Talk of inheritance, expand the 'family'
intergenerational transfer of wealth is through family, legally defined as — and confined to — 'blood line' or by marriage. Securing the future of those closest to us is a powerful motivation to acquire wealth in the first place. But it assumes that our emotional bonds are strongest with those who only share ties of blood.
This assumption, however, fails frequently in the real world. The mechanism provided in such cases is the simple expedient of making a will. The individual has a means to assert his or her choice, which may be at variance to the so-called 'natural order', on how his lifetime's effort should contribute to society.
This freedom is restricted for inherited wealth where the individual is considered to hold it in trust, and the claim of the family is usually stronger.
The law tends to favour the 'natural order' to derive social prosperity. Tax laws corral inheritance along family lines, while acknowledging the need to create a more equal society. But societies differ.
The role of family within societies also varies. Some societies are built around small families, others around large ones. In some, entire villages are structured in a way to offer the same social benefit as offered by a family.
A one-size-fits-all solution to intergenerational wealth transfer does not do justice to the diversity of social organisation.
One approach could be to contextualise the role of the family against the social structure. This would, in some instances, render a bigger claim on inheritance to close non-family members whose bonds are real, but not legally recognised. These are persons who have had a big influence on the well-being of the individual or his family.
