Theoretical arguments are nice, but let's take a look at some of the examples of what @German41 and @Jazzhead are pushing back at:
Since German41 pointed out that there is no point in making money other than helping your family, let's assume for this example that the person being taxed is married or at least has been married at some time to start his family. You now have two people who each have a 12.92 million dollar exemption as the marital exemption is unlimited. And, for the sake of argument, they refuse to take advantage of any gifting exemptions (although, in these cases, they might be a drop in the bucket unless you have a TON of kids).
Scenario 1 - Individual accumulates $20M in assets during his lifetime.
No federal estate tax - the married couple is under the total of $25.84M total exemption available
Scenario 2 - Individual accumulates $50M in assets during his lifetime.
Estate tax is potentially a maximum of $9.7M which still leaves $40.3M to be passed to heirs
Scenario 3 - Individual accumulates $500M in assets during his lifetime.
Estate tax is potentially a maximum of $189M leaving $311M to be passed to heirs
All of the above assumes that these wealthy individuals who are working for their families DO NOT take advantage of placing any of their accumulated assets because, obviously, despite being able to accumulate all of this wealth, they are actually stupid and do not realize that they can shelter a significant portion of these assets through trusts. Or they don't have financial advisors, lol.
I'd also like to point out that scenario #3 applies to only .00035% of the families in the US (about 4,500).
In reality, what the hell are we arguing about? How does one make this a "fundamental philosophy" of anyone's political views when confronted with the reality of the consequences of this "tax?"
This is a Facebook meme that appeals to a specific base.