Hacker News Reader

Comment by charlesdm | Hacker News Reader

Ridiculous. As if all people who inherit money are useless shmucks with no abilities.

And where does one draw the line? Inheriting $100k? 500k? A million? Five million?

If you make "a fortune", wouldn't you want to pass it on to your kids eventually? Because I do.

Inherited wealth gives you an unearned advantage. Therefore, on average for any given slice of society, the least talented members will be the children of privilege. The more money you’ve been given the more likely your peers outclass you.

This is evident to most people, but surprisingly not obvious, in my experience, to the people most directly affected.

But what does it really mean to "earn it"? What if someone had richer parents who could provide better education? What if someone was diagnosed with cancer after finishing that education? Does a $10M/yr. CEO really "deserve" their fortune? Has he really "busted his ass" anymore than a janitorial worker who works 3 jobs to make ends meet? What about affirmative action? What role does "inheritance of genes" play? Luck plays a much greater role than many free-market, survival-of-the-fittest capitalists want to admit. And so why is it that luck in the form of health, talent, country of citizenship, physical attractiveness, etc. should be any less reason for envy (which is the real issue here) than the gift of money?

Certainly a large number of people with significant inherited wealth are useless. It is one of those things where there is ample anecdotal evidence and even presidential evidence. I know one people who denies this. My friend who inherited a bunch of wealth, like 20 million.

Being that wealthy doesn't mean you'll be happy or not struggle, but it makes a lot of things easier. There are a lot of people who can barely feed their kids, will they get the opportunity to achieve to their ability? Lot harder for them than for you.

You could draw the line at $0. That's the usual edge case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com