MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Roman Rockafella leave all his money to his kids?

mr-tom_2

englishmac wrote: »

Welfare is about supporting those in need within the community when they fall on (or experience through no fault of their own eg disability) hard times to help them through eg unemployment. And provide support services that people would otherwise be unable to afford eg health services. It isn't about taking back as much as you can of your contribution. If you don't need it, don't take it. Less tax would be required in the long run so everyone wins in a supportive atmosphere.

I must be missing something. What child in this country doesn't need an education?

How is it a step forward to deny that education to kids?

Where taxes have been paid (and I don't think that it is fair to believe that everybody who earns more than oneself is guilty of tax evasion), the requisite public services should be provided.

I'm going to make this as simple as possible. The top 12% of tax payers provide 60% of all income tax revenue in the UK (source: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax-advice/income-tax/article.html?in_article_id=404405&in_page_id=77 ). The principle of taxation is that you pay money to make the country work, from which everybody benefits. Tax isn't free money, otherwise I would be allowed to tax people too - only the government can do it and only for the good of the whole of the public.

Under your system, 88% of the country would be reliant on the fact that 12% would continue to give nearly half of their income, despite being excluded from the "for the good of the tax payer" bit.

Whilst it is easy to see the appeal in the Robin Hood sentiments, frankly most other countries would welcome such high contributors with open arms.

Whilst you should ask what you can do for your country rather than what your country can do for you, it is nonetheless entirely reasonable to expect that a modern civilised nation will ensure that every child receives an education regardless of what their parents have made of their life.

Were we suggesting discriminating against the poor rather than the rich, I am sure this discussion would not be taking place.

fiish

I like Peter Jones's idea which would actually encourage his children to work. However I would also give the kids an initial sum earmarked to pay for education at least up to degree level or similar level to make them actually employable. The least one could do if one has the means is to help their kids avoid being in a debt trap even before their careers begin.

aakayb

RUFFYONEVILLA wrote: »

Name me one outstanding character who has achieved great things that was born into a life of having everything on a plate?

Charles Dunstone and Donald Trump, to name but two characters.

ffylip

The approach taken by Peter Jones is what is colloquially known in trust and estate practice as a "beach bum clause". Do no remunerative work under your own steam and you get not a bean of daddy's hard earned cash! :rotfl:Should be more of it in Notting Hill.

Thankfully, we have complete freedom in the UK to dispose of our assets on death :T(unlike the perfidious French) - so there's no reason why the wife would (or even should) get half of such an obscenely large estate. Even without a will, she wouldn't get half - just joint property, a smallish statutory legacy and a life interest in half the rest.

englishmac

mr-tom wrote: »

I must be missing something. What child in this country doesn't need an education?

How is it a step forward to deny that education to kids?

Where taxes have been paid (and I don't think that it is fair to believe that everybody who earns more than oneself is guilty of tax evasion), the requisite public services should be provided.

I'm going to make this as simple as possible. The top 12% of tax payers provide 60% of all income tax revenue in the UK (source: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax-advice/income-tax/article.html?in_article_id=404405&in_page_id=77 ). The principle of taxation is that you pay money to make the country work, from which everybody benefits. Tax isn't free money, otherwise I would be allowed to tax people too - only the government can do it and only for the good of the whole of the public.

Under your system, 88% of the country would be reliant on the fact that 12% would continue to give nearly half of their income, despite being excluded from the "for the good of the tax payer" bit.

Whilst it is easy to see the appeal in the Robin Hood sentiments, frankly most other countries would welcome such high contributors with open arms.

Whilst you should ask what you can do for your country rather than what your country can do for you, it is nonetheless entirely reasonable to expect that a modern civilised nation will ensure that every child receives an education regardless of what their parents have made of their life.

Were we suggesting discriminating against the poor rather than the rich, I am sure this discussion would not be taking place.

At no point did I suggest:

a) there are children in this country who do not require an education
b) RR is guilty of tax evasion
c) This is my system of taxation – I do not personally agree with a higher rate of tax for higher earners; anyone who earns more pays more in tax even if the rate of tax remains the same
d) This is an issue of ‘poor’ versus rich – I find difficulty relating the term ‘poor’ to standards in this country. It’s not exactly the starving in Africa. A welfare state is not about rich and poor, although those at the bottom of the wealth pile are most likely to benefit. It is about helping those in need when they need it – that may be at the beginning or end of their life, or at any point in between. Nobody knows what lies ahead.

The bottom line is the less funding the country needs to run a basic welfare system - that is ‘needs’ and ‘basic’ – the less taxation is required. That has a direct effect on all taxpayers.
It is reasonable that every child should receive a basic education; I don’t find it reasonable to expect others to fund more than a basic education. In reality, anyone with a large fortune is likely to choose the best education they can for their offspring – and pay for it as a result. No doubt I will receive comments regarding the cost of education barring those in socially disadvantaged families. But the same families always seem to be able to afford their cigarette and booze habits, they don’t seem to feel much responsibility to fund their child’s education. Also, the salaries of a significant number of teachers is quite obscene particularly when comparing their performance to that of teachers 40 or more years ago – the cost of education is too high as a result. And further education is not just available at the end of basic education; there are opportunities aplenty to further your own education, often relating to the career you find yourself in.

Student loans are unpopular - there appears to be an attitude that education should be free. Nothing is free. Nobody is owed a life of advantage and nobody else should be expected to fund others’ aspirations. What exactly is wrong with working for what you have achieved?

The issues are complex and far reaching because the principles behind the creation of a welfare state are not matched in reality.

mr-tom_2

englishmac wrote: »

At no point did I suggest:

a) there are children in this country who do not require an education

Um, in effect you did. The whole reason that we have services available to all (and in fact compulsory) is that otherwise people might not receive them.

I can assure you that there are parents who would be quite content not to send their children to school and would be even less inclined to do so if they had to pay for it. I am sure this applies every bit as much to rich people as to poor, and therefore unless the government will educate each child for free, some children will inevitably not get educated.

b) RR is guilty of tax evasion[/quote]

No - that one was another poster whose point I was responding to but I couldn't work out how to do several quotes in one message!

englishmac wrote: »

c) This is my system of taxation – I do not personally agree with a higher rate of tax for higher earners; anyone who earns more pays more in tax even if the rate of tax remains the same

Well that's different then, although cutting their tax but billing them for services seems like giving with one hand whilst taking away with the other.

englishmac wrote: »

d) This is an issue of ‘poor’ versus rich – I find difficulty relating the term ‘poor’ to standards in this country. It’s not exactly the starving in Africa. A welfare state is not about rich and poor, although those at the bottom of the wealth pile are most likely to benefit. It is about helping those in need when they need it – that may be at the beginning or end of their life, or at any point in between. Nobody knows what lies ahead.

You're right that this country isn't famine-ridden, but actually there is appalling poverty here - just look at the fate of slaves brought into the UK to see this.

englishmac wrote: »

The bottom line is the less funding the country needs to run a basic welfare system - that is ‘needs’ and ‘basic’ – the less taxation is required. That has a direct effect on all taxpayers.
It is reasonable that every child should receive a basic education; I don’t find it reasonable to expect others to fund more than a basic education. In reality, anyone with a large fortune is likely to choose the best education they can for their offspring – and pay for it as a result. No doubt I will receive comments regarding the cost of education barring those in socially disadvantaged families. But the same families always seem to be able to afford their cigarette and booze habits, they don’t seem to feel much responsibility to fund their child’s education. Also, the salaries of a significant number of teachers is quite obscene particularly when comparing their performance to that of teachers 40 or more years ago – the cost of education is too high as a result. And further education is not just available at the end of basic education; there are opportunities aplenty to further your own education, often relating to the career you find yourself in.

Student loans are unpopular - there appears to be an attitude that education should be free. Nothing is free. Nobody is owed a life of advantage and nobody else should be expected to fund others’ aspirations. What exactly is wrong with working for what you have achieved?

The issues are complex and far reaching because the principles behind the creation of a welfare state are not matched in reality.

Actually, I agree with your sentiments - my objection was with them being unevenly applied. Although I do think that education to 16 should be free and so should healthcare.

Post 16, it should be funded automatically if there will be a return on investment (e.g. medical, economics) but pure sciences etc should only go on scholarship to highly talented students. I'd question the need to fund the arts at all.

Re paying for uni, I both agree and disagree. I have no difficulty with paying for education (and have done so on several occasions) but I think that a system of doing so which leaves students in colossal debt is fundamentally wrong. I think a healthier system would be higher taxation (maybe 2% on income tax for the rest of their lives))for everybody who has been a student (not just those who graduate).

Hopefully this makes sense.

Thoughts?

dbfisokay

He clearly has an obligation to his pregnant wife and to the welfare of his children when they arrive. However, in general circumstances one's personal welfare is something which one becomes personally responsible for once one has reached certain legal ages of consent.
There is no moral obligation on him to leave all his money to adult children, however he might die when they are still under his morally-obligatory duty of care-i.e when they are young, so he is obligated to ensure in those circumstances that they receive, as a minimum, enough money to live on.
I'd suggest a sliding scale of support related to their development and that any further financial inheritance be clearly seen as charitable gifts. He might discern later which of any of his children are deserving of that charity and which are simply loitering with intent to inherit. Passing on the message that financial gain is guaranteed upon parental death is not the action of a caring parent - encouraging personal responsibility for one's welfare most certainly is. The argument that they deserve better than what you had to start with is hollow - life does not come with a financial legacy.

durster2006

my head tells me let em work for it and donate most of it to charity.
my heart tells me to give em all the cash and let em go live the life i did.

if im honest.. id give it all to the kids. although i hope i would have instilled enough life skills and respect for money that i wouldnt have an issue with givin them dough.

Yes, That what im gonna do.

englishmac

Quotes in italics originally posted by mr-tom
Um, in effect you did. The whole reason that we have services available to all (and in fact compulsory) is that otherwise people might not receive them.

I can assure you that there are parents who would be quite content not to send their children to school and would be even less inclined to do so if they had to pay for it. I am sure this applies every bit as much to rich people as to poor, and therefore unless the government will educate each child for free, some children will inevitably not get educated.
The reason the services are available harks back to a time when the majority could not afford them and faced the prospect of never being able to afford them. There are laws to deal with parents who are quite content not to send their kids to school – use them. Lax parenting should be addressed, not encouraged. The kids are their responsibility.

No - that one was another poster whose point I was responding to but I couldn't work out how to do several quotes in one message!
Copy them all into word, then paste the finished product back into your reply.
Well that's different then, although cutting their tax but billing them for services seems like giving with one hand whilst taking away with the other.
Giving with one hand whilst taking away with the other is a fine description of taxes.
You're right that this country isn't famine-ridden, but actually there is appalling poverty here - just look at the fate of slaves brought into the UK to see this.
Slavery is another issue altogether. They are brought here against their will (or forced into situations they did not expect). Illegal, and an issue of holding someone against their will – this is not a welfare issue as addressed by the social welfare system. There is appalling poverty in this country but much of it is preventable. The system of social workers is in place to address these situations. I know the system often doesn’t work – the solution is to fix it so it does.
Actually, I agree with your sentiments - my objection was with them being unevenly applied. Although I do think that education to 16 should be free and so should healthcare.
Post 16, it should be funded automatically if there will be a return on investment (e.g. medical, economics) but pure sciences etc should only go on scholarship to highly talented students. I'd question the need to fund the arts at all.

Any apparent unevenness is probably because the principle of welfare has been overtaken by a significant improvement in the standard of living of many in this country. I find great difficulty with the expectations of many who obviously feel it is their right to demand, and receive, whatever they want. It was a poor day when Grammar Schools were forced under the ‘recommendation’ system to take pupils that did not make the grade. Not everyone is academic and suitable for higher education. Others are academic but prefer to leave school with a basic education and (hopefully) a job. Each to their own. The current TV advert encouraging kids to stay on is indicative of the times we live in – the examples of what they could do with their further education are top notch/exciting/fun. Yes, some will go on to careers such as these but most won’t. It just encourages the current celebrity mentality of being rich, famous and constantly being seen to have fun without doing a lot for it. I have difficulty with the automatic funding for a return on investment – the personal return is surely job satisfaction and high earnings and, particularly in the medical profession, many take their skills abroad for higher earnings. Healthcare should of course be available to all. Again, I have issues with those who are time wasters seeking medical help when they don’t need it and what is wrong with the health service (the huge cost of theft for example – stop it happening).

Re paying for uni, I both agree and disagree. I have no difficulty with paying for education (and have done so on several occasions) but I think that a system of doing so which leaves students in colossal debt is fundamentally wrong. I think a healthier system would be higher taxation (maybe 2% on income tax for the rest of their lives))for everybody who has been a student (not just those who graduate).

The higher tax rate for former students is a good idea and is a rare acknowledgement of the full cost of education – the successes/failures and the drop outs (I do not use this term derogatively – I would rather someone stopped taking a course they regretted than waste funds continuing something they have discovered was a mistake – it takes a lot to admit that mistake and act upon it). Anyone who does not use their education (for whatever reason and whether intentionally or not) has burdened the tax payer unnecessarily. The ‘colossal’ debt isn’t as great as it appears – they only pay back once their earnings reach a certain level. Then the more they earn, they more they return. And the loan is not charged at normal loan rates.

astralbee

I have already decided that anything I have at the end of my life will be left to my children, BUT until then I want to instill good morals into them in the hope that when they are in my position they will do the same.

Of course, where huge sums like in this hypothetical dilemma are concerned, some forethought wouldnt go amiss. Trust funds are a way to give your children everything you have whilst ensuring that it is used in a the way you feel appropriate. And nothing in the world wrong with that - it is YOUR money after all!! Better to leave it to your kids conditionally than to a home for cats, or whatever.

Astralbee