[elric]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer the question honestly. Assuming we're talking about a country where "The Government" is pretty well behaved, said government doesn't put that money in its pockets. It makes it work for the people it represents. Working for your money and becoming filthy rich is fine. But when you die, you die. None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide what we do with what's left of you and your belongings. In an ideal world, we can use that to better the lives of others.

Unless you were a truly stingy person in life, your affluence will have already have had huge positive impacts on those near and dear to you. Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person?

[nitsky]

> But when you die, you die. None of that money is yours anymore, because you no longer exist. We, as a society, are free to decide with what's left of you and your belongings.

Most governments enforce a person’s will after they die. People generally elect to distribute their property to particular people, specifically to avoid it ending up in the hands of “we, as a society”.

[elric]

As a society it's fine to execute a will, as long as it doesn't harm society. Entrenching generational wealth and furthering poverty seems like it's harmful. This is understood, after all that's why there is an inheritance tax in the first place. I'm argueing that it needs to be way higher.

[nitsky]

I disagree with your assumption that entrenching generational wealth furthers poverty. When inventors believe that they can build generational wealth, they are motivated to produce better products and services, which they are able to offer at far lower prices than their value to all of us, so we all become richer. For example, I am writing this on a smartphone that cost just a couple hundred dollars. With it, I can access all of the world's knowledge and communicate with anyone instantaneously. For just a couple hundred more dollars, I sit beside an air conditioner that keeps me comfortably cool even though it is boiling outside. The barons of the gilded age could not have purchased such products for any price. So who is richer, me or them? The inventors of these products are rich, but what do I care? I am lucky to have been born into a world where these products are available for such a low price. While it hasn't been proven conclusively, anecdotal evidence suggests that more invention occurs in countries which defend generational wealth, and we all benefit.

[thomasfromcdnjs]

So many assumptions in your logic and your use of "soceity" is dubious at best.

It really just sounds like you think we are all children under one global nation.

I personally will never agree to that, and want my offspring to do better than the rest so we will be at odds at some point.

[valuearb]

How does government pork benefit me? Other than burying me in taxes and my children in debt?

[nitsky]

> Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person?

Why favor your family, friends, or countrymen over any other person during your lifetime either? Everyone behaves this way. For example, why does government sponsored health care in western countries only cover their own citizens? Do the lives of people in less affluent countries not matter? Do they have less intrinsic value?