You say this then you complain about people living off of trust funds and not contributing to the economy.
Which is it?
I sense a disturbance in the force.
I don’t think it is discordant to simultaneously decry people living off of trust funds AND speak of a child’s right to an inheritance of some amount.
To leave not only a well-raised child to grace society, but to also leave for that child some material wealth as a final expression of love for them — this is a noble thing to be attained, and has been tradition among civilized peoples back into ancient times. For a parent to spend all of their wealth on themselves, leaving nothing to their children — I mean, unless the parents are in some complete financial crisis, and simply HAVE TO sell the land, spend the money, whatever; or unless their kids are so messed up that they’re totally worthless ingrates exerting zero effort to advance themselves — spending what ought to be left as an inheritance is immoral; a slap in the face to their kids, to their future grandkids — indeed, to their entire progeny.
Inheritance is to build the house; forward the family line, and secure the ability of posterity to have a solid footing for a good start in their own successes. Denying them that is a crushing and despicable rejection of one’s own flesh and blood.
By contrast, to leave someone set for life who has ZERO intent of contributing anything to society beyond dumping trust fund dollars into the economy — that’s also despicable. Massive trusts are fabulous, but the distributions must be proportioned to the evolving ambitions and ventures of the recipients. You wouldn’t deny a budding tycoon their first million to close that big commercial building deal, but you also would not give that million to a couch-surfing, video-gaming wasetoid still shuffling around the palazzo in lounge pants and socks at 1:30 in the afternoon.
Decrying BOTH the evils of creating trust fund idlers AND failure to leave an inheritance just isn’t an expression of hypocrisy.