Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Inheritance

No star here laces

13:00 / 13.03.02

Prompted by Haus' slight paraphrasing of my views on wealth redistribution in the Littlejohn thread, and this article in today's Guardian, I thought I'd wheel out an old opinion I used to proselytise about a year ago.

People shouldn't be allowed to leave money to their children. Private schools should be banned.

This is a necessary counerweight to our capitalist system as it prevents inequalities from perpetuating themselves. Neoliberals sell capitalism as a meritocracy, but the ability to inherit prevents it from working as such as the children of the (quite possibly deserving) rich get an easy start in life.

So why don't we say that parents are not allowed to leave an estate of greater than, say, £200,000 to their children (i.e. the price of a family home in London)?

All excess funds would either go to the state, or to people whose parents left them an estate of less than the agreed sum (i.e. the sum could be set at the national mean).

Whatcha reckon?

[ 13-03-2002: Message edited by: Lyra Lovelaces ]

[ 13-03-2002: Message edited by: Lyra Lovelaces ]

13:09 / 13.03.02

I've got a lot of sympathy with the sentiment, but I think I disagree with your solutions. Limiting inheritance is not so bad, but banning private schools would be too difficult in practice. There are lots of loopholes I could think of - special needs used as a guise for rich kids schools - and to be properly enforced would be impossible. How do you stop well off parents from hiring a tutor?

On top of this, I think that the problems are mucher deeper than the relatively easy target of private schools. What you tend to find is that you get middle class parents being very choosy about sending their kids to "good schools". Fair enough, but it does tend to mean that those kids get a better education than others.

Back to the inheritance issue. I'm no lawyer, but isn't it always possible to exploit loopholes in the law in order to give someone lots of money that the state doesn't want you to give?

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

13:11 / 13.03.02

I think this is actually rather a good idea, in principle at least, although I am unsure how, assuming that people are not fundamentally altruistic, it woudl not merely result in lots of pre-mortem transfers of funds or simple leaving of the country...

13:20 / 13.03.02

There's a fair chance we'd lose Phil Collins though. It's got to be worth a go.

I read something allied in a quite enjoyable book called Thigmoo the other day, in which it occurred that people were restricted to personal fortunes of £20 million.

It gave the example of a lot of people giving up their jobs as film stars (I use the term advisedly to avoid 'actor'), plastic surgeons and general media whores as 'the challenge of making shitloads of money just isn't there any more.'

Take that away, as well as the possibility of the 'we're doing it for the kids' crutch, and who knows what sort of valuable contribution you could make to society. The problem, as mentioned, is making it stick or preventing brain-drain.

The thing that surprises me is that totally rich gutbuckets like Gates are doing this voluntarily. Does he actually have some scruples and good sense, or does he just hate his kids -
'all that time pumping away in bed and I haven't seen dollar one from those ungrateful little shits - think I'll give all my money to unicef'

13:25 / 13.03.02

I'm not up for anything that *forces* people to do certain things.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

13:37 / 13.03.02

Well, one might argue that the status quo forces people to compete on an unfair playing field...

The Planet of Sound

13:39 / 13.03.02

Well, I'm forced to work for a living. Why not the children of rich parents?

13:40 / 13.03.02

One of Bush's "rhetorical" moves during the 2000 campaign was to label the inheritence tax "The Death Tax" and vow to repeal it. I believe that it was lessened in last year's tax cut, but I'm not sure about it.

The stated rationale behind this was twofold: one, that the money is already taxed by the federal government through income tax (true), and that the inheritance tax adversely effects small, family run businesses (not very true).

Obviously, this was a bone for Bush to throw his wealthy supporters, and a big juicy one at that. What is surprising is how much this "death tax" jargon caught on with the "common man."

I think that this actually has something to do with american's belief in "meritocracy," as Lyra puts it above, in that the money a person makes is sign of his hard work and effort (the Calvinists again) and that that money is his/hers by right, to do whatever they want with it. And the most noble thing one can work for, in America as anywhere else, is providing a better life for one's children.

If this better life for some includes a BMW on Tiffany's 16th birthday, most Americans don't necessarily see this as "unfair."

For what it's worth, I think Lyra's proposal above (redistribution of estates over £200000 ) is a modest one and I would support it.

(However, the limit on non-taxable gifts to relatives per year in the U.S. is 10,000 dollars, and as Haus says, a lot of money gets distributed (at least in name) pre-mortem this way)

14:20 / 13.03.02

About people "competing": Fair enough. I'm just not comfortable with the concept of life being reduced to this materialistic level - whoever dies with more money wins, even though I know that's how things go.

I'd expect someone as Mowgli the wolf kid to view life as some sort of competition, but there are so many things you can accomplish that have nothing to do with money.

But then again the problem is with me and perhaps I should find another galaxy to live on...

The measures that Lyra mentioned sound fair and good, it's just the compulsory aspect that I have a problem with, frustrated anarchist that I am, that's all.

[ 13-03-2002: Message edited by: Jade has left the building ]

[ 13-03-2002: Message edited by: Jade has left the building ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

14:34 / 13.03.02

Is it worth discussing some anarchist responses to money here?

14:39 / 13.03.02

Sorry, sorry, I'm leaving...

17:24 / 13.03.02

Lyra's suggestion is pretty modest in some circles where banning inheritance altogether and a maximum wage are seen as sort of necessary forfreedom and equity (within Capitalism or otherwise.)

It might be difficult to enforce, but our thinking tends to be dominated by what we see as the inherent deficiencies of our present legal systems - under which no such change is gonna come about. Without arguing that loopholes could be eliminated, companion laws could curb pre-mortem transfers, limit extra-national banking, &c.

Capital freed by such laws could feed directly back into making the playing field equal. Private schools could be seized and made public; teachers' salaries could increase, more schools could be built, and better equipment purchased. Private tutors could be licensed and/or fined - same with families who hired them.

I'm not at all worried about the implications of this being "forced," but I don't benefit at all from the way its set up now (specifically, inheritance) and actually don't stand to benefit personally from the change.