Earlier quoted context omitted.
"helped in the past" != "helpful now" Burning coal has been a tremendous help to society, but that doesn't mean we should continue to do it when we find better alternatives for each of its use cases. Can you name some of the advancements unions have brought to employees in the US over the last 10-20 years? Does that outweigh their anti competitive nature that has led to companies moving manufacturing out of unionized…
Can you name some of the advancements that heirs who have never worked a day in their lives have brought in the US over the last 10-20 years? Who live off the labor of those of us who do work, the labor time of which they expropriate with their dividends and profits? The heirs, the parasites who live off the labor of those of us who do work are the ones who have to explain what good their parasitism is doing in this…
You know, you certainly don't have to like entitled rich children of millionaires, billionaires, and industrialists. I certainly don't. But this rant confuses me for a few reasons. First, if we have a system where people are allowed to own capital and that's legitimate, doesn't inheritance just follow? I mean, what's the alternative you're after here without heirs? When Steve Jobs died, should the government have taken his shares and distributed to all current Apple employees? (And if so, according to what formula - proportional to pay? time served? the product of the two? equal division?) And why stop at just the shares - what about the shares of other companies, and his houses and cars and any bars of gold he bought with salaries or shares he'd previously sold? Where's the line? How much is the line? Do we redistribute everything to company employees? What about people who own multiple companies? Or maybe being at the company is no part of it - should the government have just auctioned off his estate for the general fund? Doesn't the government already sort of do that when it collects a roughly 50% inheritance tax? Is that not enough? How much exactly is enough? I could go on... Also, all that notwithstanding, morally: isn't that one of the things human beings work for, a good life for their children and grandchildren? If you respect the original industrialist, can you respect this? (If you don't respect the original industrialist, why are we attacking his heirs?)
Second, are they really even all that big of players in the large-corporation ownership scene writ large? Even in the absence of taxes, big inheritances will spread themselves out over several generations unless all rich kids are only children.
> They need us, we don't need them.
Then quit and found your own company.