Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth. In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family." Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent. They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright. This further begs the question: then why are they in charge? Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school? While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright. In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society. We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.

"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}. It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest.

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that because you don't have to have intelligence for wealth. Just because it doesn't explain how you got it doesn't mean you don't have it. That's like saying "Going to Africa is not a factor for explaining the flu." So does that mean that everyone that went to Africa will never get the flu? Or if you have gone to Africa you'll get the flu? It just means you don't have to be smart to inherit or make money.

I'm more interested in personal freedom than justice and good management. Are you saying that it's wrong of me, in a class-conscious frame of mind, to want to pass my wealth to my children, and use whatever status I have to help them get a good start in life?

For better or worse, seeing the Privilege of Birthright trampled is basically exactly why everyone is applauding Paris Hilton being forced to do Jail Time.

That's not the privilege of birthright, it's the privilege of money and fame.

It is incorrect to say that no progress has been made in fixing this system. There is a process whereby we take a large chunk of the money inherited by the wealthy, made by the immoral business practices of their ancestors, and redistribute it via goods and services to those who are descended from the exploited and do not have such opportunity; it is called "taxation". The primary return given to the ancestors of the exploited is in free education. Now, granted, this isn't worth nearly as much as it should be, since the educational system sucks. However, if the poor want a better educational system, they should probably cut down on their time spent watching NASCAR and Pimp My Ride and fucking do something about it instead of waiting for the rich to do it for them, because the rich are quite content sipping martinis and pissing away daddy's fortune in their mansions.

Basically, I blame everybody.

Not every millionaire inherited their wealth.

And not all money was made by immoral business practices.

And I think the inheritance tax should be abolished. That money will be taxed normally when it becomes part of the assets of the inheritee. That's one of the things that's killing family farms and small business in America.

The farmer's land is worth 6 to 8 figures, depending on its proximity to a large city, but it only produces a middle-class income, which slowly dwindles from one generation to the next as land has to be sold off to pay the death tax.

Let's throw BIG OIL into the mix here. The average gas station with convenience store is a franchised multi-million dollar property, but it produces ONE middle class income for the owner, and a few low class incomes for the employees. When the owner dies, it will likely be sold off to pay the death tax on the property value alone.

But I suppose you could set limits on the money involved, which we do, that opens up the criticism of hypocrisy. If we're for inheritance for the poor and middle-class, why not for the rich and successful?

yeah, i know

Yes, this is true. This is why I would rather have a lower income tax on the rich and a higher inheritance tax. Actually, ideally I'd like to just about abolish inheritance (over a certain cap), but I realize how incredibly impractical it would be to implement.

Thats ridiculous DM. You spend your life amassing a fortune, you should have the right to decide who gets it when you're gone.

You're ignoring the other half of the equation, which is where certain human beings are born into poverty, and others, through no effort or worth of their own, are born into great wealth. This is profoundly uncapitalistic.

I dont give a shit. I should have the right to secure the happiness and comfort of my children.

You're profoundly full of shit.

For starters, we're talking about America, right? This might be tough for you to understand, but THERE IS NO POVERTY IN AMERICA! It's been eliminated entirely, and if you don't think I'm right, you need to travel the world a bit. I've seen some godawful poverty-stricken third world shitholes, and I have no patience for spoiled brat Americans bitching about their pathetic little lives. In America, "poverty" is when you only own one TV, your car is over 5 years old, and some gubbamint program buys your food and pays your rent.

You also assume equality as the basis for capitalism, which is absurd on it's face, and your solution is to spread the misery equally. You've taken parents out of the equation entirely, it's like you're using an extreme form of individualism that doesn't even take family relationships into account. If a child is pissed off about being "poor"(see above), they should direct that anger at their parents for being lazy, or making bad decisions with their money.

there's no poverty in america? ok...

Pretty absurd IMO, you want to tax money thats already been taxed. The point of making millions is to pass it off to your family after you die. Not to tax it so a bunch of minorities get it through welfare.

No it isnt uncapitolistic. People can spend their wealth the way they want to. If that means passing it on to someone who didnt work for it, then thats thier business. The money was built through someone elses capitalist efforts. This smacks of wealth/class envy by the way.

Well there really isn't. At least not the hungry kind of poverty.

Winter is warmer in Virginia than in New York, but you still shouldn't go jogging outside in the middle of January in short-shorts and a wife-beater. Poverty is milder in America, but it still exists. Your argument attempts to redefine the term to some arbitrary meaning made up by you, and is therefore irrelevant.