The Obama Administration

Mr. Lugardo,
Before Kennedy changed the law the highest tax rate on inheritance was 90%, and given your rights analysis, this seems like robbery, since what business does the government or the community have telling people where they can spend their hard earned money. I may not be able to convince you of the value, justice and utility of high-inheritance taxes, but I hope to get across the other argument, and show that this is not an issue of "envy politics," but rather about well-being and social contract. The American Revolutions incited by Thomas Paine and much of US character rises in contrast to aristocracy, to the lines of inheritance in Europe which concentrated wealth in a small number of families for centuries. Franklin and other founding fathers wanted the new continent to provide equality (of opportunity) at a minimum. Today the top 1% own 45-55%of US wealth. We live on an island, where after a plane crash 1 of the 100 survivors owns half it. The US has very low levels of social mobility--that is very few people change class in their lifetime. In fact, father's income explains 50% of variability in son's income. Inheritance taxes serve, at a minimum, a social good; by interrupting the flow of wealth, they protect US from regressing into a permanent aristocratic society, and indirectly serve to maintain the equality of opportunity which has both moral and economic virtues.
To return to your concern about rights. Voltaire said the right to swing my arm stops at the next person's nose. Likewise, while from the everyday standpoint which regards transfer of funds for shoes or charities as a matter of personal prerogative, it turns out that inheritance does social harm, like polluting water supplies or wrecking National Forests. The harm is not immediately obvious, but for most of history in most of the world oligarchies enforced serfdom through systems of inherited wealth and power, and this injustice scheme also disproportionately empowers heirs who are less effective economic contributors than would be socially available had equality of opportunity prevailed (over aristocracy). What liberals, who should be called "conservatives" on this issue is merely the protection of the Enlightenment values which animated the revolutions against aristocracy in the 18th and 19th century.

By the way, what is wrong with millionaires passing down their money to their relative. Wouldn't you like that? Don't be jealous. Why would a millionaire work his entire life to pass it down to people didn't work for anyways to financa welfare. Hell no. If I bust my butt, an become millionare, have a companie and employeed 200 people that actually aren't not collecting unemployments and in fact now are paying taxes, Wouldn't that be already enough, We need more millionaire like that, that can create jobs, from -unemployment to +income tax, right. So if you did not work for the capital that belongs to the millionaire, what make you think you deserve it, after all hi hired you and feed you and your family. So, now his money, he can pass it to his child and grandchild and so on.