> ... a wealthy person placing their money in a charitable trust - that actually does valuable work, rather than handing it to their children
Isn’t it money that should have gone to the State here, rather than the children? They didn’t do the trust not to give money to their children, but rather to avoid taxes.
Some portion of Guardian readers might see the state as the main provider of benefits to society, but I very much doubt most would. Guardian is a (in the European sense) liberal paper, with a readership ranging from the centre and toward the left, with a large proportion along that entire range being totally fine with non-state organisations structured for the public benefit. You'll also find plenty who look on the state with suspicion to outright hostility and would actively prefer if more businesses had ownership structured this way, whether or not the handover of wealth that creates them "avoids taxes".