Inheritance - Injustice?

[Jamesqf]

I have not stated what I believe on this thread, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth, thank you very much.

Then why are you keeping on with this bogus argument,  which - as I have tried to point out several times - even if it were correct, is irrelevant?  If I'm not to assume that you're numbered among the hard of thinking, what other alternative do I have, but to assume you're trying to distract us by flinging bullshit?

[arebelspy]

MODERATOR NOTE: Cool it.

[SweetLife]

James' philosophy is: if someone doesn't want to work anymore... they're wrong.

Now as to directing a comment to someone re their mothers, I've observed that a good many kids have absolutely no idea about what their parents really want (and vice versa, of course).  They just pick up on society's stereotyped notions: e.g. "You're old, mom.  You ought to be acting like a grey-haired old granny, and spend your golden years sitting in your rocking chair and knitting all day.  Or maybe some shuffleboard, if that's not too much excitment."

Please don't lump me in with "a good many kids" ... I had a wonderfully close relationship with my Mom until the very end ... for the last 8 years of her life I lived across the driveway ... so I knew what she thought, how she thought and what she liked to do. And my mother was far from the "old" stereotype you mentioned ...

This thread was about inheritance wasn't it? ;p

[Cpa Cat]

I'm not a huge fan of taxes. And to me, estate tax seems like robbery. Tax me once when I'm alive and tax me again while I'm dead. What a rip.

But it's hard to get too riled up about it.

$5,340,000 of each person's estate is exempt. That's 10,680,000 for couples who share the exemption. Plus a 100% exemption for anything left to your spouse. Plus a charitable deduction - which offsets estate tax. The estate tax only ends up being a tax on people who don't plan - because you can effectively choose to give the "tax dollars" to charity. That's not even counting lifetime tax free gifts of $28,000 (per couple - indexed for inflation) per year per person.

At 10M+, plus the ability to give 50% above 10M as long as you give 50% to charity... Who really feels sympathetic for the UBER rich who are offended that half their estate ends up going to charity?

The FIREcalc tells me I may be one of these UBER rich. I plan on leaving it all to needy cats and laughing from the grave.

[Midwest]

I'm not a huge fan of taxes. And to me, estate tax seems like robbery. Tax me once when I'm alive and tax me again while I'm dead. What a rip.

But it's hard to get too riled up about it.

$5,340,000 of each person's estate is exempt. That's 10,680,000 for couples who share the exemption. Plus a 100% exemption for anything left to your spouse. Plus a charitable deduction - which offsets estate tax. The estate tax only ends up being a tax on people who don't plan - because you can effectively choose to give the "tax dollars" to charity. That's not even counting lifetime tax free gifts of $28,000 (per couple - indexed for inflation) per year per person.

At 10M+, plus the ability to give 50% above 10M as long as you give 50% to charity... Who really feels sympathetic for the UBER rich who are offended that half their estate ends up going to charity?

The FIREcalc tells me I may be one of these UBER rich. I plan on leaving it all to needy cats and laughing from the grave.

I think the inheritance tax assumes the government is a better steward of the funds than the citizen who earned it.  The govt continues to prove its utter incompetence with money.

It the citizen wants to give it to the govt upon death, they are free to do so.

Midwest

[warfreak2]

I think the inheritance tax assumes the government is a better steward of the funds than the citizen who earned it.  The govt continues to prove its utter incompetence with money.

This argument ought to apply to absolutely every tax, but least of all, inheritance tax; dead bodies aren't such good fund stewards.

When the government taxes you, it's not because the government thinks it can use that money "better" than you; the government has different goals than you. It doesn't really make sense to compare how good at using money two different entities are, if they aren't using it for the same things. Like, index funds are pretty good for turning money into more money, but running homeless shelters is a lot better for dealing with homelessness.

The government taxes you because you live in a democracy which decided that the government should use money for various things which benefit society, but which individuals wouldn't use their money for themselves. It appears that you are against taxation itself, and you advocate for the government to be funded by voluntary contributions. I wonder which successful nations have ever been built on this economic model, if any.

[matchewed]

This?

[Midwest]

I think the inheritance tax assumes the government is a better steward of the funds than the citizen who earned it.  The govt continues to prove its utter incompetence with money.

This argument ought to apply to absolutely every tax, but least of all, inheritance tax; dead bodies aren't such good fund stewards.

Before you die, however, you can in fact make decisions regarding the disposition of your property. 

When the government taxes you, it's not because the government thinks it can use that money "better" than you; the government has different goals than you. It doesn't really make sense to compare how good at using money two different entities are, if they aren't using it for the same things. Like, index funds are pretty good for turning money into more money, but running homeless shelters is a lot better for dealing with homelessness.

The government in the US at present has too many "goals" many of which are poorly accomplished.   Throwing additional resources at our bloated government solves nothing except wasting those resources.

The government taxes you because you live in a democracy which decided that the government should use money for various things which benefit society, but which individuals wouldn't use their money for themselves. It appears that you are against taxation itself, and you advocate for the government to be funded by voluntary contributions. I wonder which successful nations have ever been built on this economic model, if any.

The US is a republic.  I'm not against all taxation, but am against wasting resources and giving too much power to a government.  Govt needs me more than I need it.  Not vice versa.  Things like the NSA spying on its own citizens are less likely to happen when govt resources are limited.

[warfreak2]

This argument ought to apply to absolutely every tax, but least of all, inheritance tax; dead bodies aren't such good fund stewards.

Before you die, however, you can in fact make decisions regarding the disposition of your property. 

I didn't say it didn't apply to inheritance at all, but "least of all". Please explain how your argument doesn't apply to absolutely all forms of tax? Or admit that it does.

[Midwest]

This argument ought to apply to absolutely every tax, but least of all, inheritance tax; dead bodies aren't such good fund stewards.

Before you die, however, you can in fact make decisions regarding the disposition of your property. 

I didn't say it didn't apply to inheritance at all, but "least of all". Please explain how your argument doesn't apply to absolutely all forms of tax? Or admit that it does.

I don't believe I made an argument it didn't apply to all forms of tax.  I simply pointed out the inconsistency in your argument about dead bodies not being good stewards. 

With regard to my views on taxation as a whole, I believe all adult citizens should pay some tax.  In our country, many pay no income tax at present.  Rather than pushing a punitive tax towards the accumulation of wealth, we could ensure that all citizens pay at least some level of tax.

[warfreak2]

So you believe that all adult citizens should pay some tax, but then the government is taking that tax money from them, which, in your words "assumes the government is a better steward of the funds than the citizen who earned it". How does the argument only apply to the taxes (e.g. inheritance tax) that you don't approve of?

I said it applied "least of all" to inheritance tax, you responded that it did apply, which didn't contradict me. It applies less to inheritance tax than other taxes because while a citizen can set out instructions for how the money should be used when they die, if they are still alive they can use their 'stewardship skills' more effectively to react to events unforeseen at the time the set of instructions was written (or, you know, they could make decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than following a set of instructions, if they thought this made for better stewardship). But really this is an irrelevant amusement; what matters is that your argument applies to all taxes, not that it applies less to inheritance tax. If you don't get that, just ignore this paragraph.

[Jamesqf]

The government taxes you because you live in a democracy which decided that the government should use money for various things which benefit society, but which individuals wouldn't use their money for themselves.

By the same logic, living in a democracy (but see above about the US being a republic) means that I have every right to try to convince my fellow citizens that taxation & spending are both too high, and that many supposed benefits are really detriments.

[warfreak2]

By the same logic, living in a democracy (but see above about the US being a republic) means that I have every right to try to convince my fellow citizens that taxation & spending are both too high, and that many supposed benefits are really detriments.

Indeed. Go nuts! But I advise you not to do so on a platform that says it's illegitimate for the government to tax citizens; you will appear to be a lunatic. Make the case that it would be better for society if taxes were lower.

(Don't you think it's funny when somebody cites freedom of speech in response the presentation of counterarguments, rather than the limiting of speech?)

[Gin1984]

I have not stated what I believe on this thread, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth, thank you very much.

Then why are you keeping on with this bogus argument,  which - as I have tried to point out several times - even if it were correct, is irrelevant?  If I'm not to assume that you're numbered among the hard of thinking, what other alternative do I have, but to assume you're trying to distract us by flinging bullshit?

Stating that you are incorrect in how you are using stats is not an argument, it is a statement of basic fact.

[hybrid]

With regard to my views on taxation as a whole, I believe all adult citizens should pay some tax.  In our country, many pay no income tax at present.  Rather than pushing a punitive tax towards the accumulation of wealth, we could ensure that all citizens pay at least some level of tax.

All adult workers pay 6.3% in taxes for the purpose of funding SS and Medicare and Medicaid. You are correct that many millions of American pay no income tax (and the Fox News crowd loves pointing that stat out misdirecting the public with that), unfortunately too many people incorrectly assume that a McDonalds worker pays no taxes. He does.

That's a separate discussion about the merits and/or failings of progressive taxation. I agree that all American workers should have some skin in the game (and they do), the devil is in the details. The working poor in fact pay all kinds of taxes. 

[Midwest]

With regard to my views on taxation as a whole, I believe all adult citizens should pay some tax.  In our country, many pay no income tax at present.  Rather than pushing a punitive tax towards the accumulation of wealth, we could ensure that all citizens pay at least some level of tax.

All adult workers pay 6.3% in taxes for the purpose of funding SS and Medicare and Medicaid. You are correct that many millions of American pay no income tax (and the Fox News crowd loves pointing that stat out misdirecting the public with that), unfortunately too many people incorrectly assume that a McDonalds worker pays no taxes. He does.

That's a separate discussion about the merits and/or failings of progressive taxation. I agree that all American workers should have some skin in the game (and they do), the devil is in the details. The working poor in fact pay all kinds of taxes.

Hybrid - I'm well aware of the difference between income tax and SS tax.  I'm not in the "fox news" crowd, but I do realize that many of those McDonalds workers a) get the EIC to offset all or a portion of that tax and b) receive a significant and direct benefit from SS taxes paid upon retirement or disability.

SS tax (theoretically) doesn't fund anything except that specific program.  That leaves defense, other social programs, roads, etc. to be funded by other forms of taxation. We can argue the level, but if you only pay ss/m'care you are not contributing to anything but ss/medicare on a federal level.

[Jamesqf]

Then why are you keeping on with this bogus argument,  which - as I have tried to point out several times - even if it were correct, is irrelevant?  If I'm not to assume that you're numbered among the hard of thinking, what other alternative do I have, but to assume you're trying to distract us by flinging bullshit?

Stating that you are incorrect in how you are using stats is not an argument, it is a statement of basic fact.

The problem here is that you persist in deliberately ignoring the fact that I am not using statistics in the way you claim that I am using them.  I am not, and never have, claimed that the Forbes 400 are representative of all wealthy.  I am saying that they are (by definition) a sample of the extreme.  Given the fairly reasonable assumption that it's easier to acquire a small fortune than an extremely large one (which of course you're free to challenge), we should expect the ratio of inherited to self-made wealth to tilt more towards self-made as we go down the income scale.  Thus the fact that a majority of the top 400 fortunes are self-made should, in the absence of contrary evidence*, suggest that the majority of wealth is self-made.

*And as far as I've seen, no one is presenting contrary evidence, just whining about the supposed evils of inherited wealth.

[Gin1984]

Then why are you keeping on with this bogus argument,  which - as I have tried to point out several times - even if it were correct, is irrelevant?  If I'm not to assume that you're numbered among the hard of thinking, what other alternative do I have, but to assume you're trying to distract us by flinging bullshit?

Stating that you are incorrect in how you are using stats is not an argument, it is a statement of basic fact.

The problem here is that you persist in deliberately ignoring the fact that I am not using statistics in the way you claim that I am using them.  I am not, and never have, claimed that the Forbes 400 are representative of all wealthy.  I am saying that they are (by definition) a sample of the extreme.  Given the fairly reasonable assumption that it's easier to acquire a small fortune than an extremely large one (which of course you're free to challenge), we should expect the ratio of inherited to self-made wealth to tilt more towards self-made as we go down the income scale.  Thus the fact that a majority of the top 400 fortunes are self-made should, in the absence of contrary evidence*, suggest that the majority of wealth is self-made.

*And as far as I've seen, no one is presenting contrary evidence, just whining about the supposed evils of inherited wealth.

If you are using a sample, to get any valid result aka using statistics correctly (which yes, we agree you are not statistics correctly), your sample must be representative for the information about the sample to have ANY validity outside that sample.  Since as you admit, they are not representive, any information about them CANNOT tell you ANYTHING about any other large group/population.  Therefore this data is useless in the way you are attempting to use it.  Basic stat 101, which is why I asked if you have ever taken a stats class.

[warfreak2]

I am not, and never have, claimed that the Forbes 400 are representative of all wealthy.

Are you really trying to suggest that the 400 wealthiest people in the USA are a representative sample of wealthy people?

Yes.

[warfreak2]

Given the fairly reasonable assumption that it's easier to acquire a small fortune than an extremely large one (which of course you're free to challenge), we should expect the ratio of inherited to self-made wealth to tilt more towards self-made as we go down the income scale.

This was already demolished:

Yes, it's easier to make a few million than it is to make a few billion. It's also a lot easier to inherit a few million than it is to inherit a few billion. At the top, it's clear; if you're the richest dude in the world, and you bequeath your wealth equally between your three children, then none of your three children will be the richest dudes in the world.

Let me make this simple. Here's a table of the numbers of wealthy people who

	Are in the Forbes 400	Aren't in the Forbes 400
Made their own wealth	A	B
Inherited their wealth	C	D

Your argument is that it's easier to make a smaller wealth than a larger one, i.e. A < B. From that you're concluding that the Forbes 400 has a higher proportion of inheritors than the other column, i.e. C/(A+C) > D/(B+D), i.e. AD < BC. That just mathematically doesn't follow from A < B at all; it's a total non-sequitur. Obviously it depends what C and D are. Your sample tells us about A and C, you reasonably assume A < B, but you have no information about D.

[arebelspy]

Yes, it's easier to make a few million than it is to make a few billion. It's also a lot easier to inherit a few million than it is to inherit a few billion. At the top, it's clear; if you're the richest dude in the world, and you bequeath your wealth equally between your three children, then none of your three children will be the richest dudes in the world.

This is only true if you have less than 3x the next person.  If you do, you could split it and all three could tie for richest (or one of them could be richest).  This is not the case today (nor probably ever), but it's theoretically possible.

[warfreak2]

This is only true if you have less than 3x the next person.  If you do, you could split it and all three could tie for richest (or one of them could be richest).  This is not the case today (nor probably ever), but it's theoretically possible.

It's also not true if the richest person has 4 children ;-)

Even so, if we're talking about theory rather than the dataset Jamesqf entered into the discussion - just wait two (or more) generations and let it disperse exponentially. The only way that dynastic wealth can be maintained at the top is by everyone in the dynasty leaving their wealth to just one descendant. Unless this is the norm (and it isn't), we should expect the proportion-of-inheritors to be lowest at the very top.

[arebelspy]

we should expect the proportion-of-inheritors to be lowest at the very top.

Quite.

[Leisured]

Returning to earlier point about rags to riches to rags in three generations. ARebelSpy suggested that he might consider willing his estate to charity rather than to his descendants, if I understood him correctly. His descendants could contest that will in court, but I want to point out that there is such a thing as a 'spendthrift trust' set up as part of a will. A spendthrift trust is administered by a trustee, usually the lawyer of the deceased (I think Americans use the term attorney) who will distribute the income of the trust to a beneficiary who is deemed to be spendthrift. Such income could be used to pay off student loans, a mortgage, or to a retirement fund. Those interested will need to seek legal advice.

[arebelspy]

I plan to leave all of my estate to charity (whatever's left that I don't donate before I die), excepting in the case of a child who cannot care for themselves (some sort of physical or mental disability).  In that case, a trust would be set up to care for them until they die, and then the beneficial interest will go to charity.

Definitely wouldn't do a "spendthrift trust" as you describe (other than in the situation above), but I can definitely see how it would be helpful for those who want to provide for their able-minded and bodied kids, but know the kids would blow it.  I don't feel that obligation, personally.

[CommonCents]

I'm not a huge fan of taxes. And to me, estate tax seems like robbery. Tax me once when I'm alive and tax me again while I'm dead. What a rip.

But it's hard to get too riled up about it.

$5,340,000 of each person's estate is exempt. That's 10,680,000 for couples who share the exemption. Plus a 100% exemption for anything left to your spouse. Plus a charitable deduction - which offsets estate tax. The estate tax only ends up being a tax on people who don't plan - because you can effectively choose to give the "tax dollars" to charity. That's not even counting lifetime tax free gifts of $28,000 (per couple - indexed for inflation) per year per person.

At 10M+, plus the ability to give 50% above 10M as long as you give 50% to charity... Who really feels sympathetic for the UBER rich who are offended that half their estate ends up going to charity?

The FIREcalc tells me I may be one of these UBER rich. I plan on leaving it all to needy cats and laughing from the grave.

Yes, although I'd note that many states (18) have much lower exemptions.  My state is $1m, which is not indexed for inflation.  It's also a figure many mustachians are indeed likely to have at death (see thread on amassing $1m).

[Cpa Cat]

Meow meow meow.

Yes, although I'd note that many states (18) have much lower exemptions.  My state is $1m, which is not indexed for inflation.  It's also a figure many mustachians are indeed likely to have at death (see thread on amassing $1m).

You're right. And it's a fair point. I think that if I did not intend to give all my money to needy cats, I would care a lot more about state estate taxes than federal estate taxes. Still, if passing on your estate to your decendants is important, people have enough flexibility about what state they want to live and die in that it's avoidable.

Personally, due to mobility, I think that it's short-sighted for states to stick their hands in the coffin. What a great way to scare off rich retirees. You'd think it would be more worthwhile to keep them in the state, spending all their money and paying income taxes while living.

[SAHD]

First I am saddend to see how many people think it is a good idea to take ones money and give it to another.  All of us on this forum are working hard to make as much as we can and save as much as we can so we can retire.  I believe communism is a system of taking from all to give to all and that has NEVER been a succesful sytem.

Secondly since the average age of mortality in the US is over 70 years of age and getting very close to 80, the children that our inheritance will be going to, will be far pass the age of "doing nothing" most of them will either have made thier money or they will be proven to be failures in life.  So leaving them $500k will not make them all of a sudden lazy no good people, the money will only allow them to retire in a manner that I would love my children to have and I hope that they will save some of it and will pass that on to the grandkids that will also be at an age greater than the "doing nothing age"

[Workinghard]

I consider it a blessing to leave an inheritance. My brother is a first generation multi-millionaire. None of his money was inherited, but he'll be leaving it to his children. Two of his children will make it to 1m. The third could, but money isn't that important to him. He'll use his money to help others.

My husband and I will also reach the 1m mark in a couple of years.  I have two sons. My oldest declined an inheritance since he received one from his dad, has a pension, and will be fine. Instead I'm giving him money for the grandchildren to be used for college or as a gift when the time is right--his choice.

Thus the bulk of our estate, what's left, will go to our youngest son assuming he continues to make good choices and be responsible. We're very close as a family, and I know our sons would step up if we ever needed anything. Helping them brings more joy than spending it on myself.

[warfreak2]

I believe communism is a system of taking from all to give to all and that has NEVER been a succesful sytem.

Labelling taxation as communism has NEVER been a successful argument. You know what other economic system includes taxes? Capitalism... and everything else except for anarchy.

Try not to make arguments that apply equally against all forms of taxation; that's generally a clue that your argument doesn't really apply against any of them.

[MDM]

I believe communism is a system of taking from all to give to all and that has NEVER been a succesful sytem.

Labelling taxation as communism has NEVER been a successful argument.

There's a lot of room between "minimal taxation to pay for minimal government" vs. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  It does seem SAHD objects to the latter (and I'd agree if so), but it also seems a stretch to say, based on the post, that SAHD is equating communism with any taxation at all.

[SAHD]

I was referring to an earlier post that said the government should be able to take ALL of you left over money.  And since the largest expenditure in our economic system is payouts, either earned or not, that is a form of communism if not just good old fashion socialism.  Either way it is not what America is about, maybe other countries but not America.  Our government was formed to be a limited partner with the states, not the over bearing, over controlling, state sueing, drone flying government it is today.  Since some of the post are from the UK they really have no business telling us how we should be running our government.  They can ask us to save them from communism but that is about it.

[viper155]

What people do with their money is NOBODY ELSES DAMN BUSINESS. Period.

[legacyoneup]

-  Concern that the inheritors' lives will be lessened by things being made too easy for them.  There are enough examples of dissolute behavior among the "idle rich" that one can't completely dismiss this view.  But what gives anyone the right to come between the giver and receiver here?  Some bureaucrat would know what is better for the heirs than the giver?  I don't think so.
 -  A belief that society as a whole is better when wealth is shared more equally.  This genuinely held belief is the one for which I have the most sympathy - but not enough to agree with it.  Too slippery a slope all the way down to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  And, similar to the second point, by what reasoning do we conclude that bureaucrats are better dispensers of funds than the person who accumulated the funds in the first place?

Reminds me of this passage from Atlas Shrugged :
Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it.

[iris lily]

-  Concern that the inheritors' lives will be lessened by things being made too easy for them.  There are enough examples of dissolute behavior among the "idle rich" that one can't completely dismiss this view.  But what gives anyone the right to come between the giver and receiver here?  Some bureaucrat would know what is better for the heirs than the giver?  I don't think so.
 -  A belief that society as a whole is better when wealth is shared more equally.  This genuinely held belief is the one for which I have the most sympathy - but not enough to agree with it.  Too slippery a slope all the way down to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."  And, similar to the second point, by what reasoning do we conclude that bureaucrats are better dispensers of funds than the person who accumulated the funds in the first place?

Reminds me of this passage from Atlas Shrugged :
Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it.

omg, the tortured prose that is Ayn Rand...

[legacyoneup]

omg, the tortured prose that is Ayn Rand...

prose?.. more like logic. Can you counter that passage line by line?

[warfreak2]

What people do with their money is NOBODY ELSES DAMN BUSINESS. Period.

Yes, that is why all tax is evil and we should all live in anarchy.

(Please try to make an argument which doesn't apply equally against all forms of tax, otherwise you just look silly.)

[iris lily]

omg, the tortured prose that is Ayn Rand...

prose?.. more like logic. Can you counter that passage line by line?

The philosophy of Rand is--ok. I'm pretty libertarian myself.

But her long political diatribes do not belong in a "novel." Her pedantic writing style is simply awful. She wrote "fiction" you know. Why she just couldn't be an essayist is beyond me. And even then, if I consider these section essays, the writing style is overbearing.

A very little of Ayn Rand's writing goes a longs way. Others libertarian thinkers make these same points far more elegantly.

[arebelspy]

omg, the tortured prose that is Ayn Rand...

prose?.. more like logic. Can you counter that passage line by line?

The philosophy of Rand is--ok. I'm pretty libertarian myself.

But her long political diatribes do not belong in a "novel." Her pedantic writing style is simply awful. She wrote "fiction" you know. Why she just couldn't be an essayist is beyond me. And even then, if I consider these section essays, the writing style is overbearing.

A very little of Ayn Rand's writing goes a longs way. Others libertarian thinkers make these same points far more elegantly.

Yes, yes, hating on Rand's writing style is quite popular, and you do it too.  Well done.

It's an interesting quote, but what makes a heir "worthy" or not?  (For her, obviously, simply if they waste it or build it, but do you agree?)

[legacyoneup]

It's an interesting quote, but what makes a heir "worthy" or not?  (For her, obviously, simply if they waste it or build it, but do you agree?)

Um...  let me take a stab at this. Anyone who understands / believes that they cannot consume more than they produce would be a suitable heir. Such a person will mostly be a net producer ... and not dependant on society or others for their sustenance. He/She could choose to accept and build up the fortune, accept and then redirect the fortune to social causes as they deem appropriate or decline to accept it ( fortune from blood diamonds... or a drug operation).

Net producers will never need to inherit... they will always manage to build up wealth through aggregation.

This is as per my understanding. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.