[FeloniousHam]

> I, too, am in favor of a 100% wealth tax upon death. No more freeloading failsons.

I am very far from an economic leftist, but the elimination of inheritance seems to me the fastest, fairest, path to equality of opportunity (the disposition of the confiscated assets is a separate argument). Tax the dead guy.

[beerandt]

That's one of the top defining characteristics of "economic leftist" type systems.

Either you don't fully grasp the implications of such a policy, or you may want to re-evaluate your economic self-identity.

I'll add- it's not just the rich that this hits. This means taking a family's home when parents die, unless they pay for it again.

Which means it's basically an incentive for people to rent everything and own nothing. A Subscription based economy for everything. And companies will love it, since they'll provide the subscriptions and corporations never die, so it won't affect corporate wealth.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it's not difficult to see a floodgate of unintended consequences. And only the rich will be able to afford the accountants and lawyers to double-Irish/ Dutch-sandwich loopholes.

[FeloniousHam]

A couple points:

1. The government must be funded, taxes are inescapable

2. Financial/material inheritance is inherently cosmically unfair (Paris Hilton and orphan street dweller have equal merit claim to the Hilton fortune)

3. Your children's "inheritance" is their genetic endowment, the benefits of being raised by you, and whatever material help you can provide during your lifetime

4. The details (and loopholes) of the implementation are an exercise for the student (I'm not super concerned whether a "family farm" must be liquidated, or how every last penny of Warren Buffett's fortune is confiscated)

> Which means it's basically an incentive for people to rent everything and own nothing.

This may be true toward the end of one's life, and I'm not sure this is a bad thing. Your children's inheritance is a distant concern for most your time on earth; your savings is almost entirely a prudent hedge against a lean harvest.

FWIW, I am strongly against (national) Government expansion, and would be fine with just setting all the confiscated funds on fire.

[pyuser583]

Then the dead guy will give all his money to his kids before dying.

At the very least the dead guy will pay for them to go to Harvard, arrange the appropriate internships, etc.

It’s very possible to preserve a class system without actually transferring wealth to your children upon death.

Just use your wealth and money to make sure they’re set before you die.

Easy-peasy.

Just look at the many children of still-Alice billionaires. They’re not hurting.

For example, Warren Buffet announced he was giving away all his wealth, created a foundation that possesses most of his wealth, and named his son as director.

Not rocket science.

And that doesn’t include the affects of private tutors, nanny’s, quality education, etc.

[FeloniousHam]

> Then the dead guy will give all his money to his kids before dying.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good enough. Inequality is a fundamental part of human existence, but I'd prefer that inequality to be as much as possible an expression of individual merit rather than a financial windfall as a result of parental success.

As I mention in another reply, your "inheritance" is what you get while your parents are alive.

[pyuser583]

It’s not so much the perfect being the enemy of the good, as the fundamental point being missed.

The goal is to prevent persistent, cross-generational inequality. High inheritance taxes simply won’t accomplish this. Or even come close.

The only policy that had ever achieved the sort of field-evening you want is a very strong public sector.

Providing quality education, job, opportunities to everyone (or at least lots of people).

A good example is Sweden. Sweden had massive asset-inequality. A handful of families are massively wealthy, and the successfully pass that wealth down generations.

Yet Sweden had little income inequality, because of their strong public services.

[FeloniousHam]

My complaint with inheritance is not that perpetuates income inequality (though it may do that). I don't care about income inequality in the abstract, it bothers me not a whit that multi-billionaires prosper while the poorest in the US live merely pretty OK lives.

I simply hate the unfairness of this particular form of wealth transfer: the winners hit the jackpot without even buying a ticket.

[hervature]

You're just incentivizing rich people to put all their assets in holdings companies and then giving their children ownership before they die. I wouldn't be surprised if this is how its done today.

[beerandt]

That's basically what trusts are, with a few additional benefits.