[kurikuri]

> Now you want to take away 50% of that before passing it on to the kids?

Yes, or spend it…

I’ve met too many people who are quite concerned about their parent’s wealth and spending later in life, and it seems to become more concerning for the kids once their parents become closer to death.

I believe, as a rule of thumb, dynastic wealth is bad for society at large and encourages a rise in rentiers and other parasitic behaviors.

> But also, that brings your effective tax rate for your life at close to ~66%…

Such an odd concept: the tax rate of all income you have had over the span of your life. Once you’re dead, you no longer ‘own’ anything. It belongs to your estate, and whoever owns that estate is the person who is taxed.

[yieldcrv]

I can recognize that saving for the sake of saving is bad for the economy, I don't like to pretend that the only solution is for one entity (the government) to get it, and it doesnt have to be that way

if the balances were programmed to be slashed - a portion automatically deleted for inactivity - I would be more into that. note that this is an upgrade from what the Federal Reserve already tries to do in tightening phases like now. This is also what some monetary experiments do to validating nodes.