I don't know a single parent that doesn't want to have their children accumulate advantages, giving them access to resources experience and wisdom. I think this is very natural and desire to pass on a better life to children is what keeps society functioning.
That's not an argument for what is better or worse for us as a whole. I don't know a single person who wouldn't want to instantly receive a billion dollars in exchange for nothing, doesn't mean we should make that happen.
Society ceases to function if you cannot convey any advantage to your children. My parents sacrificed a lot for their children. They moved to a far away land, worked a lot of hours so that we can live in a neighborhood with a decent school. They saved a lot to try to send me to a decent school. They always obeyed laws and were model citizens. If there were no way to transfer such advantages, they wouldn't have bothered doing any of this stuff. I think society was served by their sacrifices.
I can't quote a study, but I think crime rates go down considerably when married and with children. You have a lot more to lose. You want to make sure you're their for your children and they have the advantage of being in a stable loving home
You can convey many advantages to children in the way you raise them. Million dollar + inheritances are not needed.
As far as being there for your children, again, I don't see the connection with estate taxes, your children will definitely need you even if you can't pass down 5 million dollars worth of assets to them.
The original post I commented to said nothing about million dollar inheritances. It only spoke about inequality. If you accept the premise that we must make everything as equitable as possible, you don't clearly stop and million dollar + inheritances. You eventually lead to banning gifted classes in public high schools.
No one is asking their parents not to teach their children how to be good people. And yes, the context you commented on was about million dollar inheritances.
As someone who went through gifted classes in public high schools, as they exist, I have no issues with them being removed. They have very, very serious issues with socioeconomic discrimination and discrimination against people with mental health issues, from first hand experience. So unless we can figure out better ways to select people for them, and so far it looks like we can, I agree that they do more harm than good compared to the alternatives.
As a person who came from a poor family and is now at least moderately successful due to participating in gifted programs, I completely disagree with you. The people I went to school with ranged from first generation immigrants to children of relative wealth, and the latter would have absolutely gone to private school had the program I attended not existed. Because of that program I was able to see that it can be totally normal to have two parent households and that it is achievable to be a doctor or lawyer. Without that I would have been stuck in my neighborhood with my heroin addicted neighbor and the prostitutes who worked the end of my block.
See, that's exactly the reason why these programs are an issue. If you had behavioral issues or if you were twice exceptional, you'd be fucked, like many of my friends did. These programs end up increasing segregation, exactly for those that need it the most. The solution is desegregation of schools relative to SES, not further segregation.
Sincerely, a former gifted student that's also a first generation immigrant that didn't end up addicted to any drugs or getting beat up for the sole reason that I was able to hide my ADHD until I got into college. Three of my gifted friends, two of which got into gangs and one of which was struck to depression to the level of suicide attempts, weren't so lucky.
Either we find a way of selecting gifted students without rejecting the most vulnerable ones that need the most help, which apparently we can't right now, or we desegregate schools.
The truth is that I suffered for depression for all of high school too.
But either way, I credit the program I was in with saving my life essentially. Also, very few people were willing to put in the work needed for this program. My high school was significantly harder than my college, with the exception of a few classes.
>Society ceases to function if you cannot convey any advantage to your children.
This is stated as fact, but what exactly is the assumption based upon? If it were true, wouldn’t you expect people without children to stop being contributors to society?
>I think crime rates go down when married and with children. You have a lot more to lose
Even if this correlation is true, it doesn’t mean the correct choice is to turn into that. Immigrants also commit less crime because they have much more to lose, it doesn’t imply citizenship should be on the chopping block
Do whatever you want while you're alive. Give them all the bitcoins, if that floats your boat.
We're talking about one single type of inter-generational transfer, the one that happens at your death. America has historically been against inter-generational transfer at this point, because it helps to create an oligarchy.
Culture can evolve. We have a very selfist culture. It is possible to evolve a culture that values the common good for more than our society does.
There are many parents who don't pass on anything to their children beyond what they did to get them to adulthood, believing the best thing to bequeath your child is a solid upbringing and strong sense of responsibility, independence rather than entitlement and dependence. And there are many children, like myself, who want no inheritance, who even think it immoral to take any.
