can ppl come to see their own selfinterest & happiness in equal distribution of deceased estates?

Question

is this argument false? 'wealth shouldnt be distributed equally among ppl bc ppl arent equally qualified & arent working equally - better that a lazy heir gets the money than everyone'

the heir does NO work for the money [except in rare cases where the heir has worked without pay anticipating being paid by inheriting] - broadly speaking, everyone works - therefore equal distribution is FAR MORE just - plus, the private property system [which is mostly good] deprives everyone of their rightful birthright fairshare of nature's goods, & equal distribution meets this injustice - plus, distribution of estates prevents endless wealth/power concentration, ie endless erosion of democracy, liberty & justice for all - plus, distribtn of deceased estates is taking property off a dead person [no injustice] & giving it to the living, reducing poverty [underpay] & tyranny [overpower of heirs] - which was the [wise] intention of american & french postrevolution laws: keeping everyone under the law

Answer 1

No. Inheritance accounts for a surprisingly large share of capital formation. "Equal distribution of deceased estates" would lower the rate of capital formation and leave the society undercapitalized in the long run.

For more information, read:

Kotlikoff, Laurence J. and Lawrence Summers, "The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital Formation," Journal of Political Economy, 89: 706–732, 1981.

Answer 2

Try telling that to Paris Hilton.