does this explain it better? [inheritance, justice, happiness, democracy, liberty]?

Question

with inheritance, the bigger fortunes give a headstart to heirs - money makes money - more money makes more money faster - inheritance means that the effect of rich get richer [which is unjust] is carried on from generation to generation, forever growing inequality/injustice [wealth/poverty, tyranny/slavery], whereas spreading the estates equally among everyone brings everyone back on an equal footing - equal opportunity - money is power, power to make [or, rather, rake] money - unless there is a reequalising mechanism in society, wealth/poverty will grow & grow & grow, until it shakes the state to pieces, with the violence/tension/etc between classes [with all the expenses of that - soldiers, hospitals, courts, etc]
eg, the ancient jews had reequalising every 7 yrs - land reforms reequalise & thus strengthen the state - 'equality breeds no strife' [athenian democracy] - japan, after macarthur's land reforms: strong, fast recovery - marshall plan prevented another depression & hitler

Answer 1

LEt me answer you with a ancient proverb from Middle East: Even the fortunes at the size of mountains would not last in the hands of lazy people. People having money can loose all their fortunes if they don't make the right business decisions every day, or even every second. In today's business world, a few harworking kids with good education, developed imagination and innovative know-how can cause the bankruptcy of immense conglomerates inherited by some snobs. That's the beauty of a competitive market structure.
I have to say that I don't agree with your suggestions of spreading the estates. It is a delicate subject and several opinions may arise, I will just tell you my viewpoint. Wealth shouldn't be distributed equally among people because people aren't equally qualified and aren't working equally hard. I'm affraid some people may even stop working, hoping that a rich guy will die soon and will take his share from his inheritance. Off course some help programs should be applied for those poor, disabled or old people, since they are poor because of their incapacities not because of laziness.
In addition to your aid examples, please note that in Islam there is a similar application. Muslims are obliged to give every year, a proportion of their wealth to the poor.

Answer 2

When wealth becomes held in fewer hands, more people are shut out from the main stream of life.

When people find it hard to get the necessities of life they choose less than idea ways to get what they want & need. (Crime, war etc.)

It is't a matter of taking money from people as much as seeing that there is fairness in how things are done. (Paying reasonable wages)

Most seek wealth in the hope for more security. This only adds to the inscurity of others.

A world that has a very wide range between the haves & the have nots is not a very secure place.

Some would have you belive that only the wealthy add to the well being of life & only the wealthy deserve the rewards.

Its a simple as taxing money earned in interest & investments
at the same rates as taxing wages.

Wealth is also gained over time by the general well being of a nation. The general well being of a nation is better if most people
share in the gains that are made.

When inheritance isn't taxed wealth becomes intrenched in a fewer hands where it is use to make the life of the few better and shuts out more from the main stream of life.

The fairer that wealth is spread the better life is.

Answer 3

Youre making good point but you also have to consider how long would "....spreading the estates equally among everyone..." last. The true irony of capitalism is that although it "generates unfairness" it is the only system which provided best social and political conditions to its people. I already stated in previous answer to your question that no country could realy establish system that acted retroactively, "bringing all back to some previous state"...and where was that previous state, based on equality - prehistoric tribe community? Russia couldnt establish communism in the real sense - remember that. It established socialism based on communist party dictatorship. And China also used the idea of communism and equality, but brought rigid control (internet control, the case of Tybet...). And also remember that all these countries had previously had blody revolutions.
"Cant make this world spins like previous one spined."
Youre making god point with "...equality breeds no strife...", but remember this:
Ancient "polis" like Athens also tolerated inequality among man and woman and slawes couldn`t wote. But that is not the point. The point is that "polis" were very small and easily to control. Control, thats the key point.
If anybody losed controle in these days, that would be followed with structural tensions, cause remember - Government is also controled by the pul of political parties, where interest and control are much over justice and equality. The irony is that Government is the one who needs to introduce that structural changes of "redistribution".
And at the end I must make reference to the Church which mainly governed ancient Jews - ethnical state. "Talmud" is not just religious book but it also introduced discussions on Jewish law, Jewish ethics, customs, legends, and stories.. Nowdays we have "kibutz" but also Israel is one of the most powerful and or influential capitalistic countries. The irony is that "financial management" - the basis of modern capitalism is very much their idea.
As long as we have unholy duo of "greed and control" well have perpetuity of present state.

Answer 4

NO, obstacles of doing properly/succeeding/having countless opportunities is in no way solid. obstacles = socialism/communism/tyranny/dictaroship. you need to use this pc because of the fact somebody had an theory and took it each and each of ways - and made funds - which created different great innovations. Made our international smaller.basically as a small occasion. case in point, i do no longer smoke yet i might in no way vote, in us of a, for a regulation that could limit it. that's a private decision. So, in short, NO.

Answer 5

It's called "inheritance tax". That's why the old Lords that came over with William the Conqueror are no longer the main wealthy.

Don't you have one where you live too?