On 2010-07-30, RBnDFW wrote:
Maybe it is not "better", but it prevents or at least reduces
perpetual dynasties that have nothing to do with merit.

Where is the harm to society?

The plus of being able to pass estate to heirs is that it makes people
work harder and to save more.

The minus of this is that resources are given to people based on
something other than merit.

Let's suppose that we are in the business of making widgets. Say, you
are really good at making them, so you make a fortune in widgets. I
am bad at making widgets, lose out in competition to you, and stay
poor. That's merit based. No complaints here.

Now, if your heir gets a lot of money and is a bum, that's not really
a great allocation of resources.

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Plenty of poorly run companies. That doesn't mean the government should
nationalize them, in whole or in part.

I agree.

God knows government isn't efficient at running anything. In fact,
the HF heir behaves most like a typical federal bureaucrat.

Inheritance tax is no answer to anything.