INHERITANCE has been much in the news ever since Master Gideon convinced the Press and the Labour that giving a bung to millionaires was a MASTERSTROKE. But is it REALLY right that you should be able to get huge pots of wealth and power just because of who your DAD is?
Isn’t the idea of inherited wealth just CORRUPTING on its own?
For instance, consider Mr Jammy Moredick, son of the Emperor of the Airwaves, Mr Roger Stavro Moredick, who is set to inherit the Evil Empire.
With his recent admission
that he DECIDES which Party his papers back, people really OUGHT to be worried by the amount of UNTRAMMELLED power that Mr Moredick (snr) has at his command, even BEFORE he starts his DYNASTIC AMBITIONS.
You MIGHT argue that Mr Jammy really IS the best qualified person for the job because of the UNIQUE lifetime of training and education in the experience of his father that he has been given. Or you might say that a domineering parent has warped his whole life. It is all very well, trying to see that your kids have the best start in the world, but should you REALLY be using them to build a MONUMENT to YOURSELF?
Doesn’t it seem that the EXPECTATION of getting OODLES of LOOT can make people greedy or lazy or selfish? Consider the case that the papers are calling “The Ultimate Chinese Takeaway”.
An old lady chose to leave all of her money to her favourite restaurant and, instead of ACCEPTING her wishes, her relatives go to court and try to get the will changed posthumously. In this case, inheritance is clearly NOT about the rights of the departed matriarch to spend her cash as she chooses – much less about cherishing her dying wishes! It's all about the kids wanting the WONGA, and stuff what grandma cared about. Perhaps they would have been BETTER PEOPLE if they hadn't spent a lifetime being told (by the likes of Master Gideon) that they DESERVED to get their claws into their ancestor's money.