feathers and tying flys with them

Larry wrote:

"rw" wrote


You missed the point. The problem (as I see it, anyway) is *inherited*
wealth.





To answer Tim J's question ... if I were very rich, I'd leave my son enough
that he could live on it for life, or if he had his own spark use it to grow
his own true fortune ... but the vast majority of 'my' money would go to
causes I believe in. One major reason I wouldn't leave my child pampered
way beyond his own efforts ... is, because I love him



in contrast...if i believed my son capable and of good mind and heart
(which i do...well, he's got a heart far superior to mine and a mind
that means to do good), i'd leave him everything i'd been able to
accumulate and that was available for bequest at my death. i'd prefer to
pamper my son beyond his own efforts because i love him and because i'm
skeptical of most good causes i can neither control nor kiss.

"Jeff Miller" wrote in

in contrast...if i believed my son capable and of good mind and heart
(which i do...well, he's got a heart far superior to mine and a mind that
means to do good), i'd leave him everything i'd been able to accumulate
and that was available for bequest at my death. i'd prefer to pamper my
son beyond his own efforts because i love him and because i'm skeptical of
most good causes i can neither control nor kiss.

Jeff,

I admit that sounds great. My son has a far better heart and mind than my
own ( not a big accomplishment, but he really is a damn fine young man ) and
it is easy to be skeptical of most good causes.

And I'll add that my experiences may be the exceptions ... before I cite
them.

It's been my observation that the further from the original source the money
gets as it is inherited and inherited the less likely the hearts and minds
are to be 'good'

I don't know you, maybe you are a billionaire that has succeeded in raising
a very pampered but still socially responsible child. But in my case, my
kid is such a damn fine specimen in large part because he was not that
pampered and he was taught that he would have what he could earn and he was
taught to be very grateful for what he had and to realize it could all slip
away with a slight change in luck and that a major difference between him
and his cushy middle class life and others barely surviving was his luck,
not his superiority or their inferiority.

My kid would handle a fortune well, and do good with it. BUT his kids would
also be raised differently even if he tried to do his best. There is a good
chance that they would start to feel that superiority I've seen in so many
rich brats ... a air of superiority that can only come from never, ever,
having to actually prove oneself to maintain one's place on the top of the
heap. And my great grandkids, the third generation wealthy without
effort would be damn UNlikely to echo my son's high standards of self
discipline ....and the cycle would spiral down etc etc.

They say power corrupts ... nearly without exception .... and my experience
is that inherited money and it's power corrupt far more thoroughly than
worked for money and power.

So, back to where I was, I'd provide well for my kid, but not well enough to
start a cycle of inherited corruption ... the rest would get 'spread around'
.... too much concentration, in any one place is a bad thing ... that is, I
believe, rw's point that I agreed with.