[jopsen]

> leaving nothing for you?

You assume the world is a zero sum game.

You have what you make. Why would you need anyone to "leave" something for you?

To be fair: I didn't mind my free healthcare, education, and the educational support that allowed me to study without loans, saving or a job.

But you don't have to do a full communist to fund a wealth fare state.

[int_19h]

I don't think the scheme proposed by OP is a good idea, but it's not communist in any meaningful sense. It's not even anti-private-property. It's very specifically against inheritance.

[dogma1138]

Which is very much against private ownership of property or at least individual ownership which is even worse.

It’s just blatantly stupid as it favors ownership under entities other than individuals such as corporations and trusts over individual ownership.

This move from an ownership model to a beneficiary one is already how the wealthiest amongst us avoid paying inheritance tax since if a family trust owns everything and you just get to benefit from those assets there is nothing to tax when a trustee dies.

And ofc corporations don’t die so no inheritance there which means the farmer’s kids are fucked whilst some mega agrocorp is laughing all the way to the bank waiting for Old McDonald to die…

All of these schemes that attempt to make inheritance costlier just make it worse for everyone other the richest of the rich.

People might take an issue with Bezos leaving billions to his survivors but what about farmland that has been in a family for generations? or an ancestral home? Or heck you don’t need to even to get to Amazon levels can someone leave to their kids a chain of 4 dry cleaners in some small city without it being taken away by the taxman?

And if that isn’t enough then it puts the residents of a country that has such a tax policy or any substantial inheritance taxation at a massive disadvantage against foreign investors and owners.