It's unethical to leave your wealth to your kids

why not just hang a sign in your window that says "please, i'm asking to be robbed"
 
Bald1 said:
Maybe, but the thread title alone seems like a pro collectivism argument. And unless we reach some sort of Starfleet level of team oriented thinking, in my mind that idea is a fail.
Click to expand...
It would be cool to discuss something more than the thread title.
 
I still have not seen anybody respond to the actual article. Just a bunch of knee-jerk reactions to the misleading version in the OP.

I'm reminded of a quote from Jackie Chan, of all people, who has agreed to give the bulk of his wealth to charity instead of his children. I'm paraphrasing, because I do not remember the exact quote, but he said, "If my kids are capable, then they will make their own money. If they aren't capable, then they would just waste mine."

A lot of wealthy people have agreed to give the bulk of their wealth to charity, including Gates and Buffett, and a number of far less wealthy millionaires. It's not a crazy thought, it actually makes sense if you want your wealth to have maximum impact instead of just allowing your kids live the wealthy lifestyle on your dime.

But I think you have to be at a certain point to have that perspective. It may take several generations of building wealth because your family feels comfortable giving portions of their wealth to the needy. I'm certainly planning on leaving my wealth to my children, but maybe my grandchildren will be rich enough to give a ton of money to charities. That would be a success, and it would mean I set my family on a prosperous path.

By the way, if you are Christian you are already supposed to be giving away 10% of your money every week at church. That's called Tithing.
 
This problem cannot be solved until people accept that the biggest contributing factor to success is intelligence and that IQ testing is legitimate.
 
nac386 said:
I still have not seen anybody respond to the actual article. Just a bunch of knee-jerk reactions to the misleading version in the OP.

I'm reminded of a quote from Jackie Chan, of all people, who has agreed to give the bulk of his wealth to charity instead of his children. I'm paraphrasing, because I do not remember the exact quote, but he said, "If my kids are capable, then they will make their own money. If they aren't capable, then they would just waste mine."

A lot of wealthy people have agreed to give the bulk of their wealth to charity, including Gates and Buffett, and a number of far less wealthy millionaires. It's not a crazy thought, it actually makes sense if you want your wealth to have maximum impact instead of just allowing your kids live the wealthy lifestyle on your dime.

But I think you have to be at a certain point to have that perspective. It may take several generations of building wealth because your family feels comfortable giving portions of their wealth to the needy. I'm certainly planning on leaving my wealth to my children, but maybe my grandchildren will be rich enough to give a ton of money to charities. That would be a success, and it would mean I set my family on a prosperous path.

By the way, if you are Christian you are already supposed to be giving away 10% of your money every week at church. That's called Tithing.
Click to expand...
I tried but to no avail.
 
HomerThompson said:
{<huh}
Click to expand...
short of people just wanting a crazy gluttonous lifestyle
what's the point of amassing wealth if you can't pass it on?

just like business being run by the government/socialism, there really isn't an incentive then to make advancements, lean production/efficiency measures, removing bottlenecks, etc....

Obviously there'd be some, but not to the extent now.
 
HunterSdVa29 said:
short of people just wanting a crazy gluttonous lifestyle
what's the point of amassing wealth if you can't pass it on?

just like business being run by the government/socialism, there really isn't an incentive then to make advancements, lean production/efficiency measures, removing bottlenecks, etc....

Obviously there'd be some, but not to the extent now.
Click to expand...
{<doc}

I mean, seriously, what the fuck?
 
HomerThompson said:
{<doc}

I mean, seriously, what the fuck?
Click to expand...
what are the medical advances coming out of UHC using countries?

what about other business procedures from communistic or socialistic economies?

........
do you honestly think the same quality of people would pursue professions in say law or medicine if they couldn't keep the revenues they earned?
 
HunterSdVa29 said:
short of people just wanting a crazy gluttonous lifestyle
what's the point of amassing wealth if you can't pass it on?

just like business being run by the government/socialism, there really isn't an incentive then to make advancements, lean production/efficiency measures, removing bottlenecks, etc....

Obviously there'd be some, but not to the extent now.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point and what I learned in school. Do what you love. Don't worry about money, it will come later. Do what you love, enjoy life. All this is very irresponsible.

No need to save money. Your kids will make their own money. Just spend spend spend. No need to buy a house. Just rent, it's cheaper.
 
HunterSdVa29 said:
what are the medical advances coming out of UHC using countries?

what about other business procedures from communistic or socialistic economies?

........
Click to expand...
What in the actual fuck does any of this have to do with familial wealth being tied to advancement, R+D, and growth?
 
the link isn't working for me, how is this article proposing home ownership upon death?

is it just wealth in terms of cash/accounts that would be redistributed, or is it homes and property too?

cuz that's even more patently absurd
 
HunterSdVa29 said:
short of people just wanting a crazy gluttonous lifestyle
what's the point of amassing wealth if you can't pass it on?

just like business being run by the government/socialism, there really isn't an incentive then to make advancements, lean production/efficiency measures, removing bottlenecks, etc....

Obviously there'd be some, but not to the extent now.
Click to expand...
You can "pass it on" to charities that save lives and reduce suffering. Seems worthwhile to me.
 
kpt018 said:
You can "pass it on" to charities that save lives and reduce suffering. Seems worthwhile to me.
Click to expand...
You 'can' yes...

but making that mandatory is not only illegal but absurd

also, go for it, good luck w/ that endeavor!
 
Might as well just have the government decide how much wealth is sufficient for an individual, family or business and have controls in place to only allow the accrual of that much wealth + 10%. Any wealth generated above that amount would then be directed toward public utilities and services. Free healthcare, free education, free utilities and free basic housing. Everything else would be directed toward infrastructure and STEM R&D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,239,115
Messages
55,605,941
Members
174,849
Latest member
Real Deal

Share this page

Back
Top