mojo1 Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 I personally don't want anything from my parents after they've gone, I can see why they would want to leave me something though. It must be hard knowing that you're leaving the world and your kids in it with nobody to turn to and nobody to protect them, no matter how old they get, they are still your kids, the people you love and the people you want the best for in life. I don't want kids in the first place, mostly because I don't think I could cope with that kind of responsibility, but I know, being the type of person that I am, I would never stop worrying about them and I would want to hand them something to build on, no matter how small, after I'm gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 Again, I'm not questioning your perfectly natural urges to look after your kids, but I'm asking you to look at things a little more objectively. It is the sign of an evolved society that can scrutinise such urges in the name of a greater good. Equal opportunity, for example. So I ask again. Why do YOUR kids deserve the handout? Spin it the other way around, why does anybody else deserve my money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted September 16, 2010 Author Share Posted September 16, 2010 Spin it the other way around, why does anybody else deserve my money? That's why I ask the question "will you means assess your children fairly?" From the child's perspective, they haven't earned a penny of that money. They are on the same level as the child with poor parents. From this level playing field arises the question: why does one child deserve this handout over and above the other, regardless of your parental urges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 That's why I ask the question "will you means assess your children fairly?" From the child's perspective, they haven't earned a penny of that money. They are on the same level as the child with poor parents. From this level playing field arises the question: why does one child deserve this handout over and above the other, regardless of your parental urges? Well I hope by the time I'm ready to pop my clogs they're no longer children, and have had a lifetime of working earning their own way anyway, and hopefully my grandchildren will also be working and leading fulfilled lives. If any of them are lay about idle dossers sponging off the state, I'll think twice about leaving it to them, but I'm not raising my children to be like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 That's why I ask the question "will you means assess your children fairly?" From the child's perspective, they haven't earned a penny of that money. They are on the same level as the child with poor parents. From this level playing field arises the question: why does one child deserve this handout over and above the other, regardless of your parental urges? presumably they will have earned by being loving to their parents. I guess the alternative if you stop inheritance will be to spend spend spend before they pop their clogs as they wont get to decide what happens to their savings anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 I believe, after seeing my father and uncle argue over my nan's estate, that kids think they are entitled to the estate of their parents after they have gone. I won't expect anything from my parents, and if I have children, I will bring them up to expect nothing from me (or at least in the financial sense). Sentimental items, yes.... they have more meaning in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted September 16, 2010 Author Share Posted September 16, 2010 I personally don't want anything from my parents after they've gone, I can see why they would want to leave me something though. It must be hard knowing that you're leaving the world and your kids in it with nobody to turn to and nobody to protect them, no matter how old they get, they are still your kids, the people you love and the people you want the best for in life. I don't want kids in the first place, mostly because I don't think I could cope with that kind of responsibility, but I know, being the type of person that I am, I would never stop worrying about them and I would want to hand them something to build on, no matter how small, after I'm gone. Just to clarify I don't tut at anyone who accepts inheritance either. Subjectively, it's perfectly normal to accept money when it is passed to you, whether earned or not. It's not having kids that allows you to see the world in more objective terms, I think. Once you have kids (and again I accept this is perfectly natural), your view of the wider picture becomes somewhat blinkered. So as a parent, of course you just want to look after your own and secure their future. But this does not make the slightest bit of difference to how such actions affect future generations on a society-wide scale, more than we realise. Parents can say "it's natural" till they're blue in the face, I will never dispute that, but it ducks the scrutiny that has allowed society to evolve in the past, by overriding so-called natural urges, that happen to be detrimental to the building of a fairer society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted September 16, 2010 Share Posted September 16, 2010 UK life expectancy is 79. Average age of new mothers in the UK is 27. So if the mother dies at the average of 79, the child will be 52. At 52 I think that is plenty long enough to have earned their inheritance. If they've nothing to show for 52 years on the planet, they don't deserve anything anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted September 16, 2010 Author Share Posted September 16, 2010 presumably they will have earned by being loving to their parents. I guess the alternative if you stop inheritance will be to spend spend spend before they pop their clogs as they wont get to decide what happens to their savings anyway The other alternative, assuming most here wouldn't trust the state with it, is to set up an independent public trust which can distribute the collected inheritence to local communities based on an elected, co-operative charter. It could help fund local schools, hospitals and nurseries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted September 16, 2010 Author Share Posted September 16, 2010 If they've nothing to show for 52 years on the planet, they don't deserve anything anyway. What I think can be overlooked is the role inheritance plays in helping to build what people "have to show" in later life. So someone who happens to be born into a family who have nothing to give will not have that foundation on which to build, say, a business or investment portfolio, that would later translate into real wealth (what they "have to show"). People would just assume that the 52 year old with substantial wealth built it all themselves, ignoring that snowball effect. It's not black and white, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.