Well, sure, for a lot of people. I care less about unearned and more about unproductive.

Hedonistic consumption on the weekends/a few weeks in the summer/20 years at the end of your life so that you can go build something during the rest of your life is net productive in most cases. Hedonistic consumption 24/7 for a lifetime is probably totally unproductive.

> 1. It might encourage a longer time horizon. "Leaving something good for your grandchildren", etc - and in a lot of ways people not doing this is why we have issues fighting climate change.

I think a huge wealth tax would be better. People would probably not let all that go to the gov. They would probably donate quite a lot. Hopefully to causes that address our most important problems (like climate change, but also healthcare, mental health, organizations to promote community fabric to fight loneliness, education, etc.).

>2. If investment ability is correlated across generations (and I'll eat my hat if it's not) then giving the children of competent investors more capital than those of incompetent investors will lead to better investments overall, and thus faster economic growth. And economic growth is everything. (2% difference in annualized growth for a century is the difference between the US and Mexico)

Well, the alternative is taxation. That could mean direct wealth redistribution. Or, that could mean war. Or, that could mean reinvestment in infrastructure/research/etc.

Now the question becomes "do you trust the grandchildren of the rich more or less than you trust the people's government?"