.

Inheritance is just another way of making sure the ruling class stays made up of the same families.
inheritance doesn't go all to the family all the time. [/b]
Completely irrelevent. Any wealth they had should be cancelled and anything 'phyiscal' they had should be redistributed or broken down to its raw components and redistributed.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 19 2006, 02:21 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 19 2006, 02:21 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:15 PM

[email protected] 19 2006, 12:48 PM
Why respect what the dead would have wanted to happen. They're dead, they've had their life.

Inheritance is just another way of making sure the ruling class stays made up of the same families.
inheritance doesn't go all to the family all the time.
Completely irrelevent. Any wealth they had should be cancelled and anything 'phyiscal' they had should be redistributed or broken down to its raw components and redistributed. [/b]
you can't "cancel" wealth without severally disrupting the monetary system.

and then you'd just have people giving it away before they die to avoid all of that.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 19 2006, 07:27 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 19 2006, 07:27 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:15 PM

[email protected] 19 2006, 12:48 PM
Why respect what the dead would have wanted to happen. They're dead, they've had their life.

Inheritance is just another way of making sure the ruling class stays made up of the same families.
inheritance doesn't go all to the family all the time.
Completely irrelevent. Any wealth they had should be cancelled and anything 'phyiscal' they had should be redistributed or broken down to its raw components and redistributed.
you can't "cancel" wealth without severally disrupting the monetary system. [/b]
Then give it to all to the state.



and then you'd just have people giving it away before they die to avoid all of that. Maybe, then, a method of controlling their ability to do so at a certian age.

None of this, of course, would be nescessary in a non-monetary effiecient society that didn't have a massive private property hard on. In short, a more effeicient system.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 02:34 PM
None of this, of course, would be nescessary in a non-monetary effiecient society that didn't have a massive private property hard on. In short, a more effeicient system.
when i think effeciency i don't think "non-monetary". standardized currency makes wealth transfer in society exponentially easier, and makes judging the value of things alot easier.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 19 2006, 07:52 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 19 2006, 07:52 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 02:34 PM
None of this, of course, would be nescessary in a non-monetary effiecient society that didn't have a massive private property hard on. In short, a more effeicient system.
when i think effeciency i don't think "non-monetary". standardized currency makes wealth transfer in society exponentially easier, and makes judging the value of things alot easier. [/b]
That's because you think of effeciancy in terms of wealth rather than as the effectivness of a distributive system. The idea of 'wealth' certianly adds to inefficiancy.

[colonelguppy]

no you still have to be able to move wealth and judge the value of things no matter how goods are produced and distributed.

[Jazzratt]

For accoutning that simple why not just use Energy Tokens, entirely non-tradable and simply used as a measurement?

[colonelguppy]

what the hell is an energy token?

[Jazzratt]

An energy tocken or "Energy Credit (http://spazz.mine.nu/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=156)"

Any questions?

[colonelguppy]

yeah, that does nothing in terms of measuring value of goods or transporting wealth easily.

how do energy credits solve this?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 10:05 PM
yeah, that does nothing in terms of measuring value of goods or transporting wealth easily.

how do energy credits solve this?
When mixed with a technocratic society they will be all that is needed. Why not read around in that site I gave you, you may actually learn something.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 19 2006, 05:07 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 19 2006, 05:07 PM)
[email protected] 19 2006, 10:05 PM
yeah, that does nothing in terms of measuring value of goods or transporting wealth easily.

how do energy credits solve this?
When mixed with a technocratic society they will be all that is needed. Why not read around in that site I gave you, you may actually learn something. [/b]
because i want you to explain it to me because i'm pretty sure you don't have answers for my question.

i'll give it a perusing.

[Jazzratt]

Your question was based entirely on the idea that you needed a subjective value or to transport 'wealth' - an intangible of all things! The 'value' of an item is the amount of energy required to construct it, energy credits can easily measure this - as they are in themselves a measure of energy. They can also be used by a citizen to make items and so on for themselves.

[Criminal_Affinities]

you're missing something here....the reason behind inheritance.......usually...people work hard to earn money....to become wealthy...and everything else....that is so evil in your eyes.....to give a better life to their family,their children....and what is wrong with that? what is wrong with leaving behind your children with something to build up on?....what the children then do with their wealth is upto them...that is none of your or anybody else's concern...it's his wealth...and he may do as he pleases....being so much in the favour of freedom...don't you think it's a bit....random...to force someone to give up their wealth to the government or someone else?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Criminal Affinities I tried to comprehensively cover your's, and other's thoughts on this on the first page....

As for "cancelling wealth" I think it sounds better than giving it to the state. If it was to enter a fund that was divided equally amongst everyone then relative wealth would be similar, or for the most hardcore capitalists distribute based on wealth so that the ammount of money in question becomes fairly meaningless. It may cause inflation (or depreciation of currency), but only to the extent that the new money is available.

Better yet have the money made available for social improvement (non-governmental) programmes, or increase medical spending, or put it all into aid work.

This is a long shot from my ideal, but perhaps leaving family members with cars and property? So they have something nice to remember the one they have lost without giving them too much of an advantage over your average Joe?

[Criminal_Affinities]

i'm sorry,i must have overlooked your thread there on the first page,Hegemonicretribution,but an excellent point put forward...and i have similar views...but what i'm on about is not the jobs...but the wealth itself...i mean okay....you can cancel it out...give it to the government and everything.....but that is what YOU think...and that is your perception on things....and it's highly unlikely for everyone to think the same way and it would be plain wrong to force opinions on someone.....and it's not that people are just giving all their wealth to their children or whoever....the recent announcement of Warren Buffet to give away most of his wealth to charity is a good example...and look at the Gates Foundation......my personal opinion on this subject is that the person who's wealth it is should get to decide what must be done with it...so it's fine the way it is....perfectly fine....and about your views on meritocracy....very interesting...i must look into that a little further.