>Accumulate as much as you want in your life, but when you die, much of it will move into the public fund for all to enjoy, which seems fair.
Fair to whom? To those who didn’t earn it in the first place? I guess you’re right. Of course, that’s balanced by the fact that those who did earn it during their lifetimes think it’s unfair.
The actual effect of inheritance taxes is well known: it discourages high earners from investing to the same degree they normally would have, and instead, encourages greater immediate consumption spending to a degree they normally would not have. So instead of the rich guy investing in some new business ventures, or R&D, or something else long term that ultimately raises productivity, increases supply, and lowers prices for consumers, he’ll sink his “surplus” wealth into another mansion, another Rolls Royce, another world cruise, another original Rembrandt, etc. So now your “general fund” has less wealth than you originally intended. Like most Utopian fantasies (“if only that workaholic rich guy next door to me would support me and my family instead of himself and his family, I would enjoy life so much more!”) the government meddling you put your faith in ends up having the exact opposite effect. “Intentions” are one thing; “results” are quite another.
>And, you know, everyone dies eventually.
So do ideas. Socialism of the national variety died when National Socialist Germany fell in 1945; socialism of the international variety died when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989. Welfare states (“democratic socialism”) are not examples of real socialism, but rather, over-related, hampered market economies. They either fall off of a cliff from government spending, high taxes, and public sector unions (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Venezuela, Argentina), or they stop short of falling off a cliff by deregulating as much as they can, and replacing as much socialism as they can with the private sector (Sweden, Chile).