[chadcmulligan]

I don't think its to do with fairness, but as this exemplifies, wealth accumulates over generations. If left unchecked then over 400 years a few people own a huge chunk of the world. Why? Is that good for society? Doesn't seem so. Yet society spends a lot of time and money enforcing these laws. Certainly you want your children to inherit if you've done well, but hundreds of years later?

Ownership is a fiction of society, as are most rules, and its probably up to us to decide what "fairness" means. I find it hard to make an argument that someones great grandchildren to the nth level has any claim on this property. So inheritance taxes do seem reasonable.

I have wondered if the modern trend of the rich establishing "foundations" is a way to sidestep inheritance taxes. The foundation will accumulate assets that will be controlled by the heirs some goes to charity which is good for society, but still more and more assets will of necessity be controlled by the foundation and all tax free.

[Aeolun]

I don’t know. If I’ve been paying taxes over my income all my life, and I’ve chosen to do nothing with what remains, what business is that of the government? It’s just another way of double taxation.

[sumedh]

> If I’ve been paying taxes over my income all my life, and I’ve chosen to do nothing with what remains

The problem is your small money has no power, rich people with their big money can buy governments and pass laws that benefit just the rich.

[Aeolun]

Yes, but the buying part is problematic. Not the fact that they are rich.

The law is fighting the symptom instead of the root cause there.

[sumedh]

So what is your solution for fighting the root cause?