In order to have a true meritocracy, we should abolish inheritance. Everyone starts from scratch, all the extra cash gets reabsorbed into state schools, social care and the NHS. No one gets a leg up for being lucky - we're all lucky.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Will it be okay to spend money on your kids' education? On specialist training for a career? On art and jewellery as presents for them? On sending them to exotic places? On subsidising them through internships? How will you prevent the passing on of privilege?
If we really want true meritocracy, then the state should absorb all children at birth into a standardised system of early years development and education. Let the brightest and best excel from a universal starting point.
Are we opposed to that? I don't think the majority of us are. I don't think my children gained from our financial status until they reached 16 or 18 and we could support them in further/higher education. The kids they grew up with had similar education opportunities up to GCSE level
1/ I'm opposed to the idea of going to huge lengths and warping society in huge ways just in pursuit of a fairness we'll never achieve. Some kids will always be taller, or better looking, or have the right accent or right friends.
Partly, we're talking at crossed purposes. My deliberately absurd suggestion was a Huxley's 'Brave New World' child farm type thing. Not ethical or desirable.
Although, being taller/better looking could certainly be considered genetic merit. Accent & having the right friends is a gifted advantage.
And (making some assumptions), of COURSE your kids had advantages. They had, I'm guessing, at least comfortably-off parents, so decent housing, sufficient food, smart clothes, and parent(s) who were around, a good example, valued education and weren't addicts, abusers or needed caring for.
I agree with what you’re saying, and this can apply to other areas of the arts. No doubt there are other routes to wealth creation, such as practical invention, that don’t necessarily involve exploitation.
Expensive areas don't crop up around good schools. Good schools crop up within expensive areas or specifically they avoid the problems associated with being surrounded by families in poverty
So question here. If you had squillions, would you not invest it abroad and tell your kids to bugger off there to collect it?
There are always ways around these things.
Right. So despite not being particularly rich, my kids at this stage have absolutely no chance of getting on the housing ladder. The one chance they might have is parents or grandparents leaving them enough for a deposit.
Meritocracy is socialist bollocks that isn't feasible.
Ultimately any property owned at death will be put on the market. The sale will be like the repossessions of the early 90s, the market will collapse, the perceived investment of property will vanish, the demand will fall and the supply of new builds fall. We'd be talking about a different world
It could well be one, it would take some getting used to and the losers would be home owners, land owners and construction workers so I can't see anyone taking the risk to upset those powerful voices
As per my other response, that wouldn't actually happen.
People would just move shit around. Make sure they gift their houses to the kids before they die and/or move abroad.
Meritocracy has always been a centre-right idea, a kind of progressive capitalism with a message of rewarding people with certain talents more than average. It would appear in Social Democracy too. The fact that decent jobs have migrated away from cheap houses is why our kids can't buy a house
I've called for 100% inheritance tax and consider myself lucky not to have been murdered given the nature of responses. Irony is the people most apoplectic at the idea are always the ones who expect something for nothing via inheritance but bemoan others getting something for nothing via benefits.
I'm not going to oppose the sentiment but the practicality would be difficult. I assume a spouse would still inherit but the difficulty would come with young dependents. Wealthy parents die at 40 leaving a 10 year old destitute or they die at 80 and the 50 year old can shrug off the loss of finance
Uhm there's no way kids with rich parents "start from scratch", no matter how much they do or don't stand to inherit when those parents pop their clogs.
Very rich parents can give their children a job in their business and fairly rich parents can support their children through higher education. So yes you are right
Comments
Although, being taller/better looking could certainly be considered genetic merit. Accent & having the right friends is a gifted advantage.
Rich parents can move to areas surrounding good schools.
Personal preference is to ensure no matter what your background you get oppurtunities. Maybe even taking into account difficulties faced.
To just ignore your own advantages, no matter what your background is just ridiculous, but also you can advocate for barriers to be broken down.
I just believe that oppourtunities should exist for everyone, if you're good at something you should get the oppurtunities.
There are always ways around these things.
Meritocracy is socialist bollocks that isn't feasible.
People would just move shit around. Make sure they gift their houses to the kids before they die and/or move abroad.
The economy would collapse.
Not directly anyway.