I have a dollar. I can spend that dollar or save that dollar. If I save that dollar, I can spend it later or have someone that I care about spend it later.

My kids, by luck of birth, were born into a family that values education; we read to them every single night, do crafts, science, engineering things, and tend a garden at home. Why is it fair that they get those advantages?

In addition to being barred from passing along the money I don't spend in retirement, should I also be blocked from reading to my kids more than some community maximum; should our library or museum trips be capped? Should kids be blocked from getting grandma's wedding band just because it has an economic value?

I don't work and save/invest only for myself; I do so for my family, including those who will actuarially live longer than me.

Well, the argument about being blocked from reading to your kids is a pretty good one. Never thought of it like that. You convinced me. Thanks.

There are people out there that believe that sort of thing:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-yo...

Beyond a certain threshold (or complex set of conditions) accumulated wealth can become self perpetuating. No U.S. legislation I can think of actually affects the sort modest wealth you're describing, but there is arguably some social benefit to limiting future returns to inherited capital.

You and your family also don't exist in a vacuum - you benefit from the society you seem content to watch crumble around you so "your" money (a government created instrument) you made at a job that wouldn't exist without the society around you and using services falling into disrepair and rot because you're dumb enough to conflate hoarding wealth with reading.

> the society you seem content to watch crumble

Steady on, pal!

It's not a random process. Babies aren't allocated by the stork.