[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.