[speeq]

So the 7th Duke of Westminster is estimated to be worth £9 billion (US$13 billion), making him the world's richest person under age 30.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We...

> Upon his father's death, in August 2016, as well as the peerages, he inherited a wealth currently estimated at £9 billion, with considerable trust funds for his sisters. This wealth is held in a trust, of which the Duke is a beneficial owner but not the legal owner — an arrangement which received considerable press attention due to the inheritance tax exemption this confers.

The standard Inheritance Tax rate is 40% in the UK when above a certain threshold - https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax

Seems fair!

[LanceH]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's fair the government should get paid when a citizen dies.

[chadcmulligan]

I don't think its to do with fairness, but as this exemplifies, wealth accumulates over generations. If left unchecked then over 400 years a few people own a huge chunk of the world. Why? Is that good for society? Doesn't seem so. Yet society spends a lot of time and money enforcing these laws. Certainly you want your children to inherit if you've done well, but hundreds of years later?

Ownership is a fiction of society, as are most rules, and its probably up to us to decide what "fairness" means. I find it hard to make an argument that someones great grandchildren to the nth level has any claim on this property. So inheritance taxes do seem reasonable.

I have wondered if the modern trend of the rich establishing "foundations" is a way to sidestep inheritance taxes. The foundation will accumulate assets that will be controlled by the heirs some goes to charity which is good for society, but still more and more assets will of necessity be controlled by the foundation and all tax free.

[jammygit]

Does it make more sense to think that a grandson should get paid because the grandfather inherited a billion that the son (who dies) wasn't able to spend fast enough to squander? Both inheritance scenarios are conventions and both are a bit silly when presented nakedly without nuance.

Edit: reworded first couple of words

[djrobstep]

You have it backwards. When a person dies, their property becomes unowned (dead people cannot own things). It is active government intervention that takes that unowned property and gives to rich kids on the basis of some scribbles on some pieces of paper.

[black_puppydog]

You say that like it goes to the government and stays there. But really this would just be another part of the public budget. So try it the other way around:

I don't think it's fair that public services for all have to be cut so that some people who's parents (not themselves!) got very rich can stay rich. Let them start out from "wealthy" or from "well off" instead, and let everyone else go from "scraping by" to "okay" in return.

[speedplane]

> I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's fair the government should get paid when a citizen dies.

I'd argue that it's even less fair that the government feels it's entitled to a percentage of your income. Taking money from a dead person doesn't seem as bad as taking money from a living person.

Nobody likes taxes, but they have been a part of society for several thousand years.

[peteretep]

I think estate tax should be 100% because you sure as shit don’t need your money when you’re dead. Change my mind.

[specialist]

Governments tax wealth and economic activity. Is there another system which is more fair? Lottery? Head count? Birthday?

[aiisjustanif]

I'm sure why I need to pay for public goods and services when I'm alive either, or why we have gift tax.

[inflatableDodo]

They should ignore wills and run inheritance as a random lottery. Would be fairer and a lot more amusing.