Why is the concept of inheritance slowly losing value to most?

People don't think about the future anymore. Nihilism has taken over.

>>590634
>>590558
You are both too young, the people who care about the future are the ones who have built something already like a family or company or country

>>590558
The Welfare state has made it so that it's entirely unnecessary to leave one for your children. You can spend your whole life looking out for yourself and your carrier, and not have to worry about their future because someone else will be there to pick up your slack.

Because large inheritance often makes one a self-important twat. Rather give it to the state that enabled that amassing of wealth.

>>590558
>There should be infants worth millions more than other infants.

Meritocratic ideals. There's a reason those born rich experience contempt, and why they feel the need to convince you that they earned their wealth.

Baby boomers don't give a fuck about future generations and the only inheritance they want to leave is debt.

But inheritances are increasing again in value and frequency. Someone hasn't read their Piketty.

Because the entire structure of the family has been atomized. There's not one single force that is really responsible and blaming it on "The Jews" or "Capitalists" or "socialists" or "Industrialization" is far too reductionist to actually tell you anything. Rather, all of these groups are responsible (in their own way), some of which not even by intention.

There's the picture of Chinks and Niggers over three generations. The first generation Chinks says "me no speakey english, work hard, strong back". The second says "I work hard at my laundromat to save up for my kid's college fund". The third says "I enjoy being a doctor because I like helping people".

"The Family" is something more than just the individual. It's more than just this generation. The individual is part of a web, every part of which working together. Looking out for the next generation isn't just economically sound, it's morally righteous. For the most part, this was for survival ("If I don't work hard to make my kids live better than I did, they'll starve to death"). That pressure to survive isn't on us anymore, meaning giving your kids an inheritance isn't necessary. We aren't tied to the land in order to survive anymore, meaning the passing of the farm from father to son doesn't need to happen anymore.

Inheritance was one part of fulfillment of an obligation from one end of the family to another in something akin to a contract ("Your mother and I created you, raised you, and give you the farm. You must pay us back by raising a family, and letting us live with you when I we are too old to work the land") but not nearly as businesslike. Now, it's purely "Dad kicked the bucket, he left me x, y, and z" because that contract and system of obligations is no longer necessary to survive.

But some groups do still keep those obligation systems. Jews of all classes still do this, as do the Chinese. LBJ destroyed Blacks' attempts at this, and many wealthy WASP/"White" families do this as well.

>>590961

That is a minuscule fraction of the population.

>>590952
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm simply looking for reason. My father is multimillionaire and I don't think I'll get a penny, and that's totally fine

Funny you mention that, economically, J.S. Mill stipulates that it would be beneficial if the entirety of inherited estates, or a large portion of it if children, went as a tax to the state. I mean, you would want to reward hard work, right? It seems a lot of the ills in this society could be remedied if this was done in addition to rewarding hard, arduous work in America especially.

>>591102
And why, exactly, does the state get to take away your property just because you died?

>>591102
Aha yes, let's pay more tax. More tax is never a bad thing.

Because people are realizing that reproducing is wrong. It's something to be ashamed of. Normal people will have sex without having kids. Only the poor and uneducated reproduce and they have nothing for their kids to inherit.

>>591185
Exactly for the reasons just stated.

A lot of more systemic changes would need to occur before this could be effective, however.

>>591048
Funny. I'm actually in a similar position.

The less facetious answer would be that you'd need to ask wealthy individuals who are choosing not to pass along their wealth. If that includes your parents, they're likely to have friends doing likewise. It's kind of fuzzy, likely to vary, and you won't likely get an adequate sample size. But you'll get a better answer from them than you would here.

>>591202
Sexual impulses in general are bad.

Malthus and Mill speak of religion as a way to control excessive population increase by monitoring the morals of the people.

>>591247
If you're so narcissistic that you unironically believe you should reproduce, tumblr will probably suit your fancy more than 4chan

>>591259
>loving yourself
>bad

>The creature that evolved thousands of years through reproduction suddenly now thinks its wrong

The very realization that reproduction is a "bad" thing would not be possible if it weren't for reproduction.

In fact its a self hatred that drives anti-natalism, it is the logic of modernity taken to its conclusion, "if paradise or utopia is not possible or real then life be damned!"

File: 1434925134287.gif (128KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 500x300px

>>591259
>having children is narcissistic
>not having children, keeping all that money, time and work for yourself is not narcarcisstic

>even bringing narcissism into this

>>591272
>>591280
Anti-natalism isn't selfish. It's loving your potential children so much that you don't have them. It's putting their wellbeing before your own desires.

It's unsurprising that a tripfag and anime poster don't realize this. Fortunately you probably won't ever have sex anyway

>>591295
>Anti-natalism isn't selfish

>keeping all resources for yourself, not investing it in the future generation and risking a declining demographic of your nation/people
>not selfish

Just explain what's so altruistic about not having children.

>>590558

there's nothing to inherit. the governments of most countries tax inheritances to ruins

>>591295
We have become so sheltered that any pain, any suffering must be avoided as to prove your "love".

We have become feminized indeed, where the Paternal/Fatherly tough love is never even considered in this modern world.

Only a mothers embrace of safety and comfort will be TOLERATED today.

>>591295
Anti-natalism is a cop-out belief, held by those who lack the fortitude for children.

>>590723
You don't have to have built something to care about sustaining it. Take nature for instance.

>>590558
Proles don't inherit shit.

>>590558

Getting money by no other factor than pure luck is as anti-meritocratic as you can get. You, as an individual, shouldn't have to be dependant on any other individual than yourself.

>>591196
>muh taxes
>let's lower taxes
>golly gee I sure hate taxes
>Why is the deficit so high?
>Let's cut public services
>Why is my country full of crime and medical debt and student debt and shitty infrastructure?
>You know what we could really use? Another war in the Middle East, and a big fucking wall. Let's kick out the brown slave race that works for $5/hr while we're at it

Burgerlard economics everyone

>>591330
>risking a declining demographic of your nation/people

It might benefit a group at the national level, but at the global level, this just exacerbates all the problems we have. Not that I'm an anti-natalist like the guy you're responding to.

>>590558
inheritance isn't losing value, publishing is just shifting to a low perspective.

low bred people don't have things to actually pass on to their spawn, so with the shift in perspective to this plebian worldview, it seems that society has dropped inheritance.

in truth though, inheritance still exists among the nobility and de facto nobility.

>>591185
To ensure all kids get an even start, so the one working the hardest gets rewarded for it. Top notch education isn't cheap.

>>591196
I'm fairly sure he or she doesn't mind, since the person being taxed is bloody dead.

>>590766
Hahaha

People identify as abstracted from their family, rather than as a component of it. Our whole economy is built on it now, we talk about wages in terms of what it takes to support an individual, not a family.

File: 1382820416325.jpg (86KB, 464x787px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 464x787px

>Why is [insert any institution that can dimish the power of the state over civil society here] slowly losing value?

Because it is in the interest of the State and it's court intellectuals for it to lose value, as it increases it's power over society.

The end game is this >>590766
>>591102

100% estate tax will happen sooner or later, and then there won't be any independence left for any single individual or institution against the pervasive power of the State.

They will probably also abolish cash at the same time, so as to not leave any chance.

>>592646
A lot of it is the problem of the new system of things though. Back in the Middle Ages, if you performed your duty as a serf admirably, and for generations, your family would eventually be promoted to ministeriales. It doesn't really function like that if you work a hand-to-mouth job today, because individuals are elevated, not whole families.

>>592631

Meanwhile you would be punishing the father who worked hardest for his children, taking away all he built up for his children so it can be gives to others. It breeds selfishness and teaches people that they don't need to care about their children's future since the money will just be taken from someone else.

>>592603
That got nasty quick.

>>590558
A lot of factors have contributed to it, OP.

The increasing prevalence of divorce and having children by multiple people outside of marriage has diminished the concept of the family line and lead to a situation where an estate is likely to have a number of relatively equal claimants.

The rise of a consumer culture in which a much greater portion of a person's wealth is spent on goods which diminish in value has made the formation of a lasting intergenerational fortune/legacy much harder. While in the past, durable things like art, silver goods, and improvements to one's home were favored by the middle and upper classes, today most people spend the majority of their disposable income on things like cars and electronics that become worthless within a couple years.

And perhaps most significantly, the fundamental role of an inheritance in our economy has changed. In the past most people worked their land or owned a small business. This land or business was the core of a family fortune, and was necessary for the next generation to earn a living. Now we've become a cash and wages based society, where most people earn their living by working for a company (which is itself often an atomised entity owned by countless shareholders) and a family fortune is a pile of cash and investments with no real ties to its source. Under these circumstances, there isn't the same moral imperative for people to save up assets to pass down to their children.

>>594608
Oh fuck off, it's not like the corporations built up by the father will forcefully be taken away by the state, nor anything that a loving father teach their kids about discipline and proper behaviour. If you're well-off you'll still be set up to have a head start. And it's a much preferred option if you want a meritocratic society and is fairly disgusted by the character of people leeching of their parent's dead bodies.

>>596206

>If you're well-off you'll still be set up to have a head start

So it's okay to take their stuff away because you're not taking all of it?

I'm sorry if your parents are not thinking about your future, but wanting to take away from those who do is theft plain and simple. If someone works hard to provide more for their children than other parents they shouldn't be punished for it.

>>596240
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE takses r theft!!

Go away, libertarian

>>590952
This is basically aimed at white people only. The idea behind it is to negate any aristocratic power structures from arising and posing as a hindrance to the you-know-whos. The those-who-should-not-be-named bequeth their fortunes just as they always have. As a matter of fact, nepotism is the only way into their elite group. The top "1%" obviously don't follow the ideology that they so strongly enforce on the rest of us.

So, basically, you have an ideology of individuality that is promulgated to destroy their competition. Kevin MacDonald writes about inter-group resource conflicts prolifically.

>>591039
The you-know-whos, yes.

File: meme615.jpg (73KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 501x585px

>>590953
There is no reason in blaming all the problems on a generation or a certain group of people who shall remain unnamed.

>>592631
>To ensure all kids get an even start, so the one working the hardest gets rewarded for it. Top notch education isn't cheap.

There has never been a time with a less level playing field in America than now. This is ideological fluff that has no basis in reality. Some people (the you-know-whos) are allowed to keep their fortunes and compound upon them, while the masses get reset every generation. It is a trick. You are stupid.

>>596624

Well no, takes are fine in some aspects. I don't mind that part of my income goes to maintaining roads and schools. But when parents save up money for their children or want to pass their home to them, it shouldn't be taxed.

I mean really, my parents for example aren't making that much money, but at least they want to give our home to me when they pass away. Instead of just being able to get my family home, I'll have to pay my government so I can actually own the home my father and my grandfather and even his father before him owned. That's just fucked up if you ask me.

Legacies and inheritance aren't the same thing. They're tied together because people see generational wealth as a way to define their lineage. A real legacy is carried by name, not by numbers. If it has to do with wealth it's not self-serving, but outward. You don't define your history based on the perception of others. You define it by yourself. That's why not all wealth that trickles down is recognized by the person who holds it.

>>596660
>Instead of just being able to get my family home, I'll have to pay my government so I can actually own the home my father and my grandfather and even his father before him owned. That's just fucked up if you ask me.

Is this really true? You mean to tell me that the home you payed exorbitant interest rates on, plus all of those taxes, is taxed when you inherit it?

>>597748

Here in Germany at least it is, based on the value of the house. A cheap house you might get away without any tax, but if it's actually a decent home you'll be paying taxes just to inherit it. I'm sure a lot of other European countries are similar.

>>592631
Taking away a guy's money after he dies doesn't prevent rich kids from getting a head start. His kids still get all of the educational advantages they need while he's alive. In any case, you can't get an even playing field unless you go full commie.

>>591333
That's why the true inheritance is getting your kid a job.

Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honour matters

>>597929
The point isn't for a completely even playing field, just one that doesn't resemble a mountain range next to a valley

>>590558
We invented inflation just to make money move more. Inheritance was huge in previous centuries because of that.

>>591028
What drivel are you going on about?

My grandfather had some land he distributed among my uncles and aunts when he died. The way that side of the family argues over literal inches of dirt makes me wish the government would just take it all and leave those guys foaming at the mouth.

Inheritance as a concept is the reason we are stuck in this shit in the first place, it is what allowed the industrial revolution which in turn made mankind turn from some animals who would (and rightfully should) live some 50-60 years tops and be dependant on their environment into this abomination which is literally the cancer that is killing planet earth.

European culture with its obsession in passing wealth to their kids rather than just enjoying the wealth and passing the land or the social position.

We should go back to actually enjoying this shit WE build on OUR lives rather than leaving to some ungrateful little shit to serve as our "legacy" (which is in itself a retarded concept). Just take all your nice stuff and be buried with it.

>>602179
You should go back to school and learn to spell dependent. Nice touch with the CAPS, mate.

>>596659
Where did I claim the US is a good example of this? Look on Scandinavia if you want a meritocratic society. Denmark is probably the best example in the world. Strangely enough, they're also the worlds happiest people.

But without going into politics and if it works or not, the philosophy behind it is sound.

>>602263
Denmark also has very high rate of anti-depressant use.

>>602272
Maybe they just have a lot of cash sitting around and recreationally use uppers like every rich guy.

we don't live in a feudal society anymore, people are expected to make something out of themselves from the ground up.
it might be the loss of a valued tradition, but i don't think receiving benefit from coincidentally being the first born, to a household coincidentally with land, as necessarily a good thing. plus, land isnt really valued much anymore. a feudal, inheritance based society also needs to be agrarian.

>>590558
Inheritance in anti-capitalist. Look at the fucking Hapsburgs, the Bushs, and so many others; people get an unfair advantage at the crucial periods of their lives and commies think that the failed result is all that should be changed.

Before I bring some /pol/-tier shit, I'll just say there's no reason why any one individual should give all his shit to some dumb fuck just because they share genes. The best Roman emperors passed their blessing onto adopted sons who they judged as being worthy or capable. Sure some weren't capable and some weren't good judges of ability, but still, memetic legacy > genetic legacy/all your shit going to some fuck for no reason.

>>602475
>Inheritance is anti-capitalist.
Negative. Inheritance IS capital.

>I'll just say there's no reason why any one individual should give all his shit to some dumb fuck just because they share genes.
And most people who feel they should be able to pass their wealth onto their family would probably disagree.

>The best Roman emperors passed their blessing onto adopted sons who they judged as being worthy or capable. Sure some weren't capable and some weren't good judges of ability, but still, memetic legacy > genetic legacy/all your shit going to some fuck for no reason.
It's not for no reason.
So it's okay for royalty, but not the common man.

I feel like you have a very poor grasp of capitalism tbqhfam.

>>591202
I don't want to sound pleb tier and bring up idiocracy, but IQ is inherited. Sure, geniuses can very well be lazy fucks and dumb-asses can be industrious--that doesn't mean the society won't become more and more burdened by a class (which will be obsolete due to automation) demanding a high standard of living under the pretense of "right." To allow that to happen is also terrible for genetic diversity. Think of all the first-generation college students who show that whatever inherent genetic factors make an intelligent being can lie unused for generations.

>>597929
>commie
>playing field
Marxism doesn't have a playing field. What about Jackie Blue? What's a game if you never lose? We have lost the ability to lose because welfare promotes entitlement vis-a-vis a consolation prize.

File: Young_theodore_kaczynski.jpg (222KB, 640x453px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 640x453px

>>602179
>>602179
>posted from my macbook pro inside of an air conditioned/heated house with indoor plumbing that i or my parents paid for working at their job that exists because of the industrial revolution that they drove to in their automobile carriage

If you're going to be a luddite at least be an interesting one who raises legitimate points

>>602506
>Inheritance IS capital
I understand it is an investment of a human. The difference is when I invest in an unrelated party, I expect to earn a return. The return on a relative is the satisfaction you can live in your house while they maintain it and that people you will never meet will be profiting from the qualities that made YOU successful.

>most people... would disagree
Of course. It's an instinct to care about the security of one's offspring. When one has an instinct, I feel that they must necessarily and logically rationalize it. I have not heard a legitimate argument for such other than "muh heritage."

>it's okay for royalty, but not the common man
Why? The common man still passes on his memetic legacy, and in my opinion for the better. The family dynamic is crucial for the well-being of any individual. It gives them cultural memory, national identity, higher IQ (judging by breast-feeding, &c.), emotional stability, and false morality which will ideally leave them non-violent and ethical until they have the capability to determine right from wrong of their own accord. If these virtues and ideas enabled a father or mother to succeed, surely it would positively contribute to the offspring. So too would the genetic legacy contribute to their individual success, such that the financial resources of the family would be irrelevant in a hypothetical "even playing field."

>inheritance tax
http://youtu.be/bJwUaVDIPXg

>>591028
That isn't a fair comparison. The first generation chinese were paid (even though it was relatively cheap), so the second generation could afford to start their own small business, and the third could afford the time to take up a field that is research intensive.

The first generation of blacks were slaves who had nothing to give the second generation who couldn't even get jobs because there were educated chinese people willing to take cheap rock bottom wages, so the third generation black was in worse condition and more debt than fresh off the boat first generation chinese.

I don’t know about you lot but I’m in position to inherit both my parents’ house and a bit of money from my aunt and uncle. Neither am I nobility or wealthy.

>>602639
No, its not, IQ is a dynamic relative metric, the Flynn Effect demonstrates that the IQ of a population increases over time and most geniuses have significantly less intelligent parents.

>>591028
I agree with this entire post. Op please ignore those calling you a drivel spewer, they are robots.

>>603192
>The first generation of blacks
The first generation of blacks was in the 17th century. The first generation Chinese came in the mid of the 19th century. They also had to pay a special tax just for living in America. Blacks at this point were already free in the North for quite a while, and would be freed during the civil war in the South at roughly the same time. They also knew the language and did not have to pay a tax just for existing.