[tomsun]

I like the spirit of the ideas, but yeah I gotta say it's a little extreme to me.

Forcing people to spend money in their life time is going to incentivize consumerism. So I was super rich, and you want me to be forced to spend rather than invest and pass down to the next generation, I'm either going to try to pass it down illegally, or spend on things like sports cars and yachts and watches and fine wines and michelin star restaurants. None of them is as valuable as keeping it invested. On top of that, I'd divest all my holdings (which, if I didn't diversify well, means asset value in general will drop whenever someone super rich dies, which also opens up the opportunity for speculation, but that's beside the point).

This also doesn't take in the account of sudden death. What if you suddenly died at 45, with a $1.5 million estate? So you never had the opportunity to enjoy it. This will incentivize people to be a lot more near-sighted and again reinforces consumerism.

You mentioned having it being taxed at 90%. I'd say that's probably good, but I'd go a step to the right and say 90% on anything that's over $2mil, since your argument is contingent on a very very strong social safety net, which I do not think the United States has, and I would say it's also debatable on how strong you want the social safety net to be.

Just my two cents.