Another example of less taxed "free money" is investment income. You could argue that investing well takes more work than earning inheritance, but I think we can all agree that it takes less work than actual, you know, work. And yet, with log term capital gains tax rates, it is taxed at a lower rate than wage income. And conservatives think it should be taxed less to "encourage investment".

Money from inheritance is money that has been earned and taxed already. Inheritance taxes are a form of double taxation. Same goes for investment income - you have to earn the money first before you can invest it.

I don't stand to inherit much from my mother or my in-laws. I would actually prefer it if they could enjoy their final years by doing things they couldn't afford earlier in life. And I'd certainly prefer them to spend a dollar on themselves than for me to spend 50 cents after the government takes its cut.

On the other end of this equation, shouldn't I have the right to bequeath to my children or grandchildren all of the money I've earned but not spent? Why should the government take a cut? And what if instead of money, I leave my children an antique car or Picasso painting? Should the government be allowed to take the hood ornament or bottom third of the painting?

"1. Giving money or things to a person creates dependency and saps the desire to work. That’s bad for the person and bad for the country.2. A person working for money is good for the person and the country."

So who raises the children in Conservative World? I always knew that Conservatives were contemptuous of the people (mostly and especially women) who do the unpaid labour that keeps society running, but I think it's worth pointing it out. Frequently.

Another simplistic musing on a complex issue that furthers the cause of modern anti-intellectualism. There IS a theme here...

Lets try an alternate example in your "test":

1. Which should be taxed more heavily:

a. money a person earns by working.
b. money a person receives without working, for example "$15,000,000 passed under a will or state law to the surviving spouse who never worked following the death of the spouse who worked and earned all that money".

It is interesting, the difference in framing. Conservatives think of inheritance taxes from the perspective of the recently deceased. Someone who worked hard all of their life to give their family a good start, and who is now having half of their hard earned stuff taken away from them. Liberals think of it from the perspective of the child, who did not work and is simply receiving a windfall gift, and who should have to pay tax on that gift.

there are no images in this post. Not even a chart. I'm disappointed, and my sociological imagination is uninspired.

The issue is the way the left frames the only natural existing things as government/the state and individuals.

But families are also naturally existing things. They exist through time and outlast the individuals. They have their own gestalt.

go read Nisbet, The Quest for Community. The feeling of inheriting wealth from loving parents who are happy to see their money go to their blood relatives is quite different from a state deciding impersonal rules for individuals.

The parents maybe are the best judges of whether to give their business to their children or not based on whether they think them productive or a layabouts.

"working for your money is not as good as instead of inheriting it" <- is that a typo?

Read William Graham Sumner's "What the Social Classes Owe Each Other"

Jay Livingston is suffering from excess compassion. If the poor did as the rich did, they wouldn't feel the need or have the time to complain.

Of course the Queen deserves free stuff
Its those dirty poors that deserve to be poor