| This argument ultimately goes down to a belief that all children should be owned and raised by the state - parents should not have any involvement, as that gives their children an unfair advantage. Let's pretend money had nothing to do with it. Simply by virtue of being my child, I am able to train them and pass knowledge in such a way that they have an inherent advantage to other children. Would this be unfair? Ultimately, it's the same thing! They now have an advantage over others. Now, should we seize 100% of all wealth upon death? Otherwise, my children will get something more than others, and over time this compounds to be a significant advantage. The average person does not want zero control over raising their children. This comes from a belief in the family unit - a private, self-organized entity that is separate from the state. Families are biologically predisposed to help their own members and exclude outsiders. This manifests itself in innumerable ways such as gifting money to family members, taking vacations with family, investing in each other's businesses, and on and on. You will never be able to prevent people from giving their children wealth. It is biologically predisposed. Also, no one likes paying taxes - nobody! When given the opportunity, even middle class people alter their behavior to avoid even small taxes, like when people drive from one state with sales taxes over the border to another (Massachusetts residents driving to New Hampshire - extremely common) to avoid a 6.25% sales tax. What you have is incentives - we all want to help our children, and pay the fewest taxes. The state can pass whatever laws they want, but everyone is incentivized to avoid them, and will find new and clever ways to do so. |