CIA - Police agency? or Crazy Illegal Agency?

[Tatar Khan]

that is interesting.  i should take an economics course or something. 

To learn about financial market you need to take courses in investment finance. No economics course will explain you hedging or need of liquidity, because most of economists don't know about those topics.

With that in mind, here is one way it could work: To begin with, we should have elected councils at the local level that would be responsible for the administration and distribution of land. These councils would not have complete independence; the central government should be able to overrule their decisions if it requires land for the construction of large-scale projects (e.g. railways, highways, bridges, power plants, factories). But the day-to-day business of allocating land should be left to the local councils, and it should also be their task to decide where to put new housing developments. When a new house is built, the local council should draw up a list of job criteria that a person must meet in order to live there (e.g. the person must work somewhere within an X-mile radius, at Y type of job). Then people who want to live in that house should send in applications, and if there is more than one applicant that meets the job criteria, the house should be assigned by lottery (anything else would be an invitation to favoritism and corruption). If a person feels that the job criteria for a certain house are unfair, he or she would have the option to sue the local council and take them to court.

Would not be really a good one. It sounds like an enlarged city council system. The problem is that when deciding to allocate housing there would be too many criteria to put. We all have certain criteria that we want from housing and I don't think it would be possible to put them on a list as they are variable for each person.

Example: A person might not want to live in downtown area but somewhere in suburbs however due to his job location he can not get the housing in suburbs because it outside that range. Some other guy might prefer a park close to the house that is not in the radius of his place of work, the other would prefer a waterfront. A family with kids would prefer s school nearby, while a bachelor prefer to have a night club nearby. At the same time the same family with kids would not mind to have a nightclub nearby because they still go there too. One would prefer public transit access, the other would care less. To one all these things are irrelevant but he wants to have performing arts theater close because he likes ballet. Having some kind of radius assigned that is based on place of work is not going to satisfy these people because not all of them will care as much about the travel distance to work as they would about other things.

Dealing with rent in capitalism:

Rent or lease s it is more often preferred to be called by finance people is the payment given for temporary usage of the asset. The idea behind lease is that the owner of the asset gives an asset for a temporary time to another person to use. The reason behind is the fact that person or the firm that will lease an asset don't want to buy it because they do not need it for a long period of time and so they don't want to go thought the hassle of buying it and selling it. If a firms plans to go to a fair to exhibit its product it needs a truck. A firm has no truck but it doesn't need one regularly, buying a truck for the purposes of one or two days is stupid. So they rent one. If they needed the truck constantly they would consider buying it. Than again they might consider renting trucks constantly. Why? Well maybe the firm doesn't want to go to the whole trouble of maintenance that has to be done constantly on the truck. So rent in this case becomes a sort of outsourcing. In the first case of rent it contributes to productivity by providing the assets when they are needed for a short period of time without the hassle of the buying and selling, thus allowing people to concentrate on their work and firms to concentrate on their primary business. (So overall it increases efficiency and productivity). In the second case it also allows the firm and individuals to concentrate on their primary activities while the firm from whom the asset is being rented concentrates on that. The idea behind this is economies of scale. A form that rents out trucks will find it easier and cheaper to maintain its fleet than a firm that has only one truck. (So overall this also increases efficiency and productivity)

Finally to profits gained from assets:

Profits gained from assets are nothing more than compensation for the cost of the asset and the risk. Without such compensation there is no interest in providing the assets. Assets that are equipment and technology and building all contribute to production process and increase productivity.

Finally inheritance:

A person who knows that by gathering wealth he can provide for his children after his death would be more motivated to acquire such wealth, therefore giving him incentive to work harder at his job to get pay raises or to do more investing and so add more capital into the economy, which will benefit the production process of the economy.

[Khan]

Although the children of that hard working parent have less of an incentive to work hard as they know they have a big nest egg waiting for them when their parents die. To go for an extreme example I'd go for the Hilton sisters but even in less extreme cases the money passed on to children can hurt the economy. This is most prominent in the UK in the form of the inflated house prices because of parents increasingly putting up money to help their children buy homes.

[Tatar Khan]

Counter argument could be made on the grounds that dollar today is worth more than dollar tomorrow thus the increased effort today is worth more than the loss of effort tomorrow.

[Khan]

However if the money is in housing or investments it can keep it's worth or even increase (especially in the case of housing)

[Tatar Khan]

So you just demonstrated the point that the earlier the money is invested the more time it has to grow, thus the extra effort, the earlier it occurs the more benefit down the line form it will originate.

[Khan]

However the injustice is that it is easier to make money if you have money, so the children will slack because they can get better jobs simply because their parents have made it for them. The talent pool starts to stagnate and you get people doing jobs they are very poor at simply because they are rich enough to have the opportunity. It's no coincidence that the children of celebrities happen to designers/singers/perfumists(?) even though they have absolutely no talents in those areas. However people who don't inherit such benefits struggle and work hard to achieve what their rivals get given them; it's the consumers that suffer and surely that is bad for the economic growth.

[Sneakgab]

''Counter argument could be made on the grounds that dollar today is worth more than dollar tomorrow thus the increased effort today is worth more than the loss of effort tomorrow.''

While not being an economist or financial expert it seems to me that goes against common sense. That effort = value. If anything, future effort would be worth more because it would be applied with better tech and methods for more productivity with the same amount of effort (more effect/better product). Inflation is irrelevant to that. If the effort is currently worth 2$, but is later worth 4$, then that just means that $ are worth half as much not that the REAL value of the effort has changed. If the $ price of all things double due to inflation, their $ prices remain the same relative to each other, and this relativity at THESE rates reflects their value. Even if this effort was converted into $ which sat under somebody's bed and due to inflation these currency notes basically devalued, that would mean that this person is just getting less and less return for the same effort as he/she waits, but the value of his/her labor would be the same even if over time it became relatively insignificant. If they dug up one gold nugget, then 5 years later that gold nugget should hold the same value as before (provided it's usefulness and demand doesn't change as these things are irrelevant to what we are discussing now and could just as easily go up as down anyway, so ie: assuming some kind of static society) though it would be relatively less significant as the total amount of resources in the world has increased.

[Tatar Khan]

While not being an economist or financial expert it seems to me that goes against common sense. That effort = value. If anything, future effort would be worth more because it would be applied with better tech and methods for more productivity with the same amount of effort (more effect/better product). Inflation is irrelevant to that. If the effort is currently worth 2$, but is later worth 4$, then that just means that $ are worth half as much not that the REAL value of the effort has changed. If the $ price of all things double due to inflation, their $ prices remain the same relative to each other, and this relativity at THESE rates reflects their value. Even if this effort was converted into $ which sat under somebody's bed and due to inflation these currency notes basically devalued, that would mean that this person is just getting less and less return for the same effort as he/she waits, but the value of his/her labor would be the same even if over time it became relatively insignificant. If they dug up one gold nugget, then 5 years later that gold nugget should hold the same value as before (provided it's usefulness and demand doesn't change as these things are irrelevant to what we are discussing now and could just as easily go up as down anyway, so ie: assuming some kind of static society) though it would be relatively less significant as the total amount of resources in the world has increased.

A lot of stuff and hard to read.

It seems I need to teach the basics of the time value of things.

Dollar to day is not dollar tommorrow.

Future Value

If I go and invest the dollar at interest rate of 4% than in one year i will have $1.04

So for me the Futre Value (FV) of $1 = 1.04. While the FV of $1 that I get next year is just one dollar.

FV concept is cumbersome to use and most people use present value. present value discounts things instead to current time.

PV of $1 today = $1 Given the interest rate of 4% PV of $1 one year from now = $1/(1.04)=$0.9615

So therefore if the effort of the father is worth 5 dollars today and the effort of the son is worth 5 dollars in the future what is the present value of 5 dollars given that the generations are 20 years apart and the interest rate is 5%

PV of son's effort = $5/(1.05)=$4.7619. Therefore it is below the $5 worth of effort of the father.

In terms of Khan's response

Yes it is true that there are kids of the rich who are spoiled, than there are who are not. Donald Trump's dad was also rich and did the same thing that Donald Trump is doing now, however dad's company was much smaller. To grow a big company is almost impossible in one generation (Google, Microsoft and such are there because of the boom in IT technology, new companies there won't emerge as fast), so number of generations are often required.

[Khan]

That didn't refute my point however as there is no need for a company to stay in the hands of one family. Why not just get the best people for the job?

[Tatar Khan]

The idea is that mom's and pop's shop would not be a very attractive purchase for people, before you can go public with IPO you would need to have something to offer to the public (something better than penny-stock too). For this reason you need large enough company.

It also could be argued that a person who spent his whole life around in that business because his parents owned it, would know better what is going on than another person, as each business has its own features than no university can teach (university covers the general things but each line of business has its own peculiarities, and than each business has its own). If the parents had friendly relations with the their suppliers or clients they are more likely to deal with their kid because they know the kid longer and trust him more than some new guy.

[Sneakgab]

''A lot of stuff and hard to read.

It seems I need to teach the basics of the time value of things.

Dollar to day is not dollar tommorrow.

Future Value

If I go and invest the dollar at interest rate of 4% than in one year i will have $1.04

So for me the Futre Value (FV) of $1 = 1.04. While the FV of $1 that I get next year is just one dollar.

FV concept is cumbersome to use and most people use present value. present value discounts things instead to current time.

PV of $1 today = $1 Given the interest rate of 4% PV of $1 one year from now = $1/(1.04)=$0.9615

So therefore if the effort of the father is worth 5 dollars today and the effort of the son is worth 5 dollars in the future what is the present value of 5 dollars given that the generations are 20 years apart and the interest rate is 5%

PV of son's effort = $5/(1.05)=$4.7619. Therefore it is below the $5 worth of effort of the father.''

Yes, Tatar, I already knew all ''that''. Obviously the $ value changes. What am I opposing is the statement that this means that the REAL value of the object has actually changed. If you dig up a gold nugget today, and wait 1 year, then you still have a gold nugget right? Assuming that other irrelevent factors such as demand and the usefullness of gold remain the same, so to should the value of the gold.

Even though the $ value of the nugget goes down from 1$ to 1.05$ due to inflation, so to does the value of everything else so relatively speak the cost of the nugget is actually the same. It may cost 5% more $, but you have 5% more $ from your sales because your prices also went up.

Then there is labor. If you perform a task and get 1$ for it, but don't use that 1$, then that 1$ becomes relatively less valuable as you can buy less and less with that $. But this is the case with all held cash. If you spend that 1$ instantly then you will get the full product (or at least, the % you were given) of your labor. The item or service you purchase will not have its value degrade over time. That wouldn't even make sense... if you have a haircut today, will you look back in 1 year and say that having that haircut is worth less now? Same for buying a graphics card. The card will become relatively less powerful but nonetheless so long as it is maintained it does whatever does when you bought it.

This is what I mean. Disregarding the financial perspective of changing currency value, the actual REAL value of an item changes only because of changing condition. Eg: Water may be valuable in a desert, but if a huge lake full of drinkable water pops out of nowhere then the water will be less valuable.

Btw, I know you are simplifying things but surely those interest rate calculations at least require integration or updating more regularly than 20 years. Also, isn't it inflation rate not interest rate that devalues value held in form of money currency?

So the point is that even though the father and son may get different $ and effectively different value worth of wealth for their labor, if their labors are the same and performed under identical conditions in an identical world then clearly the TRUE value of the labor is the same regardless of how its money currency reputation changes and regardless of whether the rewards bestowed for the labor differ in magnitude.

[Tatar Khan]

Yes, Tatar, I already knew all ''that''. Obviously the $ value changes. What am I opposing is the statement that this means that the REAL value of the object has actually changed. If you dig up a gold nugget today, and wait 1 year, then you still have a gold nugget right? Assuming that other irrelevent factors such as demand and the usefullness of gold remain the same, so to should the value of the gold.

The idea is that how much that gold nudged would bring in in interest if it was invested. So that amount is added to its value. Because if it was invested that would be the value of it in the future.

Even though the $ value of the nugget goes down from 1$ to 1.05$ due to inflation, so to does the value of everything else so relatively speak the cost of the nugget is actually the same. It may cost 5% more $, but you have 5% more $ from your sales because your prices also went up.

Then there is labor. If you perform a task and get 1$ for it, but don't use that 1$, then that 1$ becomes relatively less valuable as you can buy less and less with that $. But this is the case with all held cash. If you spend that 1$ instantly then you will get the full product (or at least, the % you were given) of your labor. The item or service you purchase will not have its value degrade over time.

It is called depreciation and all things depreciate.

That wouldn't even make sense... if you have a haircut today, will you look back in 1 year and say that having that haircut is worth less now? Same for buying a graphics card. The card will become relatively less powerful but nonetheless so long as it is maintained it does whatever does when you bought it.

This is what I mean. Disregarding the financial perspective of changing currency value, the actual REAL value of an item changes only because of changing condition. Eg: Water may be valuable in a desert, but if a huge lake full of drinkable water pops out of nowhere then the water will be less valuable.

Btw, I know you are simplifying things but surely those interest rate calculations at least require integration or updating more regularly than 20 years. Also, isn't it inflation rate not interest rate that devalues value held in form of money currency

We do not know interest rates 20 years in the future so only estimates are used, than there are forward interest rate contracts that could be used to reduce the period of uncertainty.

For discounting inflation is only used for demonstration of the concept but in the reality discount rate is interest rate at which one can invest "risk free" at.

PV of haircut today is greater than PV of haircut tomorrow. Because money that bought the haircut today could have been invested.

[Sneakgab]

''PV of haircut today is greater than PV of haircut tomorrow. Because money that

bought the haircut today could have been invested.''

Hmmmm. I had forgotten about investment. I guess I was being silly again and

overlooking the obvious.However, this assumes the haircut wealth is invested

(and invested wisely). I was speaking more about the physical immediate value of

the haircut in the present as opposed to physical immediate value of the haircut

in the future. Obviously investment always raises value with time. If were going

to count this as justified though then we should all do whatever we can to

invest our money and all things (such as inheritance) are therefore justified

through this. I think we should consider non-investment value as well because

obviously, not all wealth is invested. I mean, if the parent labors for his

child then unless he labors to increase money for investment for child he would

probably not invest this money because the investment could go south. Investment

may be good overall, but on a personal basis it may or may not be worth the

risk.

Though, I guess in the case of these rich people we speak of they can easily

afford to invest their wealth (though many of them blow much of their wealth on

14 yachts instead).

Something to consider though is that many of these rich people are already

sufficiently rich that they can guarantee their offspring anything they can

imagine so their shouldn't be much of a motivation left in this sector because

their children will already have anything imaginable. While their parents will

work via the avarice that drove them in the first place, this will not

necessarily be the case with their children.

For the middle class I guess it will increase their effort though and via

investment increase the total amount of production. This is in the case that the

middle class do choose to invest.

For the poor their isn't much inheritance and productivity increase to talk

about.

So it kind of seems that inheritance has increases and decreases to

productivity. While it does lessen the effort of those born to the rich, one

must wander what effect this actually has. While this family makes immense

amounts of money, they don't necessarily labor to make this money so perhaps

decreasing the effort of the inheritors would have no real effect? If thats the

case then we are left with only positive effects to the productivity. I guess

then that this means your probably right, inheritance does increase current effort

overall which looks like it will probably be enough to overcome future decrease.

But this brings to mind another factor: The handling of the inherited wealth. Were wealth not passed on via inheritance it would go SOMEWHERE. It could go to government or to anyone better able to handle the wealth than the child. This difference in productivity would be in the future so it would not benefit from investment but it seems to me that this difference in handling the wealth between an apathetic and inexperienced wealth and someone more qualified is sufficiently large enough to overcome the inheritance gain even considering the benefits of investment.

So while I guess I agree with you about the productivity, I though that these factors are at least worth considering as they might  tip the scales against it. Actually, I think that this may be an interesting avenue to consider between those who know something about finance. Since I am not such a person, I guess I will take your word that inheritance is good for productivity as I am not sure I'm qualified to speak about the financial aspects of inheritance.

Basically I do contest however that there are better alternatives to an inheritance system for increasing productivity. In the case of the extremely wealthy, all that wealth that the child will in the future waste on an additional 14 yachts could instead be invested. Basically, by avoiding inheritance we also avoid additional wealth wasted on useless things (such as 14 personal yachts) which some investor could put to better use.

I do think that I agree that inheritance does increase productivity though (but all things are relative and it decreases it as compared to a better system)

While inheritance does increase productivity though, I still definitely do not

find it justified. Turning Africa into a slave camp or obsessively investing

(forgetting about why one wants to produce in the first place) would increase

productivity as well but that doesn't mean its a good idea. There are many

things we can do to increase productivity ranging from threats to rewards but

this does not make them justified. Sure inheritance increases productivity but

when the wealth gained from such productivity is dumped on a child who did

nothing to deserve it then it seems to me that wealth has largely been wasted.

[Tatar Khan]

''PV of haircut today is greater than PV of haircut tomorrow. Because money that bought the haircut today could have been invested.''

Hmmmm. I had forgotten about investment. I guess I was being silly again and overlooking the obvious.However, this assumes the haircut wealth is invested (and invested wisely). I was speaking more about the physical immediate value of the haircut in the present as opposed to physical immediate value of the haircut in the future. Obviously investment always raises value with time. If were going to count this as justified though then we should all do whatever we can to invest our money and all things (such as inheritance) are therefore justified through this.

We should invest because it not only benefits us but allows the investment to go towards the development of new ideas, which is beneficial to society.

I think we should consider non-investment value as well because obviously, not all wealth is invested.

Careful about that the money that people hold in the banks still allow the banks to give out loans so even that money is used towards investment.

Something to consider though is that many of these rich people are already sufficiently rich that they can guarantee their offspring anything they can imagine so their shouldn't be much of a motivation left in this sector because their children will already have anything imaginable.

You are hitting on the diminishing marginal utility of wealth that is present for any person who is risk averse. Since it is safe to assume all people are risk averse than all people would have diminishing marginal utility of wealth, however do not forget that some people are more risk averse than others and the more you risk averse the faster the marginal utility of wealth decreases for you.

So while I guess I agree with you about the productivity, I though that these factors are at least worth considering as they might  tip the scales against it. Actually, I think that this may be an interesting avenue to consider between those who know something about finance. Since I am not such a person, I guess I will take your word that inheritance is good for productivity as I am not sure I'm qualified to speak about the financial aspects of inheritance.

Basically I do contest however that there are better alternatives to an inheritance system for increasing productivity. In the case of the extremely wealthy, all that wealth that the child will in the future waste on an additional 14 yachts could instead be invested. Basically, by avoiding inheritance we also avoid additional wealth wasted on useless things (such as 14 personal yachts) which some investor could put to better use.

I do think that I agree that inheritance does increase productivity though (but all things are relative and it decreases it as compared to a better system)

While inheritance does increase productivity though, I still definitely do not find it justified. Turning Africa into a slave camp or obsessively investing (forgetting about why one wants to produce in the first place) would increase productivity as well but that doesn't mean its a good idea. There are many things we can do to increase productivity ranging from threats to rewards but

this does not make them justified. Sure inheritance increases productivity but when the wealth gained from such productivity is dumped on a child who did nothing to deserve it then it seems to me that wealth has largely been wasted.

Here is my suggestion, if you really interested in this issue, research it. Read some books on economics and finance, look into the academic journals. I can give you names of general theory books if you wish. You will also need to know calculus to understand the economic and financial models.

Inheritance went to the state in Soviet Union and communist countries, you can look how it was administered, the costs of such system, and how beneficially it was used to the economy overall. Same with Western world see how the inheritance system here impacts the economy. Try to create a model for the optimal distribution of inheritance, than see if thee is empirical evidence. I also suggest finding a person in economics high enough (like a researcher for OECD, or university professor) to help you out, if you can get good conclusions there is a good chance that you can maybe even publish in an academic journal.

[Edric O]

I do not have the time to answer this fully today, though I would like to make a few quick points:

1. Of course giving more money to people who perform task X well - or giving them more control over their money, such as allowing them to pass it on to their children - is going to act as an incentive for them to perform task X even better. The result will be that task X will be done increasingly well in your economy. But money does not grow on trees; everything has an opportunity cost. When you give some people more money as an incentive, that means you are giving up all the other things you could have done with the same money. Incentives are costly. Incentives in the form of inheritance are not only costly, they are also immoral (because the children can get money for no merit of their own whatsoever, so they get rewarded or punished for the actions of their parents), and they also produce inefficiency (since the result of inheritance is that important assets and companies are put in the hands of people who are not necessarily good at running them; and on top of that it gives these people less of an incentive to work).

2. Capitalist "investment" means using your money to buy part of a company and thereby gain part of its profits. Investment does not magically cause your wealth to increase; invested wealth increases at the expense of the workers employed by the company in which you invested (because they are exploited to create the profits that allow your investment to grow). So, in fact, the reason why a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow is because of the capitalist system, because of capitalist exploitation and private ownership over the means of production. If we are arguing that income not derived from work (which is to say rent, profit and inheritance) is bad, you cannot use investment to support your argument because investment relies on the existence of income not derived from work. Investment relies on profit, so you cannot use the existence of investment as an argument in favour of profit - that's circular logic.

[Kokiri-Mentat]

Incentives in the form of inheritance are not only costly, they are also immoral

I'm sorry could you re-confirm that that's what you meant?  if so, then could you please elaborate.

I'll go ahead and post my general opinion.

People in general owe more to family members than they do to outside individuals, family members are close kin.  So family first, government/society second.  If the parents in question feel otherwise about the fruit of their loins then they can simply take the inheritance out of the will.  If we are talking about a large sum of money here (like 5,000,000 euros), then it's the government's fault for allowing individuals to acquire that much wealth on their own in liquid cash.  Should've taxed them before they kicked the can.

not sure if i like that logic i just posted....oh well.

A better question would be:  are economic systems more important than family beliefs/customs/rights?  Can an economic system become so sacred that to "hinder" it becomes a sin?

[Sneakgab]

''2. Capitalist "investment" means using your money to buy part of a company and thereby gain part of its profits. Investment does not magically cause your wealth to increase; invested wealth increases at the expense of the workers employed by the company in which you invested (because they are exploited to create the profits that allow your investment to grow). ''

Ok, to be honest, I was COMPLETELY under the impression that all this time we were not speaking about THAT kind of investment. That is why many times in my post I specifically reffered to my investment as ''physical investment''. Ie: Putting money (resources/effort) into machinery and the like that makes it so that future resources/effort yields a higher return. From now, would people clarify exactly what  is being invested in (and perhaps how). Clearly, we do not all share the same ''defaults'' here.

Frankly, all this time I assumed (correctly or not?) that Tatar (and others) were speaking about physical investment (in all recent economic discussions not just this one) as opposed to the share style investment that Edrico speaks of because the kind that Edrico refers to is something that one cannot really justify with a leg to stand on.

''produce inefficiency (since the result of inheritance is that important assets and companies are put in the hands of people who are not necessarily good at running them; and on top of that it gives these people less of an incentive to work).''

That sums up so nicely what I probably took multiple paragraphs to say that I thought I'd quote it. :D

When it comes to giving people money to perform their task well, it depends on the money given. If somebody performing his task 20% means he gets 20% more and his original pay was >= to the value of his work then that means that while he has done more he has also taken more. The rest of society gets his labor value and loses (to him) an amount that is >= to it's original worth. Society can invest this value in the long run but it could do that with it's original amount as well. Therefore we can only conclude that no one has truly gained anything if we see labor as a cost. This ''opportunity'' cost Edrico mentionds is a word that describes my feeling here very well, and probably one I will be using much in the future:D. The laborer has this cost as instead of working for an incentive he could have not worked (a relative gain). Also, he could have worked elsewhere unless we assume that he REQUIRED incentive (ie: motivation) to perform the work. So as we can see, incentive is not much of an interesting idea.

Since laborers are paid an amount <= to the value of their work (to allow profit) the % gain they get from their additional work (ie: 20% incr pay for 20% incr work) is not even worth it for them (unless the % pay incr is sufficiently > % incr work).

Of course, if this creates further negative value from this action (labor incr - pay incr = -ve) then since this additional value lost must go somewhere it is clear that the employer has now received yet more wealth for doing nothing (unless, for some bizarre reason, this value does not go to the employer).

The scenario for those who get more pay than what their work is worth is obvious. So, assuming pay incr % = work incr %... incentive for people who get less than their labor's worth just get exploited further with the same work pay proportion as before (In terms of absolute they are exploited more, though in relative (%) terms their exploitment is of course the same). People whose pay = work get nothing, and people whose pay is worth more than their work get more....

Not a good picture of the incentive idea. In terms of life quality it does little to nothing to improve the exploited or even, while it increases the wealth of those who already get more than they deserve.

''People in general owe more to family members than they do to outside individuals, family members are close kin.  So family first, government/society second.''

Family is just a collective of an arbitrary bunch of people linked by blood. I will help them just as easily as anyone else. What somebody owes them for their services (ie: roof over their head) one should probably reimburse them for, though much of those costs were created by the choice of the parents to bring another into the world.

''If we are talking about a large sum of money here (like 5,000,000 euros), then it's the government's fault for allowing individuals to acquire that much wealth on their own in liquid cash.  Should've taxed them before they kicked the can.''

It's not like the government can tax all of somebody's profits away. Even with tax their can obviously still be unearned wealth inherited by someone. In the case of an adult this is just unearned cash. In the case of a child, it results in financial inequalities in his life compared to others right from the beggining of his life which he has had no control over can could not possibly deserve (good or bad).

[Kokiri-Mentat]

"Family is just a collective of an arbitrary bunch of people linked by blood. I will help them just as easily as anyone else. What somebody owes them for their services (ie: roof over their head) one should probably reimburse them for, though much of those costs were created by the choice of the parents to bring another into the world."sneakgab

I disagree with that first sentence, but that's for another discussion.  Concerning your second sentence, that is your choice but I find it strange for people to claim that it is immoral for one to impart gifts to people postmortem.  I don't owe anything postmortem to anybody and will give it to whom I choose, whether it is a blood family member or a friend or charity or uncle sam. but it's my choice, damnit.

"It's not like the government can tax all of somebody's profits away. Even with tax their can obviously still be unearned wealth inherited by someone. In the case of an adult this is just unearned cash. In the case of a child, it results in financial inequalities in his life compared to others right from the beggining of his life which he has had no control over can could not possibly deserve (good or bad)."sneakgab

Yes, a government can tax all of somebody's profits away, but most are fortunate enough not to suffer that.  What's wrong with unearned cash.  Why are we making differentiation between an inheritance and a gift from a family member or anybody for that matter?

"In the case of a child, it results in financial inequalities in his life compared to others right from the beggining of his life which he has had no control over can could not possibly deserve (good or bad)."sneakgab

A hindu could argue otherwise you know. ;)