I believe inheritance is justified for the simple reason that one should be able to pass on one’s achievements to one’s heirs. I think that one of the main reasons to work and amass abundance of wealth is
so our children are able to have a better and easier life and won’t have to go through any struggles concerning money while they’re growing up. Even though this is contradicted in Haslett’s essay, when he says that working to provide wealth for our children is one but not the main factor for people to work hard, I still believe that having the opportunity to leave our wealth to someone we love and or care about, once we die is the main reason as to why we desire to be wealthy. I think our actual system where we can leave our children our wealth and give them the opportunity to run the family business and not be deprived of it when we die works just fine.
As Haslett’s says in his essay, it might be true that wealth is unevenly distributed in our society and how a few of the population accounts for most of the wealth and most of the population has literally not much to nothing. But I disagree with his opinion, I don’t think this is mainly due to how many of the millionaires in this country have become millionaires by means of inheriting their wealth rather than by working for it. I believe the government and not inheritance is more to blame because of the poverty level and uneven distribution of wealth. Although it is true that child of wealthy parents have an unfair advantage over poor children, they still have to work at keeping their wealth and sometimes becoming wealthier, if not they would run out of money fairly easy because of their lifestyle. I believe the government should take part in leveling the field between wealthy and poor children not by abolishing inheritance but by providing opportunities for poor children to become more educated and being able to amass wealth just as wealthy children do.
As for Haslett’s explanation as to how inheritance doesn’t go hand in hand in accordance with capitalism and how it seems to contradict the ideals of capitalism, well I disagree with his opinion. In a system based on capitalism individuals should be given the same opportunities to succeed, that’s true, but I don’t think that by taking someone’s wealth away would solve the problem or make it fair despite his explanation and opinions. Although it is true that children or people in general who inherent wealth have an advantage over those who were born poor or with no wealth, I believe the government could help in that matter. Instead of using funds in wars, pointless researches and projects, and rebuilding countries who definitely have more natural resources which make them wealthier than us, the government should invest more in our society education and economy to help lower the poverty level in our society. By giving everyone a chance to obtain a degree, the government would be kind of evening the odds when it comes to children who inherited wealth against those who were born poor or didn’t inherit their fortune from their parents. By allowing everyone to get an education and obtain their degree, whether they succeed and become wealthy is not a matter or having inherited a fortune anymore, but of having the desire and the will to become a successful and or wealthy individual.
So in conclusion, I don’t think that by abolishing inheritance we will be able to evenly distribute the wealth in our country. I believe is more a matter of actually providing individuals a chance to be educated so that they have more chances of succeeding and be wealthy than it is about inheriting wealth.
Individuals who are born wealthy may have an advantage over those who didn’t inherited any wealth at all, but taking their wealth wouldn’t be fair just as well as Haslett argues that it isn’t fair for those who are born with no wealth or didn’t inherited any wealth.