Resentment towards inherited wealth

There is a documentary on inherited wealth called 'Born Rich' (it can be viewed online here http://www.documentarytube.com/born-rich-documentary).

The young heiresses all of whom will one day inherit billions of dollars are interviewed on their relationship to money and how the money alters their relationship to all those who do not have money.

Now I found this interesting because its obvious that growing up with money is like growing up in an alternate universe, they're experience in the world isolates them but what I found more intriguing was the response to the documentary.

Almost anyone who had anything to say about the subjects descended into character assassination. The subject incurred an almost rabid hatred for anyone who had access to wealth they themselves didn't earn. Why is this? Why the resentment? The children of the wealthy are no more to blame for their wealth than the children of the poor for the poverty they are destined to experience. So why the hate?

Another interesting response was the habit to point out that the heirs were not exceptional in any way, that they were somehow wasteful and unenlightened, not very intelligent, without wisdom, a mind or a soul. But why should they be any of these things? If affluence is a birthright as in these cases why do we expect the heirs to be any different from the average joe on the ground? Is money supposed to make them more exceptional?

There are enough of the unenlightened, wasteful and stupid among the unwashed masses and we do not expect anything more from them. Why do we expect more from the rich? Does money require responsibility and if so why should the poor be absolved of all responsibility?

Isn't the hatred and urge to dismiss them a simple function of envy born from the fact that you don't have to be special or exceptional, that wealth is simply an outcome of luck? I think thats what annoys people the most, that the lives of ease and privilege these young people represent is a product of nothing more than being born into the right family.

The responses to the documentary which I believe to be a sincere attempt makes the reticence of the heirs understandable. No wonder they make it a rule never to talk about money and isolate themselves in a world of those who are just like them. The mob in their envy would have them stripped and their wealth re-distributed so that no one can claim to be any closer to the sun.

I found the dilemma of the Vanderbilt heir to be quite telling, his awareness that all the accomplishments ascribed to his family had nothing to do with him, that they were built by people he didn't even know, the feeling that they have to justify themselves. But why do they have to justify themselves to anyone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They usually don't and you won't find many that do. Who have you heard talk about why they have money and what they do with it, only a very few that I recall.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Amazing its like no one reads the OP. From whom have I heard? Its stated in the OP that there is a documentary called Born Rich where the heirs to billions are interviewed on money and their relationship to money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I personally believe that societies should aspire towards the notion of providing their children with a level playing field. From a genetic point of view, this is obviously not possible, as some children will be born better genetically equipped than others. However, I do not believe that society should compound this genetic issue of a naturally unlevel playing field by also encouraging an unlevel playing field in terms of wealth.

To me, it is a no-brainer that if someone who has amassed wealth of, say, £1,000,000 dies, they should have to pay a percentage of this to the state who can then re-distribute it. In England, the rate of inheritance tax is 40% and the threshold is around £300,000, so if you die with an estate of £1,300,000, you would pay the state £400,000 and still have £900,000 left to pass on to the people of your choosing. This to me seems a perfectly fair, moral and logical thing to do. If you do not take from the rich when they die, wealth could potentially accumulate in families and not filter back into the society which helped to create this family their wealth.

The big picture as I see it is that a very small percentage of the world's population control the majority of the wealth. An article titled "The distribution of wealth in America" states that the top 1% of the population controls 34% of the nation's wealth and the bottom 40% control less than 1%. Now, I believe in free markets, competition and incentives to do well and improve, and I accept that free markets can create inequality. But as far as I'm concerned, after free markets have been allowed to operate, the state should attempt to re-distribute wealth to reduce inequality where it is extreme.

To come back to England, I can give an example of the problems that arise with such levels of wealth inequality. The BBC journalist Andrew Neil recently did a documentary called "Posh and Posher Why Public School Boys Run Britain". This documentary highlighted the fact that the vast majority of the top political and media jobs in England are occupied by people from wealthy backgrounds, who do not necessarily represent broader society.

The fact of the matter is that if your family has enough money to send you to an elite, high performing private school in England, such as Eton College, where many of the current conservative led government attended, your statistical chances of going to the best English universities i.e. Oxford and Cambridge are exponentially higher than the chances of the average Joe Bloggs who doesn't have money and goes to state school, like the majority of the population do. The approximate cost of attending an institution like Eton College is around £30,000 per year, a sum that is more than the average adult in England earns in a year. So, we have a situation where our political class, the so-called voice of the people is made up entirely of rich kids who do not represent broader society and many of whom have quite frankly not had a normal job in their entire lives.

In my opinion, this is something which should be addressed and effort should be made to broaden opportunity for children from less priviledged backgrounds. Of this, inheritance tax forms a vital part of the solution.

 

But someone who is going to inherit billions can easily pay this 40% and still be filthy rich so I don't think the tax issue is relevant since there will still be those who resent them because of their wealth.

Why shouldn't a parent who is worth billions afford their children with that wealth? Who are we to tell other's what they should do with their money? Because at the end of the day the 40% awarded the state isn't going to afford others with an equal playing field. Inherited wealth affords one with privileges that this 40% tax can never address or even equalize hence the resentment.

By the way have you seen the 7 Up BBC series? It shows how the rich as well as the poor are streamlined into their future positions which goes back to what you were saying about top universities. However we do know that there are those of less privileged backgrounds who do gain access to these universites simply because they're brilliant.

 

But you asked the question

To which I was responding, that's all. I was just curious if YOU ever heard many very wealthy people talk about their lifestyles and what they do with their money. My point was exactly that, not many of them talk very much and that is all I wanted to express. I do hear at times about Gates and what he's doing and also a few others but all in all I really don't read much about them.

 

Duh. The question is asked based on the fact that they DID talk about this issue which is in the documentary.

 

True, but that was only one instance that is being brought to light, we never do hear about the others because they stay to themselves , that was all I was saying.

 

So you want to clutter the thread with an irrelevancy? I asked why they should be responsible not whether they are inclined to talk about the issue.

 

To which I answered "they usually don't talk about themselves", or didn't I make myself clear enough?

 

Cosmic you're wasting bandwidth. See Snowsportsid? He's contributing to and reflecting on the OP. You're just bunching up over a silly side note that's irrelevant to the thread.

 

Sorry, perhaps I went a little bit off topic. In my opinion, 40% is too low of an inheritance tax threshold. I'd be happy to see it between 60 and 80%. I'm not an economist though, so I don't know what the economic implications of such a policy would be. The sad fact of the matter is a lot of filthy rich people avoid this tax anyway, by cleverly arranging their money (offshore back accounts etc.).

I don't think it's a particularly honorable to resent someone purely on the basis that they're rich. Bill Gates is a very rich man but I believe he has pledged to spend all of his wealth before he dies through his charity foundation, which I think is a very commendable thing for him to be doing.

Of course a family should be able to leave something to their children. But with the kind of levels of wealth we are talking about where things like inheritance tax are concerned, the family is leaving much more money than the child could possibly ever need. As such, I don't see any reason why it isn't fair for them to also give something back to the society that helped them accumulate that wealth. I think balance is the key in this kind of policy.

I haven't seen the BBC 7 Up series, but I'll have a look and see if I can download it on your recommendation. You're right, some brilliant candidates do make it from less priviledged backgrounds. I'm completely full of respect for them. William Hague, the current foreign secretary, is a good example. But the problem is, they're few and far between and the reason for this is that the odds are stacked against them.

 

They would probably take their wealth elsewhere. When Holland increased the taxes on the rich many of them simply moved to Belgium which lured them with lower taxes. I believe Denmark had a high tax on the wealthy but then they abandoned that kind of tax but its still quite high.

Well that's the point isn't it, that they are leaving vast amounts of wealth that their children could never possibly spend, as a matter of fact they can live off of the interest and never touch the principle. Don't you think that the wealthy do give back to society via their taxes and charitable contributions? You'll have to excuse my playing devil's advocate here but I do find it interesting that those who's wealth has been accumulated through industry are deemed responsible for the rest of society who haven't been able to do so. There is an argument that you do not create more wealth by heavy taxes on the wealthy you just dissuade them from making such an effort. I don't believe this to be true, I think the wealthy simply move elsewhere.

You must watch 7 Up. Its so fascinating. It truly shows how class disparity begins in the womb as the wealthy are awarded with everything that insures their success psychologically, financially and socially. Basically they take children at the age of seven from a variety of diverse class backgrounds and interview them. Then they go back every seven years to see what happens to them. The wealthy knew exactly where they were going to go to university, its always mummy says this and mummy says that and to the dismay of those watching they did exactly what was expected of them.

You can see these excerpts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJj-fc6h0fo&NR=1

and a more general one here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rQ1V7m0Kfs&feature=related

 

Unquestionably there is resentment against those who inherit great sums of wealth. Some of that resentment is human envy no doubt. But part of it I think tracks back to our Christian roots, Luke 12:48 which is the basis for the idiom " too whom much is given, much is expected". And too often those who are given much fall short on virtually any measure.

We have people like george II who do not reflect well on those who have inherited vast sums of money and live on family trusts. The measure of any individual should be based on the merits of what they produce, not on the money in their bank accounts. We should not forget, wither you are Christian or not, Luke12:48.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 12:48&version=NIV

 

Mrs.Lucysnow, you know what, that is so strange. Now that you have explained what 7 Up is, I've realised that I did see the original programme in this series when I was a child. If I remember correctly, I found it to be an extremely fascinating program, as you have said. A few years ago, the programme came back into my mind for some reason, and I thought to myself, I never got to see the follow up programmes. The problem was that I couldn't remember what the series was called, so I was unable to follow up on it. You've just given me the missing piece of information! Thank you very much!

Now, with regard to you playing devil's advocate, I do excuse you because playing devil's advocate can be fun sometimes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I fully take on board your economic point about people moving around to avoid tax. There was a study into capital gains tax recently in America, that concluded that raising the rate of capital gains tax actually reduces the net tax revenue generated, because it stifles enterprise, which tends to disapear off to another country with a lower tax burden.

One approach would be to take a more multi-lateral approach to taxation, where, for example, the USA and the UK consulted on taxation and delivered more coherence between their policies, meaning that the two countries compete with each other on matters other than taxation. For example, if the rate of corporation tax in the USA is lower than the equivilent tax in the UK, a business might choose to move it's operations from the UK to the USA. However, if both the UK and the USA collaborated to set their corporation tax at an equal rate, they could compete with each on other things, like who has got the best infrastructure or transportation network. This would allow governments to raise tax to the level necessary to reduce the gaping inequality gap.

I appreciate that this kind of policy implementation would probably only be possible in a utopian world and that coherence on taxation between, for example, the USA and the UK, would be an economic impossibility because our economies are very different and therefore require different strategies. I suppose that kind of thing would be a step towards one world government, which I think is what "The New World Order" is alledged to be, which I understand to be very unpopular! However, I do like to try and think out of the box on these matters because I genuinely believe that, as a society, we should be trying to distribute wealth more equally, as I believe this is the morally correct thing to do. Someone quite famous once said, "a man who dies rich, dies disgraced". Yes, philanthropy is fantastic and complete respect to anyone who engages in it. But if people who probably should be being philanthropic from a moral point of view aren't doing so, I say let the state impose it upon them at death. Have you detected the fact that I am a bit of a socialist yet, Mrs.Lucysnow?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@Snowsportsid

I also lean towards a democratic socialist system as seen in Denmark, Sweden and Norway but as you pointed out these economic possibilities wouldn't necessarily work everywhere.

@Joepistole

Yes its this idea of responsibility I find interesting. When you are born into a circumstance why are you morally bound to others? Meaning we have this notion that nothing need be expected from the poor because they are born poor and yet we expect some kid who inherits millions and lives in a bubble to somehow understand or even know the problems of the many. You said that those who were given much often fall short in every measure. But why are they expected to be more exceptional than anyone else? You say that the measure of an individual should be based on merit not in their bank accounts and yet we expect them to use their bank accounts to solve the problems of the disadvantaged. Because of this expectation the rich then throw money at charitable organizations, money they won't even miss as if throwing money is the answer to economic disparity. Don't get me wrong, I don't profess to have an answer to this. I just think its interesting that we hold these people up to standards, I mean standards that are exceptional since we don't hold them towards the middle class or poor. You know it what was so striking in the documentary was when they interviewed a young woman who had considered becoming a doctor to which she replied she would be destined to "make nothing". Funny isn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is what I mean by them living in an alternate universe, they are literally separated from even the most basic concerns or realities of the average person. So why do we think society would be able to expect anything from them? Its like we expect them to understand what they could never possibly understand. I find the same thing in the western middle-class in relation to those of abject poverty in developing countries.

 

I doubt i will watch the documentary so just giving some observations. Seems like we are talking about very different things here and conflating them. You do have royalty or people born into dynasties but they are that is more a matter of being lucky, kind of like hittting the lottery. And also there are probably many more people who are born nominally wealthy or even many times poor and become incredibly wealthy.

That is true to an extent but you have to remember these people are accustomed to living a certain lifestyle and they can spend their inherited fortunes very quickly.

 

Breeding is something the wealthy can't buy, so they remain ever studious to the most available sources of it's emanations...ever trying to convince themselves of it's insignificance.

 

Agreed that inheritance tax is a good idea. If you're going to tax the population then you should take it from people who can shrug it off rather than the poor and vulnerable where possible.

 

Are you TOTALLY Deluded?

George Bush ran and served for 8 years as Governor of Texas and 8 years as POTUS, so CLEARLY he has given back, since NO ONE takes these extremely difficult jobs for the SALARY.

On the other hand

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...preading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help

Arthur