- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 596 Hour
- Reading permission
Transhumanism Post time: 2012-4-26 18:33
What makes me happy is that China as a whole becomes wealthy and advanced, not ...
Well, unfortunately wealthy Chinese people do not think like you, as evidenced by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet tour in China where they tried to explain to their counterparts that they should only live 100 million dollars to their offspring and give the rest to charity.
I do agree with you but only partially, the system I would offer is slightly different.
I would encourage people to work as much as they can and, eventually, become very wealthy. If people invest and take risks, I do believe they should rip the fruits of their hardwork.
HOWEVER, their children did nothing to deserve this money. I believe they should get 1 million dollars + family home (which would harbour some of their memories) maximum and the rest should go to the state.
1. It doesn't discourage people to innovate, work hard create job.
2. It encourages rich people to spend their money, therefore helping consumption which, in turn, helps the general public.
3. It would keep their children away from financial needs (with 1 million dollars, this means they would have 1200 USD a month for 70 years ! Just by putting it in the bank they can live a comfortable life) or encourage their children to take these 1 millon dollars and to invest, innovate and create jobs.
4. For the super rich it would also mean a big income by the government, which will go either toward reputable charities or to help the general public.
5. Because their future is not guaranteed to be as successful as their parents, the children will work harder in order to secure a good diploma
I understand that it brings criticism such as
1. discouraging people to innovate too much since they know they won't be able to give more than a million to their children
2. can be perceived as a tax on rich people, which I can understand if people find it unfair.
In any case, inheritance has much less meaning now than it did in the 19th century. In the 19th century people would die in their 40's or 50's, living their assets to their 20 year old children. These children NEEDED the money to set up their own business or to get married and get a family of their own.
Now, people die when they're 70 or 80, leaving their assets to their 50-60 years old children. These children are already almost retired and have already made their own life (sometimes thanks to their parents assets). If for some people getting an additional 100,000 USD could make a big difference, for the peopel who are already successful it's basically getting the option to take a bath in a pool instead of a bathtub. But since they can already afford a bathtub...
Also, I do believe it would create less inequality since the wealth of parents will not be trned automatically to children, even though I'm not naive and the child of a successful businessman will still have more chances than the child of an unemployed drug addict.
So, to summarize, I believe inheritance should be limited to family home + maximum 1 million USD. Everything else should be spent before death or given to charities or the state.