> 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”.

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.

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.

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.

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

>absolutely absurd.

>disdain of wealthy people

>advocate theft.

>none of your business

>vilifying people for wanting to pass down their hard-earned money

In the context of the comment you're replying to, none of this is reasonable, and some of it isn't even relevant. You should consider that you're forming an emotional, hostile argument.

Perhaps the angry reaction is justified given that the comment implied that “society” should be free to do as it pleases with a person and their property when they die. Most countries today vigorously protect the bodies and property of the dead.

> We, as a society, are free to decide with what's left of you and your belongings

A country can be a society, and if that society decides that its dead bodies and their belonging need protection, then so be it. Doesn't seem like the most beneficial thing to do, but you're free to disagree with me. If a dead person's organs can be used to save the lives of others, vigorously protecting that body seems like a selfish thing to do.

Most western societies have rejected your utilitarian thinking, upholding an individual's choices over any forgone benefit to others. For example, every day people die on organ transplant waiting lists, and every day healthy people die in car accidents, but their organs are discarded because they did not check the "organ donor" box on their driver's license application.

OP is literally claiming that once I die, all of my money now belongs to society.

No adjective adequately describes this belief other than "absurd".

> This is absolutely absurd

This adds nothing to the discussion.

> Your belongings and wealth belong to your estate and as the owner of it you decide how it should be distributed.

Well, that's literally the question at hand. You don't get to just say that it is so. A dead person's wealth belonged to them, but they are dead. They can't vote, they can't apply for loans, and, the parent is arguing, they can't arbitrarily pass their money to whoever they choose. They could have, while alive, but now they are dead.

> Because it's none of your business. Why on earth are you vilifying people for wanting to pass down their hard-earned money to their children?

This is just some weird non-sequitur. No one's doing any vilifying, and Parent is arguing that it is societies business (and incidentally, given that an estate tax exists, society currently agrees with the parent poster)

You're deliberately misrepresenting what's being said. We do understand the legal concept of an estate. But its validity is what's being discussed here.

No, you can't. There are all sorts of restrictions, which you already know. But since you are deliberately missing the point, I won't be responding. Feel free to get in the last word.

> 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?