Is Equality something that Governments should strive to impose on people?

[Wildcat]

You have a very bleak view of life.

My grandparents worked (respectively) as a miner and a post lady for their entire careers. My gran is still alive, but she will no doubt pass on, and when she does she won't be leaving behind nothing. They never paid higher rate tax and definitely weren't super rich, but they saved sensibly for their entire life (too much in my opinion, should have had some more fun).

I can't see how taking that money would make anyone more equal or how it could be considered morally justified. They earnt it, why should they not pass it on? And it certainly won't give my Dad or Uncle some sort of unfair advantage, they'll both be retired in a year themselves! And I'm way beyond the point of being helped gain advantage by a gift of cash from my gran!

 

I am not sure what your gran has to do with this.

 

Taking extreme cases to make it abundantly clear, two children. One born in poverty, the other born to rich parents. Their life chances are different from the outset. The poor child may well have a chance of betterment, but they will have a poorer education and statistically will be unlikely to achieve the same in life as the child of affluent parents no matter how hard they try or how clever they are.

 

There is no equality of opportunity, no meritocracy in maintaining privileges acquired purely through accidents of birth.

 

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't have inherited wealth, it would be far too unpopular, there is after all a natural desire in parents to do the best for their children.

 

But the objective, most meritocratic, most fair way to run a society would be without inherited wealth and true equality of opportunity.

 

There is however no need to go to extremes no need to look at things so black and white. There are a whole range of interventions society can implement to make itself more fair, more meritocratic, more equal, more successful. Interventions like state education, a welfare state, redistributive taxation etc etc.

[Wildcat]

They're related by the implication that being able to inherit anything gives you an advantage, and that if your parents are free to earn then they are free to spend on you (as a child) before you inherit.

So inheriting and having money spent on you as a child are analogous. Thus the freedom to earn creates advantage just like inheritance.

 

I'm sorry you couldn't understand it, I'll try to keep it more simple for you.

 

But one is privilege acquired through skill, the other by accident of birth.

 

There is nothing to dictate you have to adopt both positions.

 

What matters is whether the privilege is merited. You have completely garbled the point being made.

[HeadingNorth]

They earnt it, why should they not pass it on?

 

The argument against inheritance tax has nothing to do with being fair to those who earned it; in fact, that's rather the point. Everybody should have the same opportunity to earn money, but why should someone be automatically rich just because someone else worked hard and saved all their life?

[Harleyman]

The government doesn't want educated people unless they are from a well-off background, which is why the price of a university education is being hiked.

 

How many British PMs in the last 50 years came from well -off backgrounds?

Name me one or two from the Labour party for example.

 

Why, even Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer who was probably reasonably succesful but hardly well off

[rubydazzler]

How many British PMs in the last 50 years came from well -off backgrounds?

Name me one or two from the Labour party for example.

 

Why, even Thatcher was the daughter of a grocer who was probably reasonably succesful but hardly well off

Blair's managed to make himself into a multi-miilionaire on the back of his ill fated (for the UK) stab at being PM, though. As Orwell pointed out some pigs are more equal than others.

 

Regarding equality of opportunity, look at the Victorian's who pulled themselves up from the morass by their own bootstraps, when there was no such thing. If you have the will and determination and the ability, you can do anything. Just inheriting money doesn't mean you'll keep it. Rags to rags in three generations is another meaningful saying.

 

If you look at most millionaires, they nearly all came from nothing or nowhere.

[Cyclone]

I am not sure what your gran has to do with this.

You should probably read the thread then it's an example in reply to this to disprove the assertion.

If someone's wealth died with them, shouldn't we assume that they were high earners/super tax payers?

Timson suggests a 100% inheritance tax, danot says that only the extremely wealthy ever pass on any money, I counter with a real world example. You see how that works?

 

Taking extreme cases to make it abundantly clear, two children. One born in poverty, the other born to rich parents. Their life chances are different from the outset. The poor child may well have a chance of betterment, but they will have a poorer education and statistically will be unlikely to achieve the same in life as the child of affluent parents no matter how hard they try or how clever they are.

 

There is no equality of opportunity, no meritocracy in maintaining privileges acquired purely through accidents of birth.

 

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't have inherited wealth,

Seriously, read the thread rather than just jumping in and making assumptions!

it would be far too unpopular, there is after all a natural desire in parents to do the best for their children.

 

But the objective, most meritocratic, most fair way to run a society would be without inherited wealth and true equality of opportunity.

That wouldn't be the most meritocratic as you've already pointed out that children benefit from having wealthy parents, so the most meritocratic would remove that possibly. Of course there is no way for ability to be rewarded any more because you wouldn't want someone to pass on any advantage to their children...

 

There is however no need to go to extremes no need to look at things so black and white.

Taking things to extremes tends to highlight whether an idea is a good or bad one in an obvious way.

There are a whole range of interventions society can implement to make itself more fair, more meritocratic, more equal, more successful. Interventions like state education, a welfare state, redistributive taxation etc etc.

More meritocratic on an individual scale, not on a familial scale...

[Cyclone]

But one is privilege acquired through skill, the other by accident of birth.

 

There is nothing to dictate you have to adopt both positions.

 

What matters is whether the privilege is merited. You have completely garbled the point being made.

 

No, you've simply misunderstood the relationship between the two.

[Cyclone]

The argument against inheritance tax has nothing to do with being fair to those who earned it; in fact, that's rather the point. Everybody should have the same opportunity to earn money, but why should someone be automatically rich just because someone else worked hard and saved all their life?

 

I highlighted the first point, it's not fair to those who earn the money and then have it taken from them post mortem, agreed.

 

To answer the second question, because that money has been earned by the now deceased person and was there's to do with as they wished. Spend it, burn it, or pass it on at the time of death. I don't have to justify why they should be allowed to pass it on, it's their property, you'd have to justify why it was wrong to allow them to pass it on.

And some misguided notion about equality is a very weak justification (not to mention doomed to failure).

[danot]

Cyclone. Could you show me where I said- only the extremely wealthy ever pass on any money.

[Cyclone]

If someone's wealth died with them, shouldn't we assume that they were high earners/super tax payers?

 

Here, or did you not mean that these people would be wealthy?