Meritocracy or Socialism?
This thought was started in a different thread. I was thinking how some people would regard estate taxes as a form a socialism, taking someones hard earned money and passing it out to others.
However, I see it more in turns of aiding the meritocracy that would seem to be an American ideal. I'm not saying the children of wealthy families should be sent to the slums... seems unfair, un-American that there are people who, through no intrinsic merit of there own, are able to pursue happiness with no financial burdens. While others are left with a sort of struggle for happiness.
People want to care for their children, sure. However, repealing the "death tax" (which was never a burden for family farmers or ranchers) isn't a smart way to provide opportunity for all. One benefit of the death tax is that it spurred philanthropic giving. People couldn't pass on all their money to their kin, so they created foundations and the like. Which, as G(lib) points out, have corruption and problems of their own, just like any human endeavor.
You can redistribute wealth to people who are more "deserving" of it - we live in a society where you are provided with infinite possibilities to earn $$$ - go earn it - use self reliance and not some other mechanism.
Why can't we as a society say it is important to us to provide enough social services that even poor kids will stand a decent chance of graduating from high school, going to college--and grad school--and entering a productive middle class?
Wealthy people's wealth is derived from their economic interactions with the rest of society. It's not created in a vacuum out sheer enterprise and resourcefulness. Society is within its rights to collectively say to each aspiring millionaire, "we've set up this economic system that will allow you to accumulate more wealth than your neighbors, through your own pluck, talent, and dogged tenacity; but in exchange for that opportunity you'll have to play by these particular rules...."
Property rights have no objective existence. They are social constructs. Any society should therefore be able to democratically decide how far property rights extend. Such rules are only unjust if they apply unequally to different people--for instance if women are not allowed to inherit property but men are, or if African Americans are taxed at a higher rate than whites. But our rules apply the same to each of us--if I accumulate as much money as Bill Gates, my earnings will be taxed at the same level his are, and if he loses all his money and winds up poor like me, his earnings will be taxed at the same level as mine. There is no injustice in this.
Done ranting now.
I agree that people should be able to use their money as they see fit. On the other hand, where is the self-reliance or other innovative mechanism shown by a person who is born into a million dollar trust fund?
Who is tonsorial autodidact? The prose might be a tip off...
I'm fine with nepotism too, as long as the person receiving the leg-up then demostrates they are worthy of the preferential treatment.
I like how tonsorial put it: You don't accumulate wealth in a vacuum, solely on your own. Otherwise, you'd be a hermit, not much money in that. You're dependent on the economic constructs present in this society, so society has a just claim on part of your wealth.
I believe that the our society deserves some credit for a person's ability to create wealth. I think the term 'outside party' is incorrect, if you are using that to mean the society within which we live.
a product of our environment" idea, I just feel like people
are also able to break the mold of their environment, have
faith in their abilities, and perservere past boundaries
without necessarily using the default "I am unable to reach my
goals because I'm not as privliged as you are" reasoning.
Accumulating wealth is difficult. Period. Even for people who
have tax breaks, trust funds, dirty 527s, whatever. Look at
all the succesful business people who file bankruptcy... If
it was easy to accumulate wealth, why would anyone work hard?
There certainly wouldn't be any reward if you busted your ass,
made some smart business decisions and were then required to
involuntarily give up that for which you worked for.
I STRONGLY disagree with the sentiment that people in America
dont have a high level of opportunity no matter who you are.
Tonsorialk says
Even if some of the odds are against you, it doesn't mean that you can wave a white flag and say you will never get anywhere because people are holding you back. That's a pretty negative, pessimistic defeatist attitude.
A lot of people rise above their limitations in life, I feel its time that this side of the argument deserves the level of importance the "product of my environment" argument receives in America.
seacrest out.
sorry if I sound like a grumpy bastard....