>>>Right.
>>>And therefore, someone inheriting $50 billion should be treated the same as my grandsons.
>
>Won't happen. The big estates will be contorted and hidden away and you'll lose any ability to tax it.

So, why not raise the rates?

>
>>>Look at what you're saying, John
>>>You're saying that someone getting a massive handout is a victim.
>>>THEY'RE GETTING THIS MONEY WITHOUT HAVING LIFTED A FINGER
>
>What you call a "hand out" was a family estate nurtured from generation to generation in the UK example I gave, including responsibilities for local communities that relied on the estate. All that happened was that the estates were broken up with locals left with nothing, or the assets re-accumulated in pockets of people not exposed to the tax. I have a buddy who bought an original UK manor house whose ancient wall carvings of the Trials of Job were purchased by a US mogul who transported them for a bar in his NY country home. He outbid anybody else exposed to the taxes, because he was immune. Today's Chinese will be delighted to help out with assets your own people can't afford if they're forced to sell having been so stupid as not to spirit ownership offshore.
>
>For the rest: somebody who has nothing would look on your assets with the same avarice as you seem to look at $10M. If it's OK for you to set an arbitrary limit that spares yourself, why isn't it OK for impoverished young to declare that the 95% tax should be on assets more than $500K- because it's not fair to give your relatives a "hand out" that they get WITHOUT HAVING LIFTED A FINGER.

Right.
And therefore, a billionaire's kids should pay the same tax rate as my grandsons.

Nice narratives. The billionaires love them.