> the heirs did not earn or work for.
> heirs have an advantage they themselves did not earn, own things they did not work for.
The heirs did earn it, in the same way that anyone earns anything. Agent X voluntarily gave something to agent Y in exchange for something of equal or greater subjective value.In this case, the parent (X) gave their wealth to their child (Y), and in return they get to satisfy their "empire"- and family- building ambition, which in subjective utility terms to them is superior to alternative uses of that wealth. Perhaps they've been working all their life for this motivation, it drives many people. A perceived level of accomplishment that extends post-death. That's the nature of a decentralized, high-freedom world. X and Y will often transact and it's not clear what the subjective value exchange is. As long as that transaction isn't hurting you through negative externalities, it's my opinion that you have no business interfering in that transaction. > I don’t care what they spend it on, I never claimed to care.
I believe you do.If at age 60, they buy 500 Ferraris, that's okay. If at age 60, they instead send that wealth to their kids, that's not okay. The former transaction (wealth <--> Ferraris) is okay. The latter transaction (wealth <--> subjective value from family/empire-building) is not okay. Personally, if I was rich, I would derive much higher subjective value from giving that wealth to my kids than buying 500 Ferraris. > The heirs didn’t work for it, they’re no more entitled to it then I am.
Charity beneficiaries "don't work" for the money that's given to them. Are they entitled to it more than you?I would say yes, because it was a voluntary exchange from the charity to that individual. We've no business in interfering in that. We may think that the purpose of the charity is stupid, but that's the private, decentralized decision that they've come to with their own wealth. > It is in the best interest of the nation and the individuals living at that time that the assets and wealth of that nation be accessible to anyone living in it.
I don't put too much weight on these broad utilitarian arguments.In practice, it so often ends with an undesirable outcome. If we did a 100% inheritance tax, do we know the impact on frivolous consumption or people's motivations? In theory, nobody is really a utilitarian anyway, people's determinations come from biological/a priori frameworks and a subjective sense of fairness and justice with a tinge of impact from jealousy and self-interest (I'm not accusing you of that). Reasoning from a set of basic axioms which generally, but not always, point in the right direction has a better track record, in my opinion. > (like plots of lands)
A land tax would be great. |
And honestly I’d rather them buy 1000 Ferarris and crash every single one. I don’t even care if it doesn’t go to the government, on a more serious note it could all go to the American Cancer Society or a charity of their choosing, or local municipality…
I’ve personally committed to dying poor. I’ve met trust fund kids (not that I’m anywhere near that level) but money breeds entitlement, especially at a young age where they may not be emotionally ready. That’s not something I want for my kids. We’re all in tech here, we do well enough to corrupt at least a little
And it’s still unamerican.