This would vastly enrich our society. Whether the money went to help poor kids, orphans, build better art museums or cultural institutions, go to medical research, etc. As a society wealthy capitalists could still direct the money to their charity of choice.

In fact with more charities handling much of what falls to government today you could actually have less government. Money that did go to the government could be used for tax cuts rather than bigger government as well.

I’m not for bigger government actually. I think that through a combination of tax rebates/cuts or charitable giving that this wealth could be better depolyed than by leaving vasts millions of dollars to people who may never spend it or if they do spend it on an extravagent luxury life of leisure.

Regarding the art – I would like to see art made more freely available, but the ownership is that of the family and as such, is their right. I, however, would never support the idea of the government using it’s exclusive power of deadly force to change the circumstances, as non-ideal as they may be.

While I am all for the concecpt of capitalism and it’s benefits in allowing them to accumulate this obscene wealth during their lifetime, I think that these people at some point should give back most of this money to help others. vs. in general enriching wealthy heirs who many times live extravagent lives of leisure oftentimes resulting in destruction and the loss of the family fortune anyways through multiple generations.

As a society, if someone needs more than $3 million of medical care, why should one individual be more entitled to this super high quality of care than someone not born to a wealthy individual?

In the very minor few instances where a special case might be damaged in a limited way (you can still provide pretty good care with $3,000,000 annuititzed over a lifetime) this does not outweigh the good that could be provided to millions of others for healthcare or others through the redistribution of that wealth at death.

This most likely of course will not happen due to the power that the wealthiest families hold over lawmakers but there may come a time when we see a more rational approach to redistributing wealth upon death.

Certainly though with regards to art, I believe that a greater good is done by releasing great art back into the public domain upon death than by hording it away for years where it cannot be shared or incorporated into a broader context of our world culture.

Or, 640 KB ought to be enough for anyone?

You wouldn’t have a fit if this was some other kind of business infringement, but art should be free for everyone?

Google has money. The could have hired an artist to paint an original Miro-inspired work for a logo. Instead they took a cheap cut/paste shortcut.

Also, I’m not sure what your art family/wealth connection is. Do you know for sure if Miro’s family is wealthy?

Also, check out the Pollock-Krasner Foundation: two dead artists giving back to society.

Consider this: If I amass a wealth of 50 million, you’re telling me the government will confiscate 47 of that because it’s not “fair” to leave that to my relatives. Well, what if one of my children was autistic and 3 million doesn’t start to cover their lifetime medical expenses. What if my son suffered from a stroke that costs him over $150,000 a year alone in medical costs? You’d be in the trap of legislating to “punish” and having to create an endless path of spaghetti laws to provide “exceptions” where our fearless leaders see fit. Personally, that’s way too much power in the hands of power-hungry men for me.