• Yes it should

    I have connections to the person who died. Not bob or Suzy or jimmy or any other random person who would get get money otherwise, because they are poor and the government thinks they deserve it more. I do. If you don't have connections to the deceased person, you don't get their belongings unless the deceased person said so in a wil. And what about family objects? Some families have belongings that have been with them for hundreds of years. If an object has been In my family for hundreds of Years than some random person is not going to get it, so they can destroy it to do as they want with it. I get it because it's part of my family.

  • Inheritance promotes good values.

    Filial piety is a value that is fundamental to human society, and the abolition of inheritance will weaken it greatly. For one thing, if a son or daughter decides to inherit the capital used by his or her parents to run a family business, that is a good thing - inheriting your parents' business is an important form of filial piety. Moreover, as Dilara pointed out, there are emotional bonds to objects owned by deceased people. If a son carries an object owned by his father all the time to remind himself of his father, that is filial piety, and it's a good thing. Also, as Dilara again correctly pointed out, some objects are passed down in families from generation from generation. Such symbolic objects of the family line are beneficial for maintaining a sense of belonging to the family and respect for the ancestors who acquired these items; this is again beneficial to filial piety. With all these benefits, there is no reason to abolish inheritance at all.

    With that said, I agree that inheritance brings about negative impacts. For very large inheritances, they can be taxed to reduce the amount of social inequality created. With that said, I would not support abolishing inheritance at all.

  • Depends on your political views

    If you are a communist you'll say no, otherwise you'll say yes.

    Do you want the simple and plain answer of why it should exist? Because it was the deceased's property and he/she'd likely prefer to leave it to someone he cared about, and that should be respected.

    Some people really believe that all those who inherit property are lazy and all those who don't are hard working people? Imo it's the other way round. Generations of hard working people make an empire, whilst generations of laziness just inherit debts

  • You have it backwards, inheritance will promote hard work

    Sure inheritance may make it look like it's all negative to those who didn't start with wealth, however it's actually supposed to be an incentive even to those of the poor. Because if they work hard, they not only gain for themselves, but for their sons and daughters, making it all the more meaningful.

    As for the topic of fairness, sure it may seem not fair for a child to be showered with grand things just because of what they were born into. But I think it would be even all the more unfair to the Mother or Father if he/she was not heavily rewarded by having their children born into a less troublesome life.

    Inheritance is a bigger just reward to the parent than it is an unjust reward to the child.

  • It is impractical

    The inheritance system is impractical because it enables successive generations of people to monopolise property and money on the basis that they are entitled to whatever their parents earned. The result is that people who have never worked end up with property that they do not need to the detriment of others, who work hard but receive meager scraps by comparison. As a society, it is impractical to tolerate laziness and leave hard work unrewarded, as it encourages unrest, which may lead to anarchy.

  • Inheritance creates a growing wealth gap and provides resources to people who may not have the skills to use it.

    I think we can all agree that it takes money to make money. You need to have substantial disposable income to generate more income. Statistically it is VERY rare to generate wealth from modest beginnings. This is why people like who do become quite famous. This means in time you will return to an oligarchy where the needs of the few are catered to while the rest suffer. Once you have enough idiots in the oligarchy (their smart parents have all passed on) you will end up in upheaval. The challenge is how to allow people to provide a comfortable future for their children (fair) but not make them kings. The idea is that you genetic progeny may not be qualified to manage that much wealth. In fact their mismanagement may hurt the lives of others due to poor business decisions. You may argue that 'managers' with better skill will ensure the wealth is properly managed then I ask why don;t the 'managers' own the wealth? If after leaving a comfortable sum to an heir the remaining wealth should be 'auctioned' off where other successful managers can acquire it and grow it. When they pass the next generation of entrepreneurs will take up the assets. This will assure that the resources are always in the hands of people with the skills to make use of it and therefore the best for everyone. Of course this only works if you have a global government as no smart business person will stay where an estate tax eliminates their ability to choose an heir. So as much as I believe that inheritance should not exist must remain until we have a global government.

  • If you didn't earn it, you don't deserve it

    Just because you are related to somebody who worked hard to build wealth, doesn't mean you are any more entitled to it than somebody else. It is profoundly wrong that some people inherit huge amounts of wealth and never have to work a day in their lives, while others are born into terrible poverty and struggle just to have a roof over their heads and food on the table. Talent and hard work, not class privilege, should determine a person's financial success.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-06-14T21:46:29.200
I like the picture.