• ddplf@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m sorry but biting into that particular number was rather counterproductive, as it was arbitrary - make it 50 if you care, but my point still stands. Armed elite’s successors are the armed elite still, but we can counter that. It would still leave them with funds to afford some very comfortable living, just no longer enough to terrorize the world.

    • Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m sorry if it came off that way, but I was not trying to be critical of your idea at all - I was trying to see how many people would be impacted, and I think you could easily get away with limiting the amount of inheritance even further.

      I think being a worker gives a person perspective that is critical to their development, and no one should inherit or be given enough money that they never have to do any work in their life.

      Not only does unrestricted inheritance directly cause the development of a disconnected wealthy class, but it’s also bad for the people who inherit too much.