>>Not to pull the marxist analysis card BUT: bullshit. They were being paid an agreed upon percentage of the value they provided to the company.
What is your point? Doesn't seem to contradict what I said.
>>In this case the owner decided to share the "surplus" value with those who generated it - which for some reason makes you feel uncomfortable.
You are assuming that they deserve that surplus, or really, the profits. They already got paid to generate that profit. That is the whole point of a business. What exactly is your point?
I'm not going to repeat myself. I already explained in all my comments the reason of why this makes me feel uncomfortable.
If you are advocating socialism or communism then lets just agree to disagree.
>>I think you can make a strong argument that giving the company to your heirs whole-hog is a poor idea (unless those heirs are involved in the company personally)
If you leave lots of money to your kids and never taught them from an early age how to handle money then it is your fault. Any reasonable parent would prepare their kids to know how to handle money. Don't be surprised if they turn out bad because you've spoiled them.
And if they are not interested in running that type of company but instead they want to do something else then the solution is simple: sell the business and allow them to run their life as they see fit. If you've done a good job raising them then they should be OK.
No. It should not. What will hurt them is how you raise them (By heirs I'm talking about children). Give them the best education money can buy and beyond the essentials (food, roof, clothes) make them work for whatever else they want.
Want a car? Get a summer job. Want a new video game console? Do some extra chores. Want extra money for your date? A job in the weekends would not be bad.
Do you get my point?
By the time they inherit money they will learn not to depend on it.
It all depends on how you raise them. If you do a crappy job to begin with then even with no money they will probably be screw. Tell me I'm wrong.
>>He's giving it to his employees who presumably have worked for it with "blood and sweat"
No they didn't. They were getting paid already for the value they provided to the company. Do not delude yourself, this is nothing more than a handout.
>>An alternative would be passing it down through inheritance or selling to a bidder, neither of whom invest blood or sweat.
So you are OK with some employees receiving a gift and you oppose the heirs receiving that same gift. Of course I'm opposed to just giving stuff away, but if you have to then leaving it to your heirs makes more sense from an evolutionary point of view.
Another option, if you really want to give away your money, is to create jobs for people with nothing to do. This way they will earn that money instead of just receiving a gift. For example, fund public works and pay people who you want to help to do that job. Pay them reasonably even. Maybe even include education benefits. Isn't this a better option than just handing somebody free money?
If those people do not want to do these jobs then they do not deserve the money. I'm really curious why would anybody disagree with me.
Of course, there are always exceptions. There are people in the world that truly need free money. Example orphans, the elderly, disabled people. People who even if they wanted to work they simply can't. My logic is undeniable, how can you oppose anything I say?
At the end of the day though we are all free to do with our money what we want. Still, I cannot help but hurt when I see money just being wasted away by giving it to people who have not earned it (heirs excluded of course).
Edit: Thanks for answering. I really do believe I'm right so it is nice to have somebody explain why that may not be so instead of just getting down voted (which I don't mind). If more people could try explaining why they disagree with me that'd be great. I really want to hear why anybody thinks I'm wrong. Maybe I am wrong. I'm willing to change my mind if there is a good reason.
This is so unamerican. Giving stuff away for free is really bad. Teach a man to fish instead. Or rather, the man should be trying to learn to fish. It just feels so bad. Like spoiling a child.
If you really want to help somebody you must really make them work for it with blood and sweat. Otherwise they will not appreciate it. And they will teach their children (sub-consciously) to just wait for the next billionaire to give them something.
What is your point? Doesn't seem to contradict what I said.
>>In this case the owner decided to share the "surplus" value with those who generated it - which for some reason makes you feel uncomfortable.
You are assuming that they deserve that surplus, or really, the profits. They already got paid to generate that profit. That is the whole point of a business. What exactly is your point?
I'm not going to repeat myself. I already explained in all my comments the reason of why this makes me feel uncomfortable.
If you are advocating socialism or communism then lets just agree to disagree.