Money that isn't available for the rest of society. Society doesn't need money. Money is just a tool, and doesn't solve any problems on its own (aside from the

Money that isn't available for the rest of society. Society doesn't need money. Money is just a tool, and doesn't solve any problems on its own (aside from the inefficiency of barter—but even then you need something to barter first). What society needs—what people need—is consumer goods and services. People who own a great deal of money tend to spend proportionally less of it on consumer goods and services for themselves, and more on capital goods. These capital goods enable more efficient production and thus increase the availability of consumer goods for everyone else. Redistributing wealth is a great way to force consumption of capital, resolving a short-term cash-flow issue by destroying the means of production. You get a gratifying boost to your bank account, but after a brief period there is little on the store shelves on which to spend it. As for inheritance specifically, I agree that it is fair, in general, to say that the recipient of the inheritance has done little to earn that money. So what? Would you really say that you do not have the right to give someone an unearned gift—that this is not a legitimate way for you to choose to spend the resources you have either earned for yourself or been given by others? Or is it only gifts to one's own children which you feel should be out of bounds?