Let's end this 'dole is too much' stuff

FlutterinBantam

Bit of a delayed reaction there buddy.

Just back in after a days drinking are we?

Trying to take on the Flutt in support your your lefty friend.

heheh duddn't bother me pal.

World knows the score;)

It's 2009 now by the way not 1980;)

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Bit of a delayed reaction there buddy.

Just back in after a days drinking are we?

Last nights actually. My capacity is now reduced to half what it was when I was half the age I am now. Auld age is a bastard....

Lockstep

Smccarrick wrote:

Several other sections of the constitution do.

I'm sure your aware of how the Constitution is open to interpretation.
Private property is protected from unjust attack. What an "unjust attack" entails is open to the interpretation of the judge.

Smccarrick wrote:

Free fees does not equate to free education

You were aware of what I meant. As I said; feel free to argue on semantics.

Smccarrick wrote:

- and the introduction of free fees in 1996 has not in any manner changed the demographic groups attending third level education in Ireland. It was a watershed in the inability of Irish students to attend medicine, veterinary science and other courses- as thee are viewed by 3rd level authorities as the one cash-cow area they can continue to generate income from- as oppossed to cross subsidising the humanities with income generated in science and engineering faculties (as per the Presidents Fund in UCD).

Yes it has; since the introduction of free fees, by 2004, the representation of semiskilled/unskilled socio-economics in college had risen from 23% to 33-40% in 1998 (allowing the introduction of free fees to kick in, given their abolishment in 1995)

Smccarrick wrote:

One area of research. We're also at the forefront with France in oncology treatments. We generate less research funds per student head on average than any other EU country- including Greece and France (the two other laggards).

Source?
The research that a university system generates isn't the be-all-end-all.
Take America; sure they have great research but I'd hate to have a third level system leaving less than fabulously wealty students with crippling loans

Smccarrick wrote:

You're the one who was bitching about me using semantics?

Yes because there is a difference between saying "more of a meriotracy" and "a meritocracy".
There is a difference to a fair society and a fairer society.
This is not semantics.

Smccarrick wrote:

I do not think that parents do not pay to give their children every opportunity possible in life- the point that I was making is that were people to think they could not pass an inheritance to the next generation on their demise, they would simply invest in those people during their lifetime instead (as does happen to a certain extent- only it would be far more blatant.......)

They will already be investing in their children; grinds, private schools etc.
Even with the extra help, a child who went to private school but inherited no money/property etc but became wealthy would have had to put in the effort to generate this wealth.
Not as meritocratic as compared to a child who went to a public school and got no tuition help etc, but still more meritocratic than merely inheriting the wealth.
THere is only so much the parents can do in the lifetime; even with a great education the child will have to make their own wealth.

Smccarrick wrote:

So- you believe in 'more of a meritocracy' yet- by your own admission- its fine to rely on Mummy and Daddy to help you out, when you need it.

Yes because they are relying on Mummy and Daddy as dependants. They do not own the wealth and so cannot be taxed on it. They are not the wealthy ones; their parents are.
Once they inherit the wealth it's a different kettle of fish; they are now independantly wealthy but did nothing to deserve it.

Smccarrick wrote:

There are many people out there without the benefit of having a mother and father in a position to assist them when they find themselves in troubled times.

Yup; it wouldn't be a true meritocracy (something pretty much unattainable) but it would more meritocratic as the wealthy child would have to make their own riches. They'd have put less effort in than a similarly wealthy child from a disadvantaged background but this entire debate revolved around whether the rich deserve their wealth. Less deserving than the disadvantaged background rich person but not undeserving.

Smccarrick wrote:

I never made any insinuation whatsoever as to whether the rich work for their cash or not- you claim they don't. Its an argument I haven't partaken in, despite your best efforts to draw me in.....

That's what the debate was about; Dotsman claiming that the wealthy deserve their wealth and so I brought up inheritance issue.
You got involved on your own; I made no attempts to draw you in and referred to why I brought it up.

Smccarrick wrote:

Ooohhh- so they have some say in how they spend their money?

Yes; just not giving it to the child.

Smccarrick wrote:

I thought you wanted to take it away from them in punitive taxation?

Then you weren't following the thread. Taxation was one area I brought up.

Smccarrick wrote:

Whos to say what constitutes a charity- we have literally thousands of genuine registered charities in the country.......

The guidelines we currently have in this country for a registered charity.
Fairly obvious really.

Smccarrick wrote:

You propose paying people to undertake internships. Traditionally an internship is seen as a manner of providing an extension to the vocational education scheme- not an end to the employment crisis. The fact of the matter is an internship is a means of helping people gain a degree of experience and competency in a particular area. At present- there is no employment out there at the other side of internships- short of sending people on revolving internships- you will not give people gainful employment out of this- at present- you will equip them to put them in a better once conditions improve.

*facepalm*
Maybe you havn't been searching for jobs recently but I have; every job advertised made experience a far more fundamental aspect than any time I've sought employment before.
Jobs are out there; not as many or as good as before but some still exist.
Experience is necessary; internships facilitate this and providing welfare allows people to continue recieiving their dole while undertaking this.

Smccarrick wrote:

The argument of the government paying to undertake an internship- is at odds with what an internship is understood to be.

Internship;
3.any official or formal program to provide practical experience for beginners in an occupation or profession: an internship for management trainees.

Once again you are arguiing on semantics. There is nothing wrong with providing welfare to support an intern.
What is the issue here?

Smccarrick wrote:

If you parents are capable of supporting you (as you claim they are at present) to sit at home- why not support you to undertake an internship?

I'm not claiming the dole. And yes, my parents supported me between the end of college and finding new employment but there was no barrier between an internship and their support. The dole does so; this should be ended.

Smccarrick wrote:

Yes. Your point?

That there were those who wanted the dole cut while saying "if I were on the dole..."

Smccarrick wrote:

You are the only one debating whether they are 'deserving' of their wealth.

Because other posters were claiming the rich were deserving of their wealth.
Read back through the thread maybe?

Smccarrick wrote:

(sound of Shane hitting head against brick wall.......) Fine- the only way of doing what you are suggesting without a total break down in society is to implement communism.

Do you even know what communism is?
An end to inheritance does not automatically entail communism. Communism is entire socio-economic system.

Smccarrick wrote:

If they can only enjoy it throughout their life- is amazing how 15 year olds could all of a sudden command EUR1000 an hour babysitting their kid siblings...... there are a myriad holes in your little theory- other than implementing the central control of communism........

Yup there are flaws; welcome to debating theory.
All our laws have loopholes; this is no different. We'd have a strange legal system if we only allowed infallible laws.

Please stop bringing up communism; in communism there would be no state to take the wealth (Marx's idea of a classless, stateless society)

Smccarrick wrote:

Just because someone has/had wealthy parents does not make them inherently bad people- nor does it mean they haven't had to work their arses off. Its the middle classes who are most keen on maximising wealth transfer between the generations- contrary to popular beliefs- sure you can point at Peaches Geldoff, Paris Hilton and a few other spoilt brats- but they are the exception rather than the norm. You seem to have a particular chip on your shoulder about this- is there some history that you're not detailing?

S.

Where did I say wealthy kids= bad.
What I said was that kids who inherit wealth have done nothing to deserve the wealth; going against the theory that the rich somehow deserve it.
How does inheriting wealth mean they worked their arses off? Strange logic there.


Maybe I should outline something as you have consistently failed to pick up on it;
I do not advocate an end to inheritance. I was asking whether those who claim that the rich deserve their wealth would favour it as it would mean that those who are wealthy would be more likely to have earned it rather than inheriting it

Also; source for your claims on the middle class demanding wealth please?

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Buddy, I wouldn't waste my logic on some person who believes that a person who works hard all his or her life doesn't deserve to leave the fruits of their labour to their family.

Please do:(
It's what a debate involves. If you have ideas and a logic behind them I'd be interested in seeing them.

Let's outline this again; it is claimed that the wealthy deserve their wealth and worked hard for it.
Inheritance seems to go against this,

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Or that the aforesaid family doesn't deserve to reap the said rewards.

Why are they deserving?
Because they were randomly born to the right people?

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Do I really have to spell it out so simply for you.

Not simply; just explain your position. As it is, you've yet to make any actual points.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Where were you educated?

Havana:cool:

Nah, I'm studying in NUIG.
Nice place too.

FlutterinBantam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Maybe I should outline something as you have consistently failed to pick up on it;
I do not advocate an end to inheritance. I was asking whether those who claim that the rich deserve their wealth would favour it as it would mean that those who are wealthy would be more likely to have earned it rather than inheriting it

Also; source for your claims on the middle class demanding wealth please?

If a family work their balls off starting a business,take risks to build it up,I see no focking reason why the fruits of that foresight and entrepreneurship
should not accrue to the family of those who started the business.

What he beneficiaries of the activity do is their own focking business,good or bad,wasters or otherwise.

Source: common sense and current practice in most civilised countries in the first world.

You should give Joe Higgins a ring and volunteer to canvas for him as you seem to have most of his ideology.

The_Conductor

kickoutthejams- I'm really sorry- I'm putting you on my ignore list.
If you are genuinely interested in studying wealth transfer between the generations- Jens Beckert has several books on the topic. Unfortunately- they don't agree with your preconceptions, and I very much doubt you'll take the trouble to read them- they are very interesting to read nonetheless.

The very best of good luck to you- I hope life is good to you.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

If a family work their balls off starting a business,take risks to build it up,I see no focking reason why the fruits of that foresight and entrepreneurship
should not accrue to the family of those who started the business.

Why are they any more deserving of it than society at large?
Who we are born to does not entail deserving of wealth.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

What he beneficiaries of the activity do is their own focking business,good or bad,wasters or otherwise.

Ah but they are not deserving of the wealth.
Which means we have a system allowing those undeserving of wealth to become rich.
And at odds with the claim that the rich are rich because of hard work.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Source: common sense and current practice in most civilised countries in the first world.

And you know this how?
How are the middle class demanding passing on their wealth any more common sense than the wealthy wanting the same.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You should give Joe Higgins a ring and volunteer to canvas for him as you seem to have most of his ideology.

You ever sat down and read the SP ideology?
It mentions nothing on inheritance tax. Loads of other stuff though which I don't agree with.
Dunno where you get the idea I share most of the ideology.

FlutterinBantam

Don't be sorry S.

Just be glad the gook he is touting down in Galway is not standing in Dub Cen,probably a protegé of that well known champagne Socialist and waffler extraordinaire Mr MD Higgins .

I could give him me #11

Just be glad that people like him who think they are radical in Universities will like us all,eventually see the proper world order.Let them think they are movers and shakers for that's what we all thought at his age.

Let him tilt against windmills all he likes, that kind of outlook will never reach fruition,more likely blossom in the breasts of the immature and unwordly and be used as debate fodder against those whom they think inferior in intellect and disposition to them.

A long winded way of saying ignore the misguided fools, they will see the light some day;)

Spudmonkey

thebullkf wrote: »

i'm sorry but you're a fool.




enjoy living at home.... pretty apt moniker.:rolleyes:

Ha ha, fair enough.. This fool is still in paid employment and has no house that is in negative equity!! But I'm not going to resort to name calling...

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Don't be sorry S.
Just be glad the gook he is touting down in Galway is not standing in Dub Cen,probably a protegé of that well known champagne Socialist and waffler extraordinaire Mr MD Higgins .

So you've gone from accusing me of being a communist/socialist to a fan of social democrat Michael D?
Next is an accusation of centrism I suppose.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I could give him me #11

Fine by me, he's extremely well respected in the area. Can get by without your No1.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Just be glad that people like him who think they are radical in Universities will like us all,eventually see the proper world order.Let them think they are movers and shakers for that's what we all thought at his age.

Let him tilt against windmills all he likes, that kind of outlook will never reach fruition,more likely blossom in the breasts of the immature and unwordly and be used as debate fodder against those whom they think inferior in intellect and disposition to them.

A long winded way of saying ignore the misguided fools, they will see the light some day;)

Hmm; how exactly am I radical? For suggesting that inheritance is at odds with the idea of the rich being deserving of their wealth>
That is interesting.

FlutterinBantam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

So you've gone from accusing me of being a communist/socialist to a fan of social democrat Michael D?
Next is an accusation of centrism I suppose.


Fine by me, he's extremely well respected in the area. Can get by without your No1.



Hmm; how exactly am I radical? For suggesting that inheritance is at odds with the idea of the rich being deserving of their wealth>
That is interesting.

Sounds kinda radical to me pal.

Don't know what kind of bulldust MD has ben teaching you people down there but that suggestion is definitely radical to me.

probably has been concentrating on Middle east politics and his "very important" role over there.

Wise up son.Think for yourself.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Sounds kinda radical to me pal.

Notice how often I have said I do not believe there should be an end to inheritance?

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Don't know what kind of bulldust MD has ben teaching you people down there but that suggestion is definitely radical to me.

Radical?
Let's outline it;
If the wealthy deserve their wealth, then there should not be inheritance as this takes away the hard work aspect of futurue generations.
Or; the rich do not automatically become wealthy by hard work and there are other factors which cause some to become rich; inheritance, nepotism, corruption etc.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

probably has been concentrating on Middle east politics and his "very important" role over there.

Ah well he is the spokesman on foreign affiars. And the Middle-East is very much in the forefront.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Wise up son.Think for yourself.

Think for myself because someone else tells me to do so....

Spudmonkey

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ah but they are not deserving of the wealth.
Which means we have a system allowing those undeserving of wealth to become rich.
And at odds with the claim that the rich are rich because of hard work.

If they are deserving or not is not the point.. The point is that if someone has accrued money and assets legally and have paid taxes on it, it is their choice what they should do with it!

If you want to talk of un-deserving, focus on those who cheat the system to get "freebies". This is what I thought this discussion was all about!

Lockstep

Spudmonkey wrote: »

If they are deserving or not is not the point.. The point is that if someone has accrued money and assets legally and have paid taxes on it, it is their choice what they should do with it!

You claimed the rich deserve their wealth.
Their children do not; who you are born to does not involve hard work or gumption.
Which is why I asked about the inheritance aspect.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

If you want to talk of un-deserving, focus on those who cheat the system to get "freebies". This is what I thought this discussion was all about!

Yes, those who cheat the system are bad too

However, there were already enough people debating whether the welfare cheats.

FlutterinBantam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Notice how often I have said I do not believe there should be an end to inheritance?



Radical?
Let's outline it;
If the wealthy deserve their wealth, then there should not be inheritance as this takes away the hard work aspect of futurue generations.
Or; the rich do not automatically become wealthy by hard work and there are other factors which cause some to become rich; inheritance, nepotism, corruption etc.



Ah well he is the spokesman on foreign affiars. And the Middle-East is very much in the forefront.


Think for myself because someone else tells me to do so....

The emboldened passage confuses me insofar as you say it's not a radical outlook


Explain and discuss.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

The emboldened passage confuses me insofar as you say it's not a radical outlook


Explain and discuss.

Very well, my own personal belief is that there isn't a necessary correlation between wealth and hard work.
Sure it happens but it is not a given.

As such, I am surprised that there are those who claim the rich deserve their wealth and yet don't see anything wrong with someone inheriting vast tracts of wealth. They become wealthy but have not deserved it.

FlutterinBantam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Very well, my own personal belief is that there isn't a necessary correlation between wealth and hard work.
Sure it happens but it is not a given.

As such, I am surprised that there are those who claim the rich deserve their wealth and yet don't see anything wrong with someone inheriting vast tracts of wealth. They become wealthy but have not deserved it.

Now let me say this carefully.

After most of the respondents on this thread have basically told you you are talking thru your hole (not me) you believe the emboldened passage is not a radical outlook.??

Tell me I'm hallucinating buddy.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Now let me say this carefully.

After most of the respondents on this thread have basically told you you are talking thru your hole (not me) you believe the emboldened passage is not a radical outlook.??

Tell me I'm hallucinating buddy.

Where has anyone said that.
You Smccarrick and Dotsman have disagreed with me; are ye "most of the respondants" on this entire thread?

Ok.

Spudmonkey

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You claimed the rich deserve their wealth.
Their children do not; who you are born to does not involve hard work or gumption.
Which is why I asked about the inheritance aspect.

True, and when I think of this I think of Ross O'Carroll Kelly and rich kids from South Dublin, but the fact of the matter is they are lucky. Just like you are lucky when you win the lotto, and you don't have to pay tax on that as far as I know. Even though the threshold for inheritance tax at the moment is €521,208, I really don't know if this needs to be increased..

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, those who cheat the system are bad too

However, there were already enough people debating whether the welfare cheats.

Yes I'm almost fed up of reading dole threads, but the fact still remains, you can only exhaust so many avenues by taxes... Cuts to these cheats must happen in conjunction!

Lockstep

Spudmonkey wrote: »

True, and when I think of this I think of Ross O'Carroll Kelly and rich kids from South Dublin, but the fact of the matter is they are lucky. Just like you are lucky when you win the lotto, and you don't have to pay tax on that as far as I know. Even though the threshold for inheritance tax at the moment is €521,208, I really don't know if this needs to be increased..

That is true; there is a large amount of luck involved in wealth.
Which is why I'm surprised that there are those who feel that the wealth get their money purely from hard work.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Yes I'm almost fed up of reading dole threads, but the fact still remains, you can only exhaust so many avenues by taxes... Cuts to these cheats must happen in conjunction!

Yeah; I'd favour tightening of regulations on the wealthy frauds as well as the poorer ones.

FlutterinBantam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Where has anyone said that.
You Smccarrick and Dotsman have disagreed with me; are ye "most of the respondants" on this entire thread?

Ok.

Ok lets get down to basics

What are you actually saying.?

Now here I am Mr F Bantam married with two kids Caimin and Kerrie.

I work as a fluffer in a cat house in Camden St. and through the dint of hard work and application I amass a fortune of 250k.Work my bollox off.

On June 03 while fluffing up a Polish pole dancer I collapse and expire.

what happens my 250K pal.

Spudmonkey

kickoutthejams wrote: »

That is true; there is a large amount of luck involved in wealth.
Which is why I'm surprised that there are those who feel that the wealth get their money purely from hard work.

I don't think anyone denies there is a certain amount of luck involved with wealth. Nor does hard work correlate with wealth. E.g someone lucky enough to have a half acre in the middle of Dublin four years ago..

But the fact remains, after paying taxes on that wealth, what he does with the money after is his own business!!

FlutterinBantam

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Ok lets get down to basics

What are you actually saying.?

Now here I am Mr F Bantam married with two kids Caimin and Kerrie.

I work as a fluffer in a cat house in Camden St. and through the dint of hard work and application I amass a fortune of 250k.Work my bollox off.

On June 03 while fluffing up a Polish pole dancer I collapse and expire.

what happens my 250K pal.

hello!!!

What will I do with this 250K


Yooo hoo

Spudmonkey

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

hello!!!

What will I do with this 250K


Yooo hoo

Bury it with you!!

FlutterinBantam

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Bury it with you!!

heh heh, like we buried this spoofer.

right thats the end


Wipes hands.


See ya Spud.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Ok lets get down to basics

What are you actually saying.?

Now here I am Mr F Bantam married with two kids Caimin and Kerrie.

I work as a fluffer in a cat house in Camden St. and through the dint of hard work and application I amass a fortune of 250k.Work my bollox off.

On June 03 while fluffing up a Polish pole dancer I collapse and expire.

what happens my 250K pal.

Oh there's a few things you could do with it
charity as stipulated in your will
to fund a scholarship program for kids.
Some of it put aside to allow your kids to finish school
Used to fund the state in the upbringing of your kids

And so on.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

hello!!!

What will I do with this 250K


Yooo hoo

I'm very sorry. I was offline.
Life outside of boards and all that.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

heh heh, like we buried this spoofer.

right thats the end


Wipes hands.


See ya Spud.

Why is it so important to you that you "buried" someone.
It's the internet. We argue and then go back to our lives.
Once you stopped screaming "COMMUNIST!!11!!!!1!" and made your point that is. It took a while.

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I don't think anyone denies there is a certain amount of luck involved with wealth. Nor does hard work correlate with wealth. E.g someone lucky enough to have a half acre in the middle of Dublin four years ago..

But the fact remains, after paying taxes on that wealth, what he does with the money after is his own business!!

Yes but the crux of this comes down to those who claimed that wealth=hard work.
Inheritance seems at odds with this.

thebullkf

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Oh there's a few things you could do with it
charity as stipulated in your will
to fund a scholarship program for kids.
Some of it put aside to allow your kids to finish school
Used to fund the state in the upbringing of your kids

And so on.



I'm very sorry. I was offline.
Life outside of boards and all that.




Why is it so important to you that you "buried" someone.
It's the internet. We argue and then go back to our lives.
Once you stopped screaming "COMMUNIST!!11!!!!1!" and made your point that is. It took a while.



Yes but the crux of this comes down to those who claimed that wealth=hard work.
Inheritance seems at odds with this.

i wouldhave to say that most wealthcomes from graft,luck and steely determination- i.e. long hours,stressful life.
so i think their kids are entitled to the inheiritence.
does it mean their not hard workers???

no



does it mean they're lucky???


depends.



if having a parent in an early grave plus a huge inheritence is considered
lucky/undeserving.

what about the lack of family time involved in accrueing said wealth?

Weekends-bank holidays-xmas-birthdays-school stuff...

its scant compensation.
though you'd draw some comfort from the fact that your hardworking parent(s) had the foresight to provide for the next generation (or 2!)

and as for the other poster about "a piece of land in D4 a few years ago"

you have to remember-land back then was extremely expensive relative to standard income(nothing compared to theboom years-granted) and to buy then was a hard thing to do as lending restrainst were much stricter.

I remember 13+ years ago after a particularily fruitful year-(6 months of nights) i earned 25k punts....good money then.

i tried to get amortgage or 67k....BANK MANAGER LAUGHED AT ME.

yet it was under 2.5 times my wage!!!

went for mortgage again 4 years ago...

was offered 480k....480k!!


despite only earning 40k a year... 12x my salary...

so inclosing i'm all for inheritance-disagree with inheritance tax altogether.

friend ofmine from the country was given a piece of land in rural offaly

by his father....had to pay a tax on it to the tune of 29k..

a type of inheritance tax.

a disgrace.

couldn't afford it.

got a council house instead=costingthe state more now.

in his case it was counterproductive.

rant over:o

slán.

b28

nipplenuts wrote: »

Now find one from 2008/9

You could have found one and made a point lol
Anybody with a thanks for me:rolleyes:

Spudmonkey

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes but the crux of this comes down to those who claimed that wealth=hard work.
Inheritance seems at odds with this.

Earning the money initially may have taken hard work and graft and possibly a lot of time. They say the more you earn the less time you have to spend it! But once tax has been paid on this it's the owners money and they should be legally entitled to do anything they want on it!

It's not the state's business to choose if someones kids are deserving of the money or not, it's the owner of that wealth! It should be up to him to decide if they are deserving of an inheritance or not!

Take Chuck Feeney for example, he is giving away his billions and leaving very little (if anything) to his kids. This may not because he thinks they don't deserve it, it may be because he wants them to earn for themselves. But its his choice, not anyone elses, and certainly not the governments!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

smccarrick wrote: »

I very much doubt this is the case. A family of two, both working on the average industrial wage, with a normal sized mortgage, cannot afford any of this- so its highly unlikely social welfare recipients can......

If that family have squandered their pay like idiots, they cannot. I can afford it, my girlfriend can afford it, my family can afford it. It's not that expensive if you budget correctly.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Please do:(
It's what a debate involves. If you have ideas and a logic behind them I'd be interested in seeing them.

Let's outline this again; it is claimed that the wealthy deserve their wealth and worked hard for it.
Inheritance seems to go against this.

It is not that simple, the wealthy deserve their wealth in any scenario where the wealth was gained legally.

Why are they deserving?
Because they were randomly born to the right people?

Yea... is that difficult for you to understand?

Nah, I'm studying in NUIG.
Nice place too.

Ah a student... :rolleyes:

I was one once upon a time, when you enter the real world your perspective will change...

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why are they any more deserving of it than society at large?
Who we are born to does not entail deserving of wealth.

Why in the hell would the state deserve it? Who cares if the little brats deserve it or not. It was earned by their parents, why not give it to their offspring, it is very very basic. Just like providing an education or food or shelter, by your unbelievable logic, people should look after other poorer kids before their own, just because they are poor. You are taking the piss.

Suggesting it goes to an organisation such as the government who don't give a damn about the citizens of a country, for them to squander it on foreign holidays, helicopter rides, expensive manicures all at our expence just shows how much you know about life in general...

I would rather give my money to my kids and know they are looked after well than to give it to the likes of that fat b!tch mary harney so she can stuff her fat face with doughnuts. If the scum that is the government took pay cuts and were paid a reasonable wage, spent our money reasonably and had any clue, then I wouldn't mind an inheritance tax, but this is not the case, and the money of the intelligent, carefull and hard working people is been taken from them and spent wrecklessly. What is the logic in that?

Ah but they are not deserving of the wealth.

The law states otherwise, being born to a wealthy family makes you deserving of the wealth your parents accumilated, unless otherwise stated in a will.

Which means we have a system allowing those undeserving of wealth to become rich.

I suggest you start making some real points, you have just posted rubbish which indicates you are a begrudger. Take the money from the person inherating the fortune, only because they didn't work hard for it. That is not reason enough to begrudge someone money. Sure lets stop the lotto, bingo and any other competition where people win prizes and money. They don't deserve it either, right?

And at odds with the claim that the rich are rich because of hard work.

This is true in a lot of cases. Also, who is to say that the children who got the inheritance are not hard workers? They may have not worked for the inheritance money, but may be good decent people in general? You would begrudge them of this wealth?

You nor I have the figures of who worked for their millions and who inherited it. Saying all the rich or the majority of the rich are rich not because of hard work could very well be inaccurate.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Hmm; how exactly am I radical? For suggesting that inheritance is at odds with the idea of the rich being deserving of their wealth>
That is interesting.

You are radical, you have radical ideas and suggestions, if you knew what the word radical meant then you wouldn't be asking this question. You idea/suggestion of abolishing inheritance is a radical idea/suggestion. It's crazy and thoughtless, no real reason for it.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

That is true; there is a large amount of luck involved in wealth.

There is also a huge amount of hard work involved.

Which is why I'm surprised that there are those who feel that the wealth get their money purely from hard work.

Are you suggesting that luck is the only factor involved in becomming wealthy?

Some do get their money purely from hard work. Is that impossible for you to digest?

Yeah; I'd favour tightening of regulations on the wealthy frauds as well as the poorer ones.

We are living in a society which doesn't differenciate between the poor and wealthy frauds. Although some will say having money will help you if you are caught


As for your ideas, it is a step towards communism, if you agree or disagree, I don't really care... because it IS.

Suggesting that people donate their money to charity (you obviously don't have a clue about charities), to the state (you also don't have a clue about the state either) or to any other bodies, is completely insane.

When you get some life experience you will understand this. Don't tell me you have, because you have displayed that you do not... sorry for ya.