That we should introduce a 100% inheritance tax

We live in the society where the gap between rich and poor is huge. Inheritance supports the consolidation of wealth and simplifies children of the rich to becoming richer. Conversely, the kids of the poor often have no other way rather than remain poor. A frequent example is when a young man is unable to enter college or university, as his parents can’t to pay for the education and provide his living after the high school. 100% inheritance tax will redistribute the wealth and even the chances for each generation. 

The government collecting larger amounts of tax will be able to support higher social spending on healthcare, education, pensions. That will increase the social security, make people confident the society won’t let them starve to death, will support them in case of unemployment, illness or disability to work. Those who currently have to sacrifice long term benefits both, themselves and the society, in order to satisfy the family’s basic needs will be able to consider getting a profession to make the best of their abilities. Such community will develop more efficiently and accumulate wealth. 

Moreover, it is not a rare case when the rich think that buying kid everything he wants could substitute the lack of parents’ attention. In many cases kids raise being sure they could get everything for free and become spoiled and selfish. Knowing the kid won’t inherit their money, parents will be motivated to spend the more quality time with the child and teach him how to serve the society and earn his own living. 

Introducing 100% inheritance tax is without doubt not an easy decision to make, but it has huge potential to benefit long term development and well-being of the whole society.

Now to rebut my opponent.

This is the problem here. People think of groups of individuals as a collective, and fail to recognize each person as an individual. This allows for the person to whatever they want with the collective, because they're just a bunch white people, or black people, or et cetera. This is the philosophy behind the inheritance tax, and it is wrong.

100% false. With hard work, anyone can achieve almost anything. Andrew Carnegie came to the US as a poor immigrant child. Through hard work, he was was able to, at one point, become the richest man in America (later passed by John D. Rockefeller). Robert Herjavec was the son of a poor immigrant factory worker. Through hard work, he became a tech mogul whose current net worth is at $200 Million. J.K. Rowling  was poor before she worked hard on writing the Harry Potter series. Mark Cuban got his start in business by being a newspaper boy. Kevin O'Leary stared out as an intern. John D. Rockefeller started out as a bookkeeper's assistant; through hard work he became the richest man in American history. Barbara Corcoran went from waiting tables to becoming real estate queen through hard work. I could go on and on and on.

If these men and women could do it in a time when there were not as many economic opportunities in America (or Canada) as there are now, than surely any poor man could make it to wealth as well. All is takes is hard work, grit, and determination.

Although example happens, it is incredibly dishonest to say it's because the system is rigged against him. Public schools are free and can be found in every town in the US and many other countries. Assuming he worked hard enough in school, he should be prepared to apply for scholarship and take the right major in college. From there he should be able to get a job in his profession and work his way through the ranks, eventually getting a nice car, getting married, starting a family, buying a new house, paying off his student loans, and accumulate enough wealth for a comfortable living. If he can't do that within 20 years after leaving college, then it is his fault, not the fault of the system.

In rebuttal to other claims made by my opponent:

There is no redistribution needed. The rich earned what they got, the poor are poor because of their own poor choices.

Although rich kids can be spoiled, they also may not be spoiled. Each individual case is different, and many millionaires, like Bill Gates, are raising their kids to be hard workers. This is a terrible example as poor kids can become entitled and ask for handouts, just as bratty as a rich kid.

It does not benefit the rich to stake their money, that defies all common sense; and giving handouts hurts the poor because it destroys work ethic.

So no, a 100% inheritance tax would not be beneficial to society, rather, it would only make things worse.

Before addressing your statements one by one you would like to admit that our society in its current state is far away from being ready to introduce 100% inheritance tax. Firstly, it’s natural for the person to value himself and his loved ones over other people and be unwilling to give something away without seeing benefits to himself. While the benefits of 100% inheritance tax are not that evident without deep deliberation. Secondly, despite legislation developed significantly over the history, we still lack trust to each other. Paying taxes, we still can’t be sure that the government is capable of distributing them back the best possible way. That’s a question of both: officials’ competence and impartiality.

Now back to my opponent’s arguments. (Sorry, for shortening them, it's because of the character limit.)

“People have a constitution right right to do with their money what they please...”
I re-checked the US Constitution and the UN Declaration of human rights to make sure. The human inalienable rights include life, liberty, security and pursuit of happiness in the US version. People’s property can be taken by the government, moreover, it’s already being taken via a whole bunch of different taxes.

“People think of groups of individuals as a collective, and fail to recognize each person as an individual...”
Sorry, I don’t fully understand the argument here. My position was that all the people in the society could individually benefit from 100% inheritance tax. The poor get more opportunities and the rich get motivation to spend more value time with their children to raise them into capable and independent members on society.But, maybe, I got the point wrong. Mharman, I would be grateful, if you explain it a bit more.

"With hard work, anyone can achieve almost anything..."
The examples Mharman stated are all valid, I could prolong the list with a few dozen names. However, are they really representative of the society? Which percentage of the mankind do they represent? Less than anything statistically significant, for sure.Same about those talented kids getting grants from the government: percentage of them is higher, but still not representative of the whole society.My argument there was not that it's impossible to reach something if you are born poor, but that's much harder for you to focus on the long term development than for those who have their basic needs, such as food, shelter, healthcare , satisfied. That's what is unfair. Providing more social security will help ordinary people to be able to pursue their goals or even set any goals, except for getting food for the family.

"Although rich kids can be spoiled, they also may not be spoiled..."
My point was a bit different here. I'll try to make it clearer.People who reached something themselves can teach kids how to do it, but sometimes they avoid it thinking that money is all that the child needs. Tax will motivate them to be better parents. I don't argue that there are rich parents that do great job educating their kids without that "extra nugget". Neither do I argue that poor parents can have spoiled kids as well.

Moreover, I would like to add that without having to serve rich people interest to preserve the gap between the wealthy and the poor, the whole society will be more motivated to educate people better. As developing themselves humans will contribute to the whole community development.