[flenserboy]

You're blinded from seeing what could be done by the emotional reaction the $ signs are giving you. Look at the adjectives you have chosen — those are the bounds of your thought-space.

Consider the first point: yes, you can make them "healthy long-term thinkers", but without resources — especially when those resources are expropriated for the value of those with far different or far less long-range aims for them — it will only get them so far. I'm suggesting that encouraging long-term thinking on the part of individuals and their families, with part of that encouragement allowing them to build and maintain significant financial reserves and control of businesses, resources, etc., will have far more salutary effects than allowing those resources to be strip-mined for the sake of investors, corporate raiders, and government indulgences. What is currently lacking is an incentive for those who hold great resources to do more than either live large off of them or put them into ridiculous "charities" or "foundations" that end up doing very, very little of use. At least Carnegie built libraries; today's people buying their consciences back tend to purchase an assortment of politicians. Such a great use of resources.

[ForHackernews]

It sounds like your thinking on this issue is confused by your own hatred of government and/or taxation. There would be absolutely nothing preventing wealthy people from building libraries or even putting their names on them.

Anyway, we are not going to agree: you think a handful of hyperwealthy families will be better for humanity in the long term; I think a broadly shared prosperity is better. I believe historical evidence is on my side, but that's a much longer discussion than I'm willing to have here.

[flenserboy]

Thing is, I don't want it to be a handful of families who benefit from this, but as many as possible. Give people a chance to build and far more than you believe will take advantage of this to make something good. I don't care about "humanity", but about actual people — and I want as many of them to have a chance, and to not simply to be lumped into an undifferentiated mass, as possible.

[ForHackernews]

To be clear: I'm proposing something like "no one can pass on more than $1m (or whatever number) inflation-adjusted dollars to their kids". Realistically, this policy would only affect a tiny fraction of extremely wealthy families. (Reminder for HN readers: the median household net worth is something like ~$70k)

If you say you care about actual people, you should care about giving more of them a chance, and worry less about protecting the non-existent property interests of the dead.