I don't believe there should ever be a law forcing this, but I would certainly judge anyone who gets that rich and didn't give anything away (if I knew they didn't, instead of just guessing).

I'm not against inheritance, I stand to do pretty well from it myself in the (hopefully not too-near) future, but there's different levels. In general I think anyone who can afford to ought to give to charity as often as possible (and again, I'm not talking selflessness, I can't preach living a budget life in order to give more to charity given that I chose to prioritise living well over giving to charity), but for the super rich, does giving your children $10b really help them more than giving them $5b?

Obviously the question is where's the line, do you leave your loved ones just enough to, say, buy a small house, do you leave them enough to never have to work again, do you leave them enough to never have to work again and be able to live like a millionaire, or... I don't know where the line would be for me, if I became super-rich (which I don't plan on or expect), and I don't know where I think the line should be for people like Jobs/Buffet/etc. All I know is that if they give it all away I feel sorry for their loved ones, and if they give none away I will consider them selfish.

edit: I'm aware that the above views might come across as confusing, I think I didn't word it particularly well but I can't think of a better way to put it. Hopefully it's understandable, if anyone suggests it isn't then I'll give it another shot.

I understand what you're saying. I would like it if everyone who died rich donated money to charity. But I also think that if someone has worked hard to earn that money they have the right to do with it as they wish, without judgement.

If I got rich I think I would donate most of it to charity. I would only leave enough with family to take care of my children. I don't think children should be brought up wealthy/spoilt/privileged.

I agree that someone has the right to do as they wish with their money, but that doesn't mean that be exercisingthat right they are doing the right thing. Equally I'm very aware that people could look at me and judge me for not giving more to charity - I judge myself, but ultimately I know that while I'm not selfish enough to give nothing, I am selfish enough to not let charitable donations change my standard of living.

I don't think children should be brought up wealthy/spoilt/privileged.

Again the issue here is where to draw the line? Arguably there are plenty of people in countries like the US and UK who are on benefits and consider themself near the bottom of the ladder, but they are wealthy and privileged compared to people in other parts of the world living in famine.

Equally, leaving family with enough "to take care of" children makes them privileged/wealthy/spoilt in comparison to people not lucky enough to have a good inheritance.

I've grown up in the UK, pretty middle class, never having to worry about family money problems, and if I had no money of my own then when both my parents die, the combined money will be more than enough to buy a nice house. There's no way to look at it that other than to say I'm very lucky, I may not be able to retire right now, but I can become a houseowner without ever saving any money, and I'll probably never have to worry about debt or live paycheck to paycheck.

But at the same time, I'm talking six figures, not seven+, my father was a postman, and if I stood to inherit, say, twice as much as I actually do, I wouldn't think "right, 50% of it is instantly going to charity".

Essentially, any inheritence is giving whoever gets it an advantage over some, and (except for the single richest person in the world) a disadvantage over others. The question of how much is too much is incredibly subjective.

edit: In fact, I said I agree about it being a right. Actually, in a way I don't. I wish the entire world was based on communism, I really do. Sadly I can't imagine it could ever work, and as such I don't consider myself "a communist", nor will I ever in my life try to push for communism to happen anywhere. I say I can't imagine it, I mean it could never work, it's completely impossible. But I wish it was, even though I would personally be in a worse situation if I did live in a communist state.

>I agree that someone has the right to do as they wish with their money, but that doesn't mean that be exercisingthat right they are doing the right thing.

When you make money legally and honorably as Jobs did, the "right thing" to do with your money is whatever you want to do with it. I think it's outrageous other people presume to tell the wealthy, especially the self-made wealthy, what they ought to do with their own assets.

Most of the founding fathers had a huge problem with inherited wealth. Indeed, the "sanctity of inheritance" is a fairly recent concept. The historical view of Anglo-American law has been that property rights cease to exist at death, and that inheritance is a mere courtesy provided by the state: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl81.htm.

Which might explain why Jefferson left only debts.

there is definitely a a line to be drawn. leaving your family $1bn should suffice for any family of any size, for many generations, for all imaginable purposes.

But when the remaining money is made on the backs of people who struggle to feed their own families, i believe it's quite selfish not to give most of it back for the benefit of millions. It's not quite blood diamonds here, but a similar gist.

THIS would have been his best legacy and valid claim to actually transforming people's lives - not the materialistic vanity gadgets he sold to the rich.