John Singleton with Bob HowardRip Van Australia (Stanmore: Cassell Australia, 1977), pp. 135-37, under the heading “Inherited Wealth”.

Arguments over whether or not people should be allowed to inherit wealth usually centre around the “worth” or otherwise of the people who inherit it, or on whether or not it is fair that they should receive money without having to work for it. People driven by envy, or a belief in egalitarianism, find the whole concept of inherited wealth repulsive. Their feelings aren’t helped by the odd playboy who makes the headlines for his wild spending of his family fortune, or by the political tricks of the institutionalised U.S. aristocracy — the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, and others.

By centring on the recipient of the inherited wealth, however, the arguments against it entirely miss the essential point. The point is not whether or not a person has the right to receive the wealth, but whether or not its owner has the right to leave it to whoever he or she pleases. Because the right to property means the right to own, control and dispose of that property, the owner of property quite clearly does have the right to leave that wealth to whoever he or she chooses. We have the right to leave that wealth to whoever he or she chooses. We may wonder at their choice, disagree with them and even attempt to convince them of their error, but we cannot morally force them to do otherwise. It is the owners’ right and their right alone to make the choice. Once that choice is made and clearly stated, no subsequent court or judge has the right to change it (as they sometimes do when Wills are contested). Only when there is ambiguity (or the possibility that property that was inherited was not owned by the person who has bequeathed it) is there any room for court decisions. It is a terrible and cowardly injustice to a dead person to direct that property be divided in a manner contrary to that directed by a dead person. It should be a point of honour to carry out that person’s specific wishes, and most certainly should be a point of law. Needless to say, the entire business of inheritance has been made extremely complicated by the taxation system — another example of the government’s right hand (the courts) have to0 clean up the mess created by the left hand (the tax system).

As far as we are concerned, then, there is no doubt about the absolute right of the owner of property to leave it to the person of his or her choice. Furthermore, just as this is moral, it is also practical, because any attempt to stop it would have disastrous results.

If we could leave no property to our heirs, or kin, then there would be little point in us keeping any property at all until we died. Therefore, people would simply work out ways and means of disposing of their property before they died. Needless to say, such a procedure would disadvantage the poor, and the vast bulk of “middle class” people, because they would be the least likely to know about setting up companies, trusts and all the other necessary tricks. When a property owner died (say, for example, the father of a family) without previously transferring his property, his family would be deprived of his property and thrown on the mercy of the State. If property was jointly owned, the family would lose the deceased’s share, and be that much worse off.

If the government succeeded in eliminating most or all of the loopholes and so successfully prevented property flowing from the owner to his or her chosen successor, then:

  1. The incentive for working to accumulate the property in the first place would be considerably reduced.
  2. And the latter years of the owner’s life would be spent on a spending spree, and the property would be dissipated.

If the owner’s judgement was out, he or she could conceivably rid themselves of all their property before they died, thus having nothing left to live on and thus leaving themselves at the mercy of the State, and a burden on the taxpayers.

In the vast majority of cases, people will not continue to work, save, or invest or live as they would if they could leave their property to whoever they liked, if, when they die, the State cops the lot. Indeed, this seems to be a recurring error on the part of egalitarians and socialists in many different areas. They believe they can alter social conditions and laws at will and not disrupt the economy at all. They consistently neglect to consider what effect their schemes will have on people, and in particular on production.

The idea of not allowing wealth to be inherited is patently absurd, and it is ridiculous to even have to stoop so low as to point out the obvious flaws in it. Yet, it is seriously mentioned from time to time, and dumber things have happened. There’s no telling what some people will do to get their hands on other people’s money. Especially when those people are politicians.