The fruits of your labour argument is a good one which is why I would advocate a 100% inheritance tax.
I'm less convinced by your freedom argument, taken to its logical conclusion, murder should be legal because you're removing the rights of the murderer to do what they want. So I guess it comes down to where you draw the line?
Consumption v investment. There are good arguments each way, I don't know if higher inheritance tax would lead to higher of either. I think they tend to form a balance though.
The line for personal freedom is always where it infringes on the rights of others. Keeping your own wealth or passing it on per your own wishes after your death does not infringe on anyone else's rights. Taking someone else's wealth away from them infringes on their rights.
And yet, there's a difference between, say, a 30% inheritance tax and a 100% inheritance tax. The 100% tax means that you cannot leave anything to your children. The 30% tax means that you cannot leave all of it to your children. One is more prohibitive (and therefore infringing) than the other.
The fruits of your labour argument is a good one which is why I would advocate a 100% inheritance tax.
I'm less convinced by your freedom argument, taken to its logical conclusion, murder should be legal because you're removing the rights of the murderer to do what they want. So I guess it comes down to where you draw the line?
Consumption v investment. There are good arguments each way, I don't know if higher inheritance tax would lead to higher of either. I think they tend to form a balance though.