From: Gary Britt 

Don't buy it at all.  Its merely a fanciful rationalization to avoid
calling it what it is a confiscatory unjustified taking at the point of a
gun if necessary from the estate of the person who earned so that those who
didn't earn it can use it for their own power and aggrandizement.  A
rationalization to avoid confronting it is nothing more than a forced
taking for greed, power, envy, and political power.

The above is true whether there is any truth to the subelements of this
fancy sounding rationalization.

However the subelements and assumptions in your postulation below are not
true.  They are proven false by Walmart rising from a single mom and pop
store in bum fuck Arkansas to the largest corporation in the entire world.
Sam Walton didn't start out with any millions and he built this empire
without the capital you describe and he did it in an industry of some of
the lowest possible profit margins and an industry already occupied by
other huge companies with many 100's of millions of capital and those
vaunted professional managers and engineers in your postulation.

The bottom line is that people/entrepreneurs take risks and some succeed in
building wealth (and that means creating jobs and opportunities for other
entrepreneurs who also create jobs).  They do this for themselves and their
families.  It is NOT for some non-risk taking slovenly eggheads,
bureaucrats, crooked politicians, or the just plain greedy and envious to
steal with the point of the governments guns that which they did not earn
or for which they took absolutely NO RISKS in order to use it for their own
purposes or give it to others.

2nd, the wealth is accumulated in large part on an AFTER TAX basis and has
already been taxed.

Finally, If you want MORE of something like job creating, risk taking,
wealth building entrepreneurs reward it and venerate it.  If you want LESS
of that, punish it with confiscatory taxes.  Its just that simple.

Confiscatory death taxes kick in at around $1MM with some talking about
increasing it to a rather paltry $10MM, NOT the $100MM in your example.
Also, the immorality of the death tax is irrelevant to the amount of wealth
involved.  Thats why it applies to huge almost unimaginable wealth like
Bill Gates or the the 2nd or 3rd generation family business that has
accumulated net wealth in the $100MM to $500MM dollar range.  There are
more $100MM net asset family businesses than the greedy/envious classes
could ever imagine.
  They are usually the largest contributors to local small town city
functions and local charities and one of that small towns largest employers.
  They should be celebrated and encouraged, instead of being objects of
jealousy and state sponsored robbery.

Your postulation's belief that professional managers and engineers are
miracle working wealth creators/preservers is false.  If they were really
such kind of people they would be out taking risks and building wealth for
themselves and their own families rather than working for a salary for the
risk taking c average student who took life by the horns and the
opportunities provided in the USA to build a huge family fortune.

Gary

John Beckett wrote:
> Gary Britt  wrote in message
> news::
>> There is no justification at all, morally or economically, for any amount of
>> death taxation.
>
> What about the argument that once a family has accumulated (say) $100M,
> they get an advantage that can't be matched. A large amount of cash pays
> for managers who ensure that the pile increases with no commensurate
> effort or community benefit.
>
> When you have $100M, you can pay people to engineer elaborate schemes so
> you have an "opt-in" tax system - those controlling the pool can pay
> whatever they want (or more likely, don't want).
>
> A death tax is a brick wall which says, "Let's see, you started with
> $100M, and now 30 years later you're dead, and you have $1B. Some
> percentage of that needs to be redistributed."
>
> John
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5