Cocktail Conversation

from DOCTORS, DENTISTS, DISHWASHERS and OTHER DEMONS OF MODERN LIFE

(c) 1996 by Fred Flaxman

December is -- or should be -- National Cocktail Party Month. It is the time of year when almost everyone throws one, or goes to one. For many of us, it is the only time of year this happens. Although I avoid them best I can, there are so many invitations around the holiday season that I sometimes run out of excuses not to go. The real reasons for my lack of interest are: (1) I don't like the taste of alcohol, (2) I hate small talk, and (3) I find nothing so tiring as standing in one spot for more than five minutes, balancing a glass in one hand with an hors d'oeuvre in the other.

Whenever -- despite all my efforts -- I find myself bored to death at one of these insipid contemporary American tribal rituals, I come out with something calculated to kindle conversation that at least one person will find interesting: me.

Out of the noisy but increasingly clear blue, anti-smoking sky, I say: "I think a Constitutional amendment should be passed which completely abolishes personal inheritance."

The drinkers within hearing distance are usually so shocked, they can't believe they heard me correctly. For one thing, I seem to have violated an unwritten code that forbids anyone from bringing up anything new and thought-provoking during these affairs. Secondly, they don't seem to expect radical ideas out of this soft-spoken, clean-shaven, middle-class, middle-aged orange-juice sipper.

"What?" they reply. "Have you had too much vitamin C, or are you one of those liberal secular humanists the Christian Coalition told us have replaced the communists under every bed?"

"I haven't taken to hiding under strangers' beds yet," I reply, "although it may come to that if Newt Gingrich is elected President. I was just re-reading a radical old document from 1776 called "The Declaration of Independence" which says that some truths are self-evident. The very first one it lists is that all men are created equal. How can people be equal if some start out life in poverty while others inherit millions from their parents or grandparents?"

A self-made lawyer, who probably came to this party to escape his two spoiled kids, usually says: "Everyone should be treated the same under the law -- that's what 'created equal' means."

"But that's not what it says," I retort. "Besides, I think it means more than that. I think it means that all humans are blank slates at birth, and are entitled to an equal opportunity to develop their abilities and to succeed. I think it means that we should be playing the game of life on a level field."

True, the Declaration doesn't explicitly state this either. But that is certainly what I think it should mean. Allowing people to inherit money and property is to create from the start an unequal situation -- a game in which some people are dealt all the best cards at the very beginning. It isn't fair.

"Life isn't fair," is usually the next cliche to be brought out in these discussions.

"True," I admit, "but I think it is in the best interests of our country and the happiness and well-being of its people if we do everything we can to make our great, free, capitalistic nation as fair as humanly possible." (I actually talk like this at cocktail parties, believe it or not. It helps create space to breathe as everyone walks to the other side of the room.)

"Kids who are brought up in wealthy families usually get the best, private school education, the best health care, the greatest opportunities to travel, the most outlandish toys and the snazziest sports cars," I continue, talking mostly to myself by this point. "And they get all this not because of anything they have done to deserve these benefits, but because their parents, relatives or ancestors worked hard or lucked out. Why should these youngsters, on top of all that, be allowed to inherit a lot of money and property which they did not earn themselves?"

"In our country," the lawyer comes back, talking like attorneys do at cocktail parties or anywhere else, "everyone should be free to make as much money as he or she can and to spend the money any way he or she desires, including, but not limited to, leaving all or part of it to his or her children. If you take that right away, the incentive to make money will disappear with it."

Granted that lawyers have much more expertise on the subject of incentives to make money than I do, I still doubt this reasoning.

"Do you really think Rockefeller and Carnegie and the others would have done anything differently if they had known they couldn't leave their wealth to their offspring, but had to give it all to their foundations?" I ask rhetorically, and head to the bar to pick up another screwdriver without vodka. I've read articles which have pointed out that very few of the wealthiest people in our country earned their money through their own efforts, inventions or talents. Almost all of them inherited their wealth. So much for the American myth about hard work leading to great wealth.

Some of our millionaires use their stash wisely and some squander it, but few of them did anything to deserve it to begin with other than choosing the right parents. If all men are created equally, some sure seem to be created much more equal than others.

A Constitutional amendment which outlaws personal inheritance (and sets financial limits on what people can give to other people while they are still alive) would be a big boon to the non-profit foundations and charitable sectors of our society. This is where people would leave their estates if they didn't want the government to get it all. By increasing the funding of these organizations, as well as of the government itself, the amendment would do a great deal to make our society a much better, as well as a much more fair, place to live. One pleasant side effect could well be to lower the taxes for the rest of us. And equal opportunity for all would be a giant step closer to reality.

"What about parents who really wanted to do something for their offspring?" you might ask.

And I would reply: "Wouldn't they, and their children, be much better off if the parents gave them love, attention and knowledge instead of an over-abundance of money and material goods?"

"What about spouses?" you might continue, and I'd be very glad if you did.

"I believe in community property -- whatever is mine is also my wife's. I think it is perfectly fair for surviving spouses to keep the material assets of the marriage as long as they live, but then..."

I have yet to find anyone who agrees with my proposed Constitutional amendment, but it sure helps reduce the number of parties I'm invited to at this time of year.

The Internet may not be a superhighway, but it can be a two-way street! Please take a moment to send your e-mail reaction to this piece to the author at