> I’m looking forward to inheriting some of my parents furnitures and getting rid of some of the ikea crap..

I think you are confusing the perspective of the GP here.

Your perspective is that of the "kid". You like the parents' furniture and eventually want to use them and that's all fine.

But GP is describing the parent perspective which, they argue, shouldn't be to plan life such that the kids will be inheriting and using things later. That puts pressure on them to actually do instead of making their own choices. It's a subtle but important difference.

I see similar issues with people buying the neighboring lot and building a second house there such that eventually their kids can move in their with their family, once they have one. Some kids certainly so, and that's great. But think about your own life, would really have wanted to do that? Or grow up feeling that's expected of you? Most of my friends live half a day of travel away from where they grew up. Most of them would despise the idea of moving in next to their parents. Which doesn't mean they don't love them, just that they value their independence and made choices free from the constraint that it needs to be exactly there. (Besides, a couple usually consists of two people and they often didn't grow up in the same neighborhood.)

Generally, trying to plan for leaving inheritances (of substantial value) is overvalued. Modern society is striving to less dynasty building and I think that's a good thing. A lot of the poor/rich divide is rooted in that and governments should discourage it (through inheritance tax) rather than encouraging it (through e.g. lack of actions against housing costs which forces people to get a big inheritance to be able to live anywhere.)

Though I'm really getting too far from the topic as that was about furniture. :)

▲

cannonpr 15 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a complex topic and I’m not going to do it justice in a comment, but I feel like modern society might just be destroying social mobility in the name of what you described, while the already rich are dynasty building just fine as usual via a variety of legal means only available to them selves.

▲

teiferer 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Could you elaborate on which aspect you consider to be destroying social mobility?

	▲	cannonpr 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, play it out in a simulation, what happens if you have two groups of humans, one can build wealth across generations, and infact already have access to better education, food, and the enormous privileged of rolling the dice and failing without suffering extreme consequences. The other group doesn’t, and now on top of it? They can’t work harder to build some wealth and pass it on to their descendants because the “state” legally disincentivises it. You have in essence legally protected the rich from competition even inter-generationally.