I’m all for a safety net that has diminished as families have shrunk and become more nuclear. I just don’t think paying for it by taxing estates is a proper way to go about it.

Also, extended families lived together in many places, EXCEPT the east coast of england and the nordic areas around denmark (guess why those 2 regions are the exception), which practiced, by-and-large, an absolute nuclear family structure in the middle ages as well. see Emmanuel Todd.

For example, to earn $10k/year from investments, you have to start with around $5 million.

However, the nuclear family, in which the only members of the household are a married couple and their children, is a very recent invention. Prior to the mid-20th century, extended families tended to live together in one household more often than not. This change in the nature of the family means that the social safety net provided by one’s aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, and so forth isn’t available to a lot of people. When individuals can’t make ends meet, and their family members are too far away or too poor to help them, who do you believe should pick up the slack? Obviously somebody should.

Plus, which person did the LEAST amount of work for their money:

John came from a working-class background. Through a combination of luck and very hard work, John managed to amass $15 million.

Jane married John before he hit it big. She provided moral support and kept the household going. Until John became rich, Jane also worked. When times were tough, Jane did whatever was necessary to help her husband succeed. Now that he is rich, Jane has stopped working outside the home. She stands to inherit millions of dollars when John dies.

Jim is the son of Jane and John. He can’t remember a time when his parents were not wealthy. They gave him EVERYthing: the finest toys, education at a prestigious private school, admission to Harvard. Jim has no concept of the value of a dollar, or how hard his parents worked to earn their millions, because he cannot remember ever not being rich. To him, possessions and money are just sort of there. Jim stands to inherit millions of dollars when his parents die.

But the money you invest is not taxed, only the interest you earn on it. If you earn $20K, invest it, and make another $5K, you aren’t taxed on the $25, only on the $5.

This is like saying that a shop owner shouldn’t have to pay taxes on the income s/he generates by selling me something because I already paid taxes on the money I earned to buy it. Money is taxed every time it changes hands. I don’t see why inheritance should be a special case.