>>So do you advocate inheritance taxes?
>
>Absolutely. After a reasonable deductible I'd tax at 90% or more. I have no problem with passing on a few millions. I'm after the billions.
>
>>> almost wiped out aristocratic ownership of/ability to maintain stately homes in the UK at one point, fwiw.
>If the people think that those places are worth preserving, they can provide government funds to help maintain them.
>But those aristocrats shouldn't get all that money tax free, period.
>
>>> Might be better to lightly tax all transactions
>Maybe so. But it's not either or.
>Massive inherited wealth is a social problem as much as an economic one and taxing is the logical way to cure it.

Why tax? Why should the government get it?

Gates, Buffett etc. are giving it away and/or setting up foundations. Do you think $20B would serve society better deployed in a foundation directed by Bill Gates, or in general tax revenues directed by Bill Christie?

How about this idea: someone with $11B dies. Their estate gets to keep $1B, and the other $10B funds a lotto for all registered voters. A lucky 10,000 of them win $1M each (Canadian-style, non-taxable). Of course, this assumes the billionaire can't be trusted to pick 10,000 people herself, before she dies.