The only way inheritance of a property may occur is in the following manner: the personal property must belong to individuals as opposed to groups; the property must be permanent in nature as well as useful after the death of the possessor or the owner.
There are many, who in the past have criticized the act of passing on one's property and possessions to another individual. A primary critique of the establishment of inheritance is that wealth may be acquired without working. In addition, it is further regarded as economically unequal. These critiques of inheritance have been the thoughts of radicals as well as individuals who appear much more moderate in their ideas and thinking. The latter group embraces the notion that total economic equality is appealing whereas the former seems to believe enormous distributions as far as wealth is not compatible with modern society's thinking or opinions. As a result of these “ramblings,” the institution of inheritance has been defended on a moral as well as an economic standpoint.
The defense is as follows: Inheritance is economically essential in regard to the property of individuals as it makes certain the continual duration of business endeavor or undertaking of new ventures or projects (of a business or economic nature.) Without this on-going progression of initiating and persevering with new business ideas and associated projects, the economy could not continue in a prosperous and productive manner.
The above defense or argument, however, seems to lose most of its ground or a great deal of its momentum due to the fact that business undertakings, in the form of corporations, now use the services of specialized managers as opposed to owners with succession going to officeholders. The one viable component of handing down the accumulation of wealth is that competition would be placed somewhat at a standstill. As a result, the economy would not readily flourish.
There is the possible idea that the property rights of the owner could end upon his or her death. Should this type of system occur the property would become that of the community and without the reassignment of property rights to another individual, the institution of inheritance would no longer exist.
There are four possible ways property may be distributed after an individual owner dies. Following are the systems of distribution of assets and the consequences of the actions involved in such a distribution:
- The ownership could go to the individual who immediately and initially claims rights (of their own accord) to the decedent's property. The consequence or result of this idea would be “total chaos.” There would possibly be too many individuals claiming first “rights” to (subsequent) ownership of the property.
- The reassignment of the property could be placed in the hands of an agency of the government in a locale where the decedent previously resided and/or where the decedent's property is located. This type of action could proportionately be “catastrophic” especially within a democracy.
- The distribution of assets could take place according to established rules ( and rules that are uniform for all individuals);
- Or, the property distribution could be fulfilled in accordance with the previous wishes of the decedent
The third and fourth methods correspond with today's system of inheritance. In other words, the estate of the deceased is distributed following the guidelines of intestacy law or through the wishes of the decedent outlined in his or her last will and testament.
The issues of debate or controversy within the modern system of individual ownership as to who should be the next in line to receive the property concerns two separate scenarios: 1) the decedent dies intestate; and, 2) the decedent has left a valid will; bringing up the question: what limitations are appropriate?
To further clarify the last statement, inheritance has evolved through the ages as a consequence of comradeship. Although the property may belong to individuals rather than groups, the idea of belonging to a familial group is still quite significant. Therefore, one individual's sense of freedom should not be subject to interference of a third party in determining the distribution of his or her property after death. This sense of freedom to choose is especially true between parents and children. The parent wants to be assured that in accordance with his or her will the property is passed on to the children. In regard to a decedent's last wishes, an additional matter comes up for argument: should the inheritance be extended beyond that of the immediate familial group? In other words, in highly industrialized areas, connections to other relatives such as first cousins tend to be relatively weak.
The trend, recently seems to allow the estate of an individual (who is dying) intestate (or without a will) to go to the government treasury. This, many times, has been the case rather than allowing the proceeds to flow to a distant relative.
In conclusion, estate planning is important in that is allows the individual to plan whom to leave their legacy for the continued prosperity of the family as well as the economic well-being of the community in general.
