As I understand it many first-world governments confiscate some portion of estates.

Some people (myself included) consider "tax" as just a politically correct way to say "confiscate".

>Al,
>
>Up here, we just have a tax on inheritance.
>
>isn't bill refering just to taxt it? Nobody says the whole amount should be confiscated.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you think there should be some mechanism whereby Annie can earn back some or all of that $XXX million?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, there is...
>>>>>
>>>>>She can come up with something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_dBep_55mI
>>>>
>>>>Did you think I was not serious?
>>>
>>>Sorry, Al, for the flip answer.
>>>Yes, there is a mechanism.
>>>She can earn it.
>>
>>You said people with lots of money should have done something to earn it.
>>
>>You misunderstood me - why not have the government hold $XXX million in trust, then when she has "done something to earn it", then she gets it back?
>>
>>Maybe you mean she should earn $XXX million on her own, then the government will give back $XXX million? Or maybe she only earns $XX or $X millions, the government could match her earnings up to a limit of $XXX million? Not a bad starting point for discussion...
>>
>>It's very much worth pointing out that, according to your criterion, the government needs to show that it's worthy of confiscating and making use of $XXX million. That's after making the very debatable assumption it has any right to confiscate any part of an estate built legally from earnings already taxed.

9_dBep_55mI