It's unethical to leave your wealth to your kids

freaky

Banned
Banned
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
6,308
Reaction score
0
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/ethics-inheritance-nussbaum-levmore/547934/

It's good to donate and be a philanthropy. Article talks about why it's good and reasons why people donate.

An excerpt from the article:

Olen: Is it selfish to leave money to your children instead of giving it away?

Levmore: One of the nicest things I remember happening when I was dean is there was a young person, a person of means, and he wanted to endow something but he didn’t want to do it while his children were young. And then it occurs to him to give the money away in order to be an example to his kids—like they could come visit our university and see, you know, how this helped poor people in our clinics, they could see this clinic that was named after their grandfather that their father had given. And they can think, “Wow, this is a good reason to work hard and make money. You can give it away and make the world a better place.” And they can be proud of him.

So I think teaching your children to be proud of being helpful is probably a really good thing for a lot of rich people, even though it tells the kid that you have a lot of money, and even though there might be moments when they think, “Why’d you give away that money? You could have given it to me!” But I think he was proud of it, and it’s nice to see your parents do good deeds. Maybe you’ll react accordingly.


Nussbaum: With inheritances, it’s really important not to give the impression that you’re extorting your children, and one way you can not do that is to make it clear to them that you're not leaving the whole of your estate to them at all, but to various charitable organizations. I think we need to remember that not all children have rich parents and we need to do things to bring about overall social welfare. Hopefully the tax system will do a good deal of that, but perhaps not. So we have to be aware of what might be neglected. In my case, I give a lot to animal welfare because I think that's pretty neglected in America.



So there are many reasons why one might want to donate and they're all good reasons. Like donating to the opera house, hoping it will keep the prices low etc. Or you don't want to spoil your kids.

But the title of the article hinted that we should give all of our money away when we die so our kids can't get that head start. After reading the article and conversation I also get the idea that poor people need my money more than my own kids. That's not what the article was saying per se, but that's the idea I was getting from. "In my case, I give a lot to animal welfare because I think that's pretty neglected in America."


Levmore: Well, I think there’s less uncertainty—you don’t know how long you’ll live, but you can see that you've saved a certain amount of money, and that you can have a certain amount of income per year, and you know you won’t starve. So you don’t feel this tremendous need to set aside money for yourself for the uncertainty of what’s ahead.

It's good to donate but I think that last statement is a bit irresponsible. How much should we donate, how much should we save up? If you or your kids get cancer for example, you can go bankrupt on just chemotherapy. And that's the problem with America today. We don't save enough. We spend all the money we have. Poor people are actually able to save up enough to buy a house but rich millionaires can't. The more you make, the more you spend.
 
Last edited:
Don't care. My spawn come before yours. Not saying I wouldn't give much away, but my sons are going to have the lion's share upon my death.
 
I've seen many cases where money ruined the children's lives.
 
Man @freaky , can you make an effort at better OPs going forward? You don't really think that is a good summary of the arguments do you?
 
Another bad summary of the arguments, Jesus guys.
Not really. The left today has tunnel vision focused on not the victim but "enemy." As others have pointed out recently, its not helping anyone. Its making people feel more victimized and creating a generation of guilt for people who have done nothing wrong.

Also, my response was to the OP, not the entire thread.
 
There is a compelling argument (from a moral perspective) that we should forgo all luxury above what is needed to survive. A commonly used scenario (idea anyway):

You are wearing a really nice, expensive suit and are walking to an event when you see someone drowning. Would you ruin your suit to save the person? Most people would say that it would be immoral to let the person drown to avoid ruining your suit. In fact, many would say only a piece of shit would do that.

I've heard/read a few philosophers make the case that eating a steak, going to a ball game, or a million other things are essentially the same thing since that money could be sent to a charity that saves lives. While you eat your $65 steak a person dies of malaria, etc..

I think the same line of logic applies here. You can transfer your massive estate to your children so they can enjoy luxuries while many people in the world are suffering. Only difference is your enjoyment vs your children's.

It's really hard to this and you basically qualify for the highest level of sainthood if you're living this way. You're a better person than me. But it's a very compelling argument imo.
 
Not really. The left today has tunnel vision focused on not the victim but "enemy." As others have pointed out recently, its not helping anyone. Its making people feel more victimized and creating a generation of guilt for people who have done nothing wrong.

Also, my response was to the OP, not the entire thread.
Well just know the OP was a horrendous summary of the topic and the interview he posted.
 
I'm feeling compelled to dump this as it's a complete misrepresentation of the linked article.

@freaky fix the OP's content or delete the link and just go with the topic link free.
 
bad summary or not, this idea is patently absurd

unless of course you never want advancement or any type of R&D or growth
 
Who really gives a fuck? Is anyone going to see this and say "oh I'm definitely not leaving any wealth for my kids now?" No...
 
My kids will get my dough, the house, cars and everything else I have after I die. They have been raised to work hard, go to college and make something of themselves. My kids will not NEED what I have anyway. It will basically be for their retirement
 
I'm feeling compelled to dump this as it's a complete misrepresentation of the linked article.

@freaky fix the OP's content or delete the link and just go with the topic link free.
It's a shame because if the right posters got involved it could be interesting, I think.
 
it's precisely b/c of things like this that word 'cuck' is used way too much in political circles

b/c when you willingly give away something that is yours to someone else for no reason.....well
 
My kids will get what I have and they can decide if some of, or all of it will go to charity. I trust they will make as good a decision about that as I would. And for the record I will be in Puerto Rico this spring working to help rebuild lives there through a volunteer avenue. That is what I want to pass to my children as much as $$$.
 
What is wrong with people? Family first, get outta here with that shit.
 
It's a shame because if the right posters got involved it could be interesting, I think.
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.
 
Sorry kids, this money is for bums and people here illegally.

Giving money to criminals and people who are unwilling to take care of themselves is what being responsibility is all about.
 
Back
Top