Making the rich richer

[Max B. Sawicky]

.>>
I don't understand how they can live with the cognitive dissonance
here: on one hand, the government should not "give" people any
resources because it undermines their motivation to work; on the 
other hand, giving people inheritance money is an incentive to
acculmulate yet more wealth.  Any logically consistent, rugged
individualist capitalist would reject the notion of wealth transfer
via inheritance.  Interesting how the rhetoric of "individual
achievement" is selectively applied here.
Miles Jackson
cqmv at odin.cc.pdx.edu
>>\

"They" might say the intention of bestowing wealth on others
is one incentive for accumulating it, meaning saving and investing.
Hence an obstacle to bequests, such as a tax, is a disincentive to
save and invest.  You are right that there is no symmetric argument
from the point of view of the heir.  There is no argument I can
think of to justify the untaxed receipt of the gift or bequest.

A more stark sort of dissonance is that inherent in the different
ways alimony, child support, and public assistance are regarded.
Privately financed alimony or child support never raises
questions about the character of the recipients.  Only publicly-
financed transfers do.

For a proposal to socialize inheritance (at least partly),
take a look at The Stakeholder Society, by Ackerman and Alstott.

mbs