Pretty off topic comment, but I read the title as "inheriting money is a way avoid being a high performer", which happens to be true, although completely irrelevant to the actual
article. ;)
And it's true that inheritance IS a performance hack--not for the children, but for the parents. Inheritance incentivizes parents to accumulate wealth not just for one lifetime but for multiple lifetimes. (Granted it may paradoxically have the opposite effect on the children as you mention.)
Here's Milton Friedman on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km9OCw3f5w4
https://unabombermanifesto.com/#THE%20POWER%20PROCESS
It depends on how much you provide for your offspring according to this deranged terrorist. And I've read stories from billionaire kids not living "the good life" because they never have to fight/work for anything.
I think rich people tend to be people obsessed with work, giving access to money is easier than teaching their kids to earn stuff - it is a different problem.
If all my money were stolen when I die (let's say, 100% inheritance tax), I wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime.
Sure, some people may still do it because they love working or because they love providing for their society.
The main reason I want to accumulate money, is so I can offer them a job instead of them going through the corporate bullcrap I had to do when needing some starting capital.
Bigger businesses are capable of bigger bets (think Elon Musk) which benefit everyone, removing an economic incentive doesn't sound wise for innovation and growth.
Biological inheritance, property inheritance, however, is not.
> If all my money were stolen when I die (let's say, 100% inheritance tax), I wouldn't have much incentive to grow my business more once my business makes more money than I can possibly spend in a lifetime.
Even if one agrees that that is true, that’s not an argument that inheritance is natural, that’s an argument that it is a feature of society chosen to incentivise people to accumulate wealth surplus to their personal needs.
https://ideas.ted.com/humans-arent-the-only-ones-that-help-o...
>going through the corporate bullcrap I had to do when needing some starting capital.
The corporate bullcrap you had to go through is a direct consequence of someone growing their business beyond what they could spend in a lifetime.
If John owns an item, he can say what happens it. So if he says to an notarised person 'when I die X becomes property of my son James' then that's simply respecting his wishes over his property.
Is it much different if John choose to give something away moments from death, or if he asks someone else to arrange the giving on his behalf after death?
We respect the wishes of the dead because it's part of the continuance of life and civilisation (which is itself fundamentally the store and passing down of value, I.e. inheritance). The same reason we'd honour someone who died for freedom, or honour the funeral wishes of a family member. Their wishes are worth much to everyone who knew them. The same should apply to personal property.
I think I'm stabbing in the right direction. A better answer might come from a better read or more philosophical mind than mine.
Then you're selfish and no good for the money anyway.
One can only buy so many jets and sports teams, sure.
But, if society endows you with that sort of reward, it becomes your responsibility to move society forward with that blessing.
Anything less is exactly why we live in Trump world and not some sci-fi future we all imagined as kids.
Honestly not sure I'd even bother getting out of bed most days if the future of my children was just in the hands of the state, what would be the point.
Life itself, even for those of us without children, is an incredible experience.
This is why I'm not a biologist (or OOP fan). :)
By what metric? Or do you mean "a way to avoid having to be a high performer in order to achieve good results"? Isn't the whole beef with wealth inequality that given otherwise equal luck and faculties, a person who starts with more capital will gain more capital?
That's the point: a leasurely trust-fund baby will likely be more "successful" than a hardworking and "driven" poor person.
For example, if a "manipulative anti-social" gene was increased in prevalence because it maximized net worth.
The problem here is a common issue in game theory, optimization without regard for process. Your inheritance doesn't care how it was acquired.
Sure this could be offset for positive genes, but that's making one big assumption.
The assumption that capitalism is the only reward function for our species. That is, what other forms of inheritance reproductively compete with money?