[Home] [Help] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Feedback]
	Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law

E LAW - MURDOCH UNIVERSITY ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF LAW
VOLUME 1 NUMBER 4 (DECEMBER 1994)
Copyright E Law and/or authors

Review of Western Australian State Taxes 1994
Chapter 5 DEATH DUTIES AND OTHER WEALTH TAXES

What is a Wealth Tax
The Australian Position
Types of Wealth Taxes
Purpose of Wealth Taxes
Validity of Wealth Taxes
Conclusion
Bibliography

WHAT IS WEALTH?

Wealth is defined as the net result of assets less liabilities. While
recognising the limits of this definition we will not enter into the
ontological debate concerning the meaning of wealth.

THE AUSTRALIAN POSITION

History of demise of death and gift duties

Australia no longer has death duties. The beginning of the end was the
death of Justice Negus of the Western Australian Supreme court. His
brother, Sydney, had the responsibility of getting things in order. He was
horrified to learn that even in relatively modest estates, probate duties
had a serious impact on property left to a widow.[1]

Filled with a sense of outrage he set forth on a crusade to rid the
Australians of such a tax. With this as his sole tenet, he was elected to
the Federal upper-house as an independent candidate in March of 1970.

This was effective in concentrating the minds of mainstream politicians.
Pedrick described Queensland in particular as a hotbed of agrarian
resentment against death duties.[2] Premier Joh Bjelke Peterson (as he was
then) first supported exempting interspousal transfers from gift and death
duties. In 1977 he abolished it altogether. This represented a loss to the
Queensland treasury of about $25M per year. The other States felt
threatened. There was mounting concern about a drain of capital from their
state to Queensland. The Commonwealth and the other States followed several
years later abolishing their respective death and gift duties.

Brief description of State and Commonwealth death and gift duties[3]

Until the late 1970s, these taxes were levied on the estate of the deceased
by the Commonwealth government and by each of the State governments. The
State tax was payable to the State government in which the deceased was
domiciled at the time of his death. It was levied on all real and personal
property within the State and on personal property located outside of the
state.[4] The tax on real property was collected by the State in which it was
located. Most States made allowance for tax paid to other States, however
this did not apply to the taxes levied by the Commonwealth Government. Each
State with the exception of South Australia[5] had a broadly similar tax
structure.

This structure entailed a progressive rate based on the aggregate value of
the estate. There were also concessions made for estates devised to close
relatives of the deceased. Each state adopted a different approach to
achieve the desired results. The main differences were the exemptions and
deductions allowed in

(1) the calculation of the dutiable value of an estate;

(2) in the definition of the different categories of kinship; and

(3) methods of calculating the tax payable.

The Commonwealth tax was a relatively simple one. It was levied on the net
value of the deceased's estate (except for real property located outside
Australia), less a statutory exemption, if applicable, and less State death
taxes payable. There was one scale of rates but the amount of tax levied
varied according to the State in which the deceased was domiciled.

In an attempt to prevent avoidance, the Commonwealth and State governments
had legislative provisions for the taxation of gifts inter vivos. Most of
these were incorporated into Stamp Duties legislation of the respective
states.[6]

TYPES OF WEALTH TAXES

Wealth taxes can be split into two broad categories: Capital Transfer Taxes
(CTT), and Annual Net Worth Taxes (AWT). With CTT, levies are made upon
capital which is transferred between the donor and donee, whether this be
at death or inter-vivos. By contrast, with an AWT an annual valuation of
all the wealth of a tax-payer is made, and this is then taxed.

Capital Transfer Taxes

The most common type of wealth tax is an estate tax, alternatively known as
death duties. This is a tax levied on the entire estate of the deceased and
is to be paid by the executors prior to distribution to the beneficiaries.[7]
Provided tax avoidance through the use of generation skipping trusts is
controlled, this tax will ensure that property is taxed at least once a
generation and thus impede large concentrations of wealth.[8]

A characteristic of an estate tax is that it is donor as opposed to donee
based, that is it taxes the donor on the entire value of the estate being
given rather than the donee on the value of property being received. This
is an important distinction because if the tax rate is progressive as
opposed to flat, then a donor based tax will result in effectively more tax
being paid[9]. For example, an estate worth $100,000 is to be divided equally
among ten beneficiaries. Under a donor based tax, a tax rate of say 8% may
apply to the $100,000, thus resulting in the donor paying $8,000 in tax.
Whereas under a donee based tax a rate of only 5% may apply to the $10,000
bequests. Consequently the cumulative amount paid by the beneficiaries
would only total $5,000.

An alternative to death duties would be to levy an inheritance or
accessions tax. This tax would tax the donee and not the donor. It would be
more in accord with the ability to pay principle since it would tax each
individual beneficiary according to that person's marginal income tax rate,
in the case of an inheritance tax, or according to the amount of gifts
received over a lifetime, in the case of an accessions tax.[10] These rates
could be variable according to the donee's tax rate or the amount of
lifetime inheritances. Therefore, the giving of more money to poorer
relatives, or the dispersing of an estate more widely is encouraged. Giving
large amounts to single persons would effectively result in more tax being
paid. The net result is that inequalities in wealth are reduced. One
problem with a donee based tax is that it penalises attempts by the donor
to compensate parties with special needs who may require a larger share.[11]

Both death duties and inheritance taxes could be introduced with a capital
transfer or gift tax which would impose a tax on inter vivos dispositions.
Such a tax would need to be introduced if the wholesale avoidance of a
death tax is to be averted.[12] If the government wished to encourage
lifetime rather than death giving, for any one of a number of economic or
social reasons, they could achieve this by lowering the rates on inter
vivos gifts when compared with death taxes.[13]

Annual Net Worth Tax

An alternative to a CTT is an AWT, which can be imposed either alone or in
conjunction with a CTT. Such taxes would involve an annual valuation of all
the wealth held by an individual which would then be taxed on either a flat
or progressive rate. This tax, like other wealth taxes, promotes horizontal
and vertical equity, but it has substantial administrative costs that are
not experienced by CTT.[14] Moreover, an AWT is less likely to consider
"capacity to pay". Simply because a person is asset rich does not mean that
they can meet their annual wealth tax payment.

Whether a CTT or an AWT is favoured, each can be structured to achieve
different objectives. For example, a wealth tax designed for horizontal
equity would have a low threshold and a progressive rate. Whereas a radical
wealth tax designed to reduce inequality might target the very rich and
thus have a higher threshold with no ceiling, and progressive rates.[15] One
might even choose to combine the two.

A wealth tax might contain exemptions for specific types of assets, such as
the family home and pensions. These exceptions are necessary to gain
political tolerance of such a tax. However, a better alternative is to have
a high threshold rather than any specific exemptions. The tax base should
be kept general. Allowing specific exemptions will have undesirable social
and economic effects; the wealthy will endeavour to find loopholes and
adapt their investment habits in line with this.[16]

PURPOSES OF WEALTH TAXES

Among those OECD countries that have wealth taxes there is a lack of
consensus as to their purpose. The most often cited reasons for a wealth
tax are revenue raising and taxing according to ability to pay[17]. Another
justification for wealth taxes is horizontal equity.

Revenue raising

Historically, this would seem to be the reason why wealth taxes were first
adopted. In Great Britain, the enactment of a progressive estate duty in
1894 was intended as a means of raising revenue. In the US between 1797 and
1902 there were three separate occasions where death taxes were introduced
to supplement finance for an impending or actual war. Each time, after the
crises had died down these taxes were repealed.[18] At present, it would be
difficult to argue that this is the primary reason for such a tax existing
in any jurisdiction.

The following table shows the contribution death duties and other wealth
taxes make as a proportion of total tax revenue.

Table 1

YIELD OF ANNUAL PERSONAL NET WEALTH TAXES, 1978, AS PERCENTAGE OF TAX
REVENUE AND GDP AT MARKET PRICES[19]

Wealth Tax as % of Tax Revenue Wealth Tax as % of GDP
Austria 0.58 0.24
Denmark 0.46 0.23
Finland 0.47 0.17
Germany 0.31 0.12
Luxembourg 0.20 0.10
Netherlands 0.59 0.28
Norway 0.66 0.31
Sweden 0.30 0.16
Switzerland 2.77 0.87

Note that with the exception of the Swiss, there is no case where
revenue from wealth taxes exceed one percent of tax revenue or
half a per cent of GDP.[20] Australia s position, from 1965 to 1975
was quite similar:

Chart 1[21]

One reason why such taxes make up such a small proportion of total tax
revenue is that by definition they have a small base. They are normally
targeted at a small proportion of the population. The wealthy. Secondly,
since the taxes are meant to reduce large accumulations of wealth, it would
make sense that over time, revenues will reduce. Whether this occurs by
virtue of effective taxes or more sophisticated avoidance methods is
debatable.

Vertical Equity

Wealth taxes provide a means of redistributing wealth in an equitable
fashion according to a person s capacity to pay. They discourage large
accumulations of wealth and reduce them.

The concept of vertical equity as a justification for wealth taxation has
come under fire. The decline in progressive income tax rates over the past
decade makes it clear that progressivity itself should be justified rather
than merely accepted. Before their abolition in Australia, death duties
were levied at a decreasing marginal rate.[22]

By definition, a simple flat rate tax cannot fulfil vertical equity.
However, the introduction of varying tax rates leads to pragmatic problems.
Moreover the addition of exemptions and discounts provide a source of
avoidance. This illustrates the general dichotomy between the requirement
of simplicity and the other two goals of efficiency and equity.

Horizontal Equity

Contrast the position of a beggar with no income and a wealthy person with
no income. Both would not be liable for income tax, despite the wealthy
person s greater capacity to pay. Thus an income tax should be supplemented
with a wealth tax to achieve horizontal equity.[23] Wealth taxes reduce the
impact of tax avoidance by taxing assets derived from income which has not
been disclosed. Moreover wealth taxes target assets derived from exempted
income ensuring that income is taxed at least once.

But the assumption that all property will be taxed with a wealth tax or
death duty is false. Often there are many items such as the family home and
personal property which are exempt from tax. This has the effect of
creating inefficiencies in the market by redirecting spending. Any
exemptions infringe the principle of horizontal equity, particularly for
non-income earning assets since wealth taxes exist primarily to tax such
assets.[24] Horizontal equity is also defeated if estates are not taxed
equally because statutory provisions provide different tax rates based on
kinship.

VALIDITY OF WEALTH TAXES

Social Claims

Aside from the collection of revenue, a major principle underlying the
rationale for wealth taxes is that of the equal distribution of wealth in
order to achieve societal goals of equal opportunity.[25]

Interference with property rights at least in the form of progressive
taxation is both desirable and in the interests of any society wishing to
give meaning to equality and opportunity of goals.[26]

In principle this is achieved by concentrating the tax burden upon those
who hold the most wealth. However to give the process efficacy, it must be
complemented by suitable transfer payments to those in less pecunious
sectors of society. This could be achieved by providing inter alia economic
security and relief from poverty, through health care and opportunities for
higher education etc.

Why should the wealthy bear the burden of this pursuit for progressivity?
The short answer to this is that they can afford to pay;

Estate duty ... represents an `end of term' aggregated net wealth tax: in
effect, society taxes the good fortune and stability which enabled the
accumulation of property in the first place.[27]

A legitimate concern of those subject to wealth taxation is that double
taxation results. The property composing an estate would probably have been
purchased with income subject to income tax during the deceased's life.
However, why not tax the property twice? There is no reason why income tax
should be the only tax,[28] for income spent on consumer goods will be
subject to various additional taxes such as sales tax and stamp duty.[29]

An estate duty does have the attraction that it finally calls to account
the tax avoided during a taxpayer's lifetime.[30]

In any case, estate taxes whilst raising useful revenue, have clearly not
served to eliminate concentrations of wealth. In other OECD countries
considerable concentrations of wealth ownership prevail despite the
operation of wealth taxes in various forms. In the United States, the top
1% of wealth owners hold about 25% of the country's wealth (half of which
is believed to be inherited wealth), which is comparable with the United
Kingdom where the top 1% holds about 30% of the country's wealth.[31]

Economic Claim

In principle, a wealth tax serves to enhance progressive taxation and as
such provides a fairer taxation system based upon ability to pay principles
for the overall benefit of society. However, opponents of wealth taxation
claim that such progressive taxation has a net negative effect when its
impact on economic efficiency is considered. They argue that progressive
taxation impedes the efficient operation of the market by dampening
tax-payer enthusiasm for extra productivity and investment given that such
efforts will be taxed at increasingly higher rates.[32]

But according to others, progressive taxation (unless severely progressive)
will have little or no effect on the work and investment decisions of
tax-payers. Indeed the reverse may in fact be true, increased tax rates may
cause tax-payers to work harder and invest more in order to recoup the
money lost to taxation.[33]

There is little evidence to support the view that death duties act as a
disincentive to save or invest.[34] In any case any disincentive to the
wealth-holder to save and correspondingly to consume his or her income
before death is offset by the onus then placed upon potential beneficiaries
to save. It was

impossible to estimate the final effect on total savings in Australia, as
any change to the law would involve psychological effects on tax-payers.[35]

The suggestion that aggregate savings and investment would remain
unaffected by the imposition of death duties seems the more likely given
such duties would be matched by a corresponding decrease in the
(progressive) rate of personal income taxation. For high marginal income
tax rates have also been cited as creating marginal disincentives to
productivity and savings.[36] A wealth tax would have less allocative impact
on investment decisions because the tax contingency is considered at death.

If, as has been suggested, the possession of wealth discourages
entrepreneurship at the macroeconomic level,[37] a tax on wealth may fuel
investment effort and incentive. Moreover, death duties may encourage early
gifting[38] through legislative provisions allowing for a lesser tax rate for
inter vivos transfers. This may benefit the economy overall as it is
younger people who tend to be risk-takers.

There is the suggestion that, at a macroeconomic level, the imposition of a
wealth tax impedes capital formation. However, this ignores the fact that
economic growth is not solely derived from the private sector.[39] There is a
role for the government through fiscal policy to regulate investment and
savings through fiscal policy[40] and to reallocate physical capital in the
economy to other equally important areas such as public education[41] or
technological advancement. At a microeconomic level, estate duties are
criticised for their effect upon family concerns such as small businesses
and farms, where assets are generally in a form not easily convertible into
the cash.[42] As a result, when such taxes were levied in the past in
Australia, it was claimed beneficiaries were forced to sell these concerns
to meet the tax liability.

At the level of personal hardship the resulting claim for concessions from
these groups is tenable. However such concessions serve to distort both
horizontal and vertical equity in that preferential treatment is given only
to those tax-payers who own the exempted assets.[43]

On efficiency grounds such concessions are also undesirable as tax-payers
will be encouraged to purchase small businesses and farms to take advantage
of tax advantages. The Senate Standing Committee[44] report of 1973 into
wealth taxes noted:

that in the 30 years prior to its deliberations, the incidence of
partnerships in primary production had increased approximately 130% and
that the incidence of company involvement had increased 300%.[45]

The principle of denying tax exemptions to specific groups is based upon
keeping the tax base general in order to allow for efficient market
resource allocation. Exemptions tend to protect less efficient managers.
Liability to estate taxes may serve to facilitate the more efficient
restructuring of these concerns.

If property is not being used sufficiently economically to pay off estate
or other capital taxes, it should be sold to someone who can make better
use of it.[46]

If concessions were to be granted to these sectors of the community (for
political considerations) they would best take the form, if liquidity is
the problem, of simply extending the payment period with provision for
interest.[47]

Just Rewards Claim

This concept involves the ethical notion that those who hold wealth
actually deserve it and that tax progressivity is morally wrong.[48] All
members of society are entitled to the income they earn and the wealth that
they accumulate and accordingly it is the free operation of the market that
provides distributive justice.[49]

In a sense this argument can be addressed on the criteria of its own
capitalist foundations. It is asserted that the generational nature of
death duties is necessary for the efficient operation of this market for
capital redistribution.

The generational aspect of these duties also has a strong claim on
conservative philosophy: the belief that wealth is and should be the reward
of individual initiative and hard work rests uneasily with the `dead hand'
of inherited property.[50]

However, this argument is based on the dubious premise that the market
rewards people equally in proportion to the skill, effort and ability
employed .[51] Clearly an existing accumulation of capital is a launching pad
for the accumulation of further wealth. Without this starting capital base,
the aspiring wealth-holder must rely solely upon the sale of his or her
labour, or debt financing. Moreover, an initial capital holding aids in
achieving a higher education which furthers inequality. Arguably, one's
socio-economic background is the most important determinant of current or
anticipated wealth holdings,[52] with as much as two thirds of capital
accumulation being attributable to inheritance.[53]

CONCLUSION

Wealth taxes in the guise of death duties have been shown to be politically
untenable. Whether their justification be revenue raising or to achieve a
more equitable society, the overriding unpopularity of such a tax would
unlikely to ever see its return.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DUFF, DAVID G., Taxing Inherited Wealth: A Philosophical Argument , 6
(1993) Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 4. [This article provides
a comprehensive analysis of the justifications of a wealth tax, taking a
comparative analysis spanning various jurisdictions and times across the
world.]

JOHNS, B.L. and SHEEHAN, W.J. Death and Gift Taxes in Australia in MATHEWS
R.L., State and Local Taxation, Australian National University Press and
Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, Canberra, 1977.
[Provides a view of the legislative provisions made by the Commonwealth and
the States as well as some statistical analysis of the Australian
position.]

MALONEY, M. Distributive Justice: That is the Wealth Tax Issue (1988) 20
Ottawa Law Review 599. [This article provided an insight into the
justifications for a wealth tax both on a social and economic level.
Moreover, it provided us with some assistance as to the types of wealth
taxes and common elements within them.]

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Taxation of Net
Wealth, Capital Transfers and Capital Gains of Individuals, OECD, Paris,
1988. [Provides a global statistical and historical background for wealth
taxes.]

OECD, Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries, 1965-1979, OECD, Paris,
1980. [An earlier study, providing view of wealth taxes in context.]

PEDRICK, WILLARD, H., Oh! To Die Down Under! Abolition of Death and Gift
Duties in Australia , 35 (1981) Tax Lawyer 113. [The author provides a
North American perspective. It proves a history of death duties in
Australia. In addition it canvases the social and economic claims to
justify the operation of a wealth tax. In addition, it provides statistics
on the wealth distribution in the USA and the UK.]

PIGGOT, J. in "Wealth Taxation for Australia" 6 (1989) Australian Tax Forum
327. [This article helped to provide insight into the characteristics of an
ideal wealth tax. In addition, it provides valuable statistical information
as to Australia s position re wealth taxes.]

RAY, R., The Case for Death Duties, Pamphlet No.40, Victorian Fabian
Society, Australia, 1983. [Is largely aimed at the reintroduction of death
duties as a means of achieving equity within society. It is written
primarily from a socialist stand-point and includes both a historic,
political and theoretical appraisal of death duties.]

SANDFORD, C. Wealth Tax - European Experience: Lessons For Australia
Occasional Paper No. 21, Australian National University, 1981. [This
article delves into the issues of horizontal and vertical equity re wealth
taxes. Moreover, it gives an appraisal of typical elements found within a
wealth tax.]

Notes:

[1] Pedrick, Willard H., Oh! To Die Down Under! Abolition of Death and Gift
Duties in Australia , 35 (1981) Tax Lawyer 113 at 114.

[2] Id at 136.

[3] See Johns B.L. and Sheehan W.J. Death and Gift Taxes in Australia in
Mathews R.L., State and Local Taxation, Australian National University
Press and Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, Canberra,
1977 at 329-330.

[4] This was the general rule prior to the application of exemptions.

[5] The duty was payable based on the size of individual inheritances, not
the total value of the estate. There were varying rates according to the
kinship of the beneficiary to the deceased. See Piggot, J. "Wealth Taxation
for Australia" 6 (1989) Australian Tax Forum 327 at 329.

[6] For Western Australia it can be found under item 19 of the Second
Schedule of the Stamp Act 1921. It should be noted that in Schedule Three
has chattels as one class of exemptions. (See North Shore Gas Limited v
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (N.S.W.) (1940) 63 CLR 52.)

[7] Maloney, M. Distributive Justice: That is the Wealth Tax Issue (1988) 20
Ottawa Law Review 599 at 607.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Supra n.5. at 336.

[10] Supra n.7. at 608.

[11] Supra n.5.

[12] Supra n.7. at 608.

[13] Supra n.5. at 337.

[14] Id at 332.

[15] Sandford, C. Wealth Tax - European Experience: Lessons For Australia
Occasional Paper No. 21, Australian National University, 1981, at 19.

[16] Supra n.1. at 136.

[17] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Taxation of Net
Wealth, Capital Transfers and Capital Gains of Individuals, OECD, Paris,
1988 at 78.

[18] Duff, David G., Taxing Inherited Wealth: A Philosophical Argument , 6
(1993) Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 4 at 6-8.

[19] OECD, Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries, 1965-1979, OECD,
Paris, 1980.

[20] A more recent study in 1988 the OECD found that among the 21 member
countries who continued to have taxes on inherited wealth, the percentage
of total revenue raised by such taxes in 1985 raged from a low of 0.1% in
Norway to a high of 1.19% with Japan, see supra n.17. at p.27 (Table 0.2).

[21] Graph derived from data provided in Public Authority Finance: Taxation,
1974-75, Ref. 5.30, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 1976 as
reproduced by Johns B.L. and Sheehan W.J. supra n.3 at 338. However, it
should be noted that the proportions for each State s total tax revenue was
significantly higher. They ranged from 6% to 17% in that study. It is
suggested that looking at the states would be misleading. One should view
it in the context of the whole Australian tax scheme.

[22] Id at 333.

[23] Sandford, C. Wealth Tax - European Experience: Lessons For Australia
Occasional Paper No. 21, Australian National University, 1981 at 3.

[24] Supra n.5 at 335.

[25] According to Maloney, M. supra n.7. at 612, freedom of testation
contradicts the ideal of enhancing equality of opportunity as the unimpeded
transfer of wealth allows unjustified inequalities of means and power to be
perpetuated within the structure of a society, causing divisiveness and
conflict.

[26] Supra n.7. at 618.

[27] Ray, R., The Case for Death Duties, Pamphlet No.40, Victorian Fabian
Society, Australia, 1983 at 20.

[28] Id at 10 "No socialist could accept the view that individual property,
once past income tax, should be free from further taxation" and at 13 "That
it [wealth] should be taxed is a fundamental element of the socialist
credo".

[29] Id at 13.

[30] See Pendrick supra n.1. at 135. See also Ray supra n.27 at 19 "Any
non-current income advantage deriving from the ownership of property and
assets can be brought within the tax umbrella ... estate and gift duty".

[31] Id at 126. It ought to be noted however that these are 1978 estimates
but a similar distribution was observed by in 1984 by Piggot, J. supra n.5.
at 333 who also indicates statistics for Australia regarding the
concentration of wealth are similar i.e. it may be inferred that the
existence or non-existence of a wealth tax has little effect on actually
altering concentrations of wealth.

[32] Supra n.7. at 614.

[33] Ibid.

[34] A Canadian study into the effects of the 1972 abolition of estate duties
concluded that it resulted in a "minimal impact on the rate of saving and
capital formation" see supra n.7 at 628.

[35] Ray, R. supra n.27. at 10. Maloney, M. supra n.7. at 627 states that
"What evidence there is suggests that the relationship of capital formation
to economic growth is uncertain at best".

[36] See generally Ray, R. supra n.27 at 13, Pedrick supra n.1 at 128 and
Maloney supra n.7 at 628.

[37] Supra n.7. at 627.

[38] Id at 628.

[39] Where economic growth is pursued through private capital formation it
also needn't be solely large concentrations of private capital.

[40] It should be noted that a thorough analysis would incorporate such
things as monetary policy and the financial markets.

[41] If the tax revenue is used for the further education of low income
earners then society benefits overall in that it approaches its full
potential productivity as all members of society are able to fully discover
and utilise their abilities.

[42] Supra n.27 at 9.

[43] Supra n.7 at 631.

[44] Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations 1971-1973
Report on Death Duties, Government Publishers, Canberra, 1974.

[45] Supra n.27 at 18.

[46] Supra n.7 at 632.

[47] This was the recommendation of the 1973 Coombs Task Force see Ray supra
n.27 at 18 and generally supra n.7 at 631.

[48] In ascertaining whether there exists a `moral right' to the ownership of
inherited wealth, regard may be had to Rawls in "A Theory of Justice" who
wrote "No one deserves his place in the distribution of natural assets any
more than he deserves his initial starting place in society": cited in
supra n.7 at 617, i.e. if you accept that anyone's initial starting place
in society is arbitrary then you cannot claim that one individual has more
of a moral claim or is more `deserving'.

[49] Supra n.7 at 614.

[50] Supra n.27 at 19.

[51] Supra n.7 at 614.

[52] Id at 615-6.

[53] Supra n.5 at 333.