On the other hand, it is perfectly natural, and I think appropriate, for someone who is giving his entire wealth back to society to plan for what he believes will make the biggest positive impact on society. And as long as it’s legal to do so, why should his philanthropy take a back seat to what the people through their elected representatives deem the best use of his money? Just to make the point that the estate tax is morally defensible?

I highly doubt that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are donating their wealth to charity for the purpose of avoiding estate tax. As you say, this is clearly about supporting important causes. However, the question, as posed by Professor Zelinsky, is why they do so in a way that avoids the estate tax if they’ve also publicly supported the retention of the estate tax. Why not give to charity on a taxable basis?

I’ll plead guilty to slippery-sloping Professor Zelinsky’s suggestion that the Treasury get a significant share of the estates. I don’t know Professor Zelinsky, but by urging Gates and Buffett to give charity on a taxable basis, he probably does not mean that the best use of wealth is to turn it all over to the government. But he does want to see Warren Buffett back up his support for the estate tax with actions.

My point, though, is that the moral obligation for the wealthy to give back to society, attributed to both Gates and Buffet, is consistent with the kind of philanthropy Gates and Buffett are engaged in. You don’t have to wholeheartedly sign on to the U.S. government’s spending policies to give back to society. In fact, it appears that by not giving charity on a taxable basis, Warren Buffett is saying that the Gates Foundation will do more good with his money that the U.S. government.