91热爆

An academic study by 2 economists of 634 families with rare surnames doesn't immediately sound like it's going to touch one of the rawest nerves in politics, but that's exactly what Professor Gregory Clark and Dr Neil Cummins have done. Their work shows that attempts to promote equality and a more socially mobile society are failing because the rich as so effective at passing their wealth down the generations. Using records of births and marriages and other data going back to 1841 they concluded that there is a significant correlation between the wealth of families five generations apart. You might think all this applies only to a very small number of families in the UK, but figures just released by the Land Registry show there are already 400,000 "homillionaires" - people living in properties worth more than 拢1 million - and the number is growing by 160 a day. Is inherited wealth and the social privileges it can secure, immoral? Is the transfer of wealth between generations an injustice - an unearned reward for no work, which elevates luck above enterprise and effort which secures access to privileges that would otherwise be beyond reach? Or is the desire to pass on to our children and grandchildren any wealth that we might have at our death, not only a natural desire to help them start out in life, but also a social and moral contract between the generations? With OECD figures showing the gap between the rich and poor in the UK is at its widest for 30 years and growing, the idea of redistributing inherited wealth is a painful matter for the baby-boomer generation. Last year the government raised 拢3.7 billion in inheritance tax. Was it an immoral and unjustifiable double tax raid on the prudent or a sign that we still care about social justice and meritocracy?