Let’s play this out. Inheritance is illegal and you’re hyping up a self-regulating market so I’m assuming you think their assets should be sold mandatorily rather than seized by the state for redistribution (unclear what happens with liquid assets in this situation but you didn’t give much to work on). So instead of passing huge fortunes to their kids their assets are instead acquired by whoever is willing invest the most capital. They get an extra house that they can then rent out to collect passive income from someone “starting from scratch”, someone who cannot possibly out-gain the person who owns property. Eventually the landlord (more of a land baron at this point) will die and their various holdings will be scooped up by smaller landlords (but never by young families) thus perpetuating a new fun cycle of oligarchs in a system that rewards the fastest people to abandon all morals in favor of personal gain, and there’s no incentive for selflessness because you can’t leave anything behind anyway. Pure personal gain and consumption.
You assume that there is wealth and that it should be regulated
It’s more of a cultural thing, where people actually use their wealth while they can and when they can’t, they pass it over to a charity of their choosing.
If there’s no wealth then there’s no “housing market”, going full classless-stateless-moneyless socialism is such a huge departure from the current state of things it doesn’t make sense to even have this conversation about it. (And giving to charity is all well and good but I generally consider charity to be addressing a failure of society and as long as we’re in fantasy land there should be no need for charitable giving)
Also: weaseling out of addressing any of the holes in your position by changing the subject instead of explaining any detail about your stance is weak.
Let’s play this out. Inheritance is illegal and you’re hyping up a self-regulating market so I’m assuming you think their assets should be sold mandatorily rather than seized by the state for redistribution (unclear what happens with liquid assets in this situation but you didn’t give much to work on). So instead of passing huge fortunes to their kids their assets are instead acquired by whoever is willing invest the most capital. They get an extra house that they can then rent out to collect passive income from someone “starting from scratch”, someone who cannot possibly out-gain the person who owns property. Eventually the landlord (more of a land baron at this point) will die and their various holdings will be scooped up by smaller landlords (but never by young families) thus perpetuating a new fun cycle of oligarchs in a system that rewards the fastest people to abandon all morals in favor of personal gain, and there’s no incentive for selflessness because you can’t leave anything behind anyway. Pure personal gain and consumption.
Not necessarily
You assume that there is wealth and that it should be regulated
It’s more of a cultural thing, where people actually use their wealth while they can and when they can’t, they pass it over to a charity of their choosing.
This at least is very common here
https://www.dyrenesbeskyttelse.dk/testamente
If there’s no wealth then there’s no “housing market”, going full classless-stateless-moneyless socialism is such a huge departure from the current state of things it doesn’t make sense to even have this conversation about it. (And giving to charity is all well and good but I generally consider charity to be addressing a failure of society and as long as we’re in fantasy land there should be no need for charitable giving)
Also: weaseling out of addressing any of the holes in your position by changing the subject instead of explaining any detail about your stance is weak.
Sorry. I meant accumulated wealth. English is my second language
My point is not political. It’s more social. Spend your money while you’re living instead of hoarding it
Politics and society are not and cannot be separated.