[riffer]

This looks at the tax from the perspective of those who will inherit, and concludes that since spoiled kids don't deserve big inheritances, the estate tax is fair, just and moral. But what about where the money goes? Does the government deserve it? I don't think so. One might be able to make an argument that the money should go to society, because the system is what made the creation of wealth possible. But that's not what the estate tax does, the estate tax takes the money to the government. Arguing that spoiled kids have not earned it is a lot easier than arguing that the government is deserving.

What about looking at the tax from the perspective of the individual who created the wealth? What the tax does is encumber the creator of the wealth from deploying it as he/she sees fit. Why do we want to encumber creators of wealth?

TO CLARIFY: the gift taxes that are part of the estate tax complex encumber creators, not just corpses. If you remove the gift tax, I have no problem with the estate tax because nobody would ever pay it.

[ajscherer]

How can a corpse deploy wealth? If they wanted to do something with that wealth, which I agree they have the right to do, wouldn't it make sense to do it while they still have the ability to have thoughts?

It makes more sense to me for the government to get it, because that reduces the need for them to take wealth from people who are alive and might be able to use their wealth.

[roc]

> "Arguing that spoiled kids have not earned it is a lot easier than arguing that the government is deserving."

Isn't "the government is deserving" the crux of the Gates/Buffett argument? That government has provided them, as wealthy people, far greater services than the average person? (In the form of providing safety, protecting property, supplying an educated workforce, enforcing market rules, etc)

The general idea being that you simply can't become fabulously wealthy via anything short of barbarism without government, so the government does deserve something more to further these services that they're providing?

[riffer]

If Gates/Buffett really believe that the government is deserving, why have they arranged their affairs to pay as little tax as possible? Including (but not limited to) essentially zero estate tax?

Forgive me if I'm not convinced by an argument that suggests that others should be compelled to do something the proponents of the argument relentlessly avoid.

[roc]

To be fair, I think their argument is more accurately phrased: the government is more deserving than the heirs (after a reasonable threshold, natch). Or, more generally, society is more deserving.

I don't see a logical conflict in their preference for private charity over government redistribution.

Honestly, I don't think any proponent of the estate tax would mind if the practical result of a high estate tax was that the rich just gifted their estates to private charity to spite the government. Government is just the only group with a sufficient cudgel to enforce the practice and sufficient reach to ensure that otherwise-undirected estates do give back to society.

[Locke1689]

[citation needed]

I see that both gave huge portions of their estates to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This in no way violates the principle of their position.

[KC8ZKF]

Why want to encumber an aristocracy, not creators of wealth. The creators in question are dead. Thomas Paine covers this in his pamhlet _Rights of Man_.