The rich should leave their wealth to their children, not to charity

Don't use your failings as a parent as an opportunity for virtue signaling

Mick Jagger’s announcement that he would not leave his fortune to his children caused much controversy. He joined a chorus of celebrities who have announced their intention to do the same:

I've told them the same thing my dad told me. My dad says, “When I die, you can expect that I'm going to die broke, and you're going to be paying for the funeral”.

— Guy Fieri (net worth ~$100m)

I just think all an inheritance does is breed laziness and entitlement. I worked hard and I'm gonna spend it all and have fun with my husband.

— Marie Osmond (net worth ~$20m)

There won't be much money left because we are spending it! We have a lot of commitments. What comes in we spend, and there isn't much left… They have to work.

— Sting (net worth ~$550m)

I am determined that my children should have no financial security.

— Nigella Lawson (net worth ~$20m)

My basic reaction to these statements is disgust.

Many of these celebrities are keen to announce to the world that their wealth will go to charity. What is left unsaid, however, is that they intend to spend the rest of their lives living as some of the wealthiest people on earth. They will not release their riches; death will release their riches for them. Their children will experience the change; they will not - but it is of course the parents who secure the applause.

These parents are keen to emphasize that they are giving their children the gift of work - it’s for their own good! The parents are, of course, past the need to work - they have already morally ascended, leaving menial work far behind. No: they can relax.

Other celebrity parents will tell you that they’re actually continuing to work themselves (…as stewards of their fame and fortunes - ie. things that are enjoyable to work on). The suggestion that their children inherit this stewardship is, of course, ridiculous: young adults must spend years working in meaningless bottom-tier jobs, or else they will be morally ruined. Far better to disperse the estate and to leave the children to fend for themselves.

This notion that everything must be broken apart every generation and thrown into the market to churn has a long history in the liberal tradition. Adam Smith - the so called ‘Father of Capitalism’ - railed against entails (legal structures designed to keep estates intact across generations).

Entails are disadvantageous to the improvement of the country, and these lands where they have never taken place are always best cultivated. Heirs of entailed estates have it not in their view to cultivate lands and often they are not able to do it. A man who buys land has this entirely in view and in general the new purchasers are the best cultivators.

— Adam Smith, Lectures on Jurisprudence

Like our celebrities, Smith’s view was predicated on the notion of the importance of the work. Continuously breaking inter-generational structures ensured maximum productivity as hungry new generations sought to secure a fortune for themselves.

In Smith’s view, nothing should be sacred or spared from this churn. The market should extend into all domains; productivity is held in higher regard than ‘absurd’ and outdated traditions.

Olivia Hussey as Juliet (1968)

Royal forests - wild environments preserved for the excellence of hunting across generations - were a prime example of something that must be destroyed in order to unlock productivity.

…in all the great monarchies of Europe there are still many large tracts of land which belong to the crown. They are generally forest… a mere waste and loss of country in respect both of produce and population. In every great monarchy of Europe the sale of the crown lands would produce a very large sum of money…

When the crown lands had become private property, they would, in the course of a few years, become well improved and well cultivated.

— Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Gone are the royal forests, but think of the agri-businesses that could replace them!

I regard this view as entirely autistic. Hopefully this is self-evident, but to this I will return.