If you were a politician...

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, absolutely.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lolno. I'd raise it MASSIVELY.

The inheritance tax is clearly the fairest, most morally sound tax ever.

[politicus]

The inheritance tax is clearly the fairest, most morally sound tax ever.

Agree in principle since its money you didn't earn and inherited wealth creates an unfair advantage making a mockery of equal opportunities and fair competition, but with my positive view of family businesses I would prefer a differentiated tax where wealth invested in farms, shops and workshops etc. were to be tax free below a certain amount such as 3 mio. dollars whereas capital over 10 mio should be taxed quite heavily (but well belove a confiscatory level).
I would also support that business owners and their heirs should have a choice between paying inheritance tax to the state or donating a similar share of their business to their employees (not talking about management here) in order to encourage wealth redistribution.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm not in favor of taxing what often amounts to previously taxed money.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Christ no.

[Mordecai]

The only time I'd do it is if I were on my way out of office, in the guise of leaving the opposition a flaming bag of sh[Inks] to clean up.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Yes, replace it with a hard cap on inheritance.

[TNF]

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Would this be combined with a 100% gift tax as well, thus effectively ending family friendly traditions like Marxmas?

[TNF]

I would seek a 100% tax on all inheritance, because the concept is ridiculous.

Would this be combined with a 100% gift tax as well, thus effectively ending family friendly traditions like Marxmas?

Only a 100% tax upon luxury yachts or mansions being gifted to young rich people, obviously.

[Redalgo]

I am undecided on this one, stuck between a handful of conflicting considerations.

[SWE]

No, but I'd be open to raising it

[Miles]

Yes.

[Supersonic]

Yes.

[Deus Naturae]

Yes, absolutely.

[angus]

I would not.  I'm for simplifying the tax code, which usually means a flat tax rate.  The estate tax is pretty simple:  somebody gives you a sh**tload of money, for free, and it's reasonable that the government taxes a certain percent.  I'm absolutely against what politicus suggests.  That only further complicates the tax code.  Also, it isn't justified.  If you tax estates, then you tax estates regardless of whether it comes in the form of pigs or lucky gambling.  I'm okay with taxing them.  If I have to pay for schools and roads and bridges out of my hard-earned income, then you can bet it's okay for some fortunate son to have to pay for them out of his freebies.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

It goes bye bye in a blaze of dragonzord glory.

[DC Al Fine]

No. Confiscatory inheritance taxes are ridiculously easy to get around from a tax accountant's point of view. I wouldn't try even if I agreed with the idea.

EDIT: Misread the question.

I think inheritance taxes aren't sound policy, but eliminating them isn't something I'd be willing to spend political capital on.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes.

Really?!? That's disappointing.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

No, because rich people's kids shouldn't get free money based on who their parents were.

[Franzl]

Yes.

Really?!? That's disappointing.

It's one of his moderate credentials.

No offense, Miles...

[Franzl]

Mixed feelings here. In theory, the estate tax is a very fair idea, but it's also ridiculously easy to get around. I'd probably keep it the way it is.

[Franknburger]

I like some of polticus' ideas. In the German context, where you have a mandatory (basic) public pension insurance, whereby the pension you actually receive depends on your insurance contribution, I would also subject the inherited amount to pension insurance premiums. That would reduce labour cost, but correspond to the general concept of such wealth, namely providing financial security in the eventual case of disability, and for old age.

Most of the inheritance, btw., has typically not been taxed before but is unrealised gains on property, especially real estate.

[muon2]

I watched my in-laws family farm and business chopped up upon the death of the owners. They hadn't taken advantage of any estate planning tricks to shelter their real assets and the inheritance taxes left their heirs (some of whom still worked on the farm) no option but to sell the majority of the land and buildings to pay the debt to the state. For me that is not a system that makes any sense as a matter of public policy.

Part of the problem is that land and other assets can appreciate with time. To the extent that assets appreciate with inflation, I don't think they should be taxed as capital gains or be subject to an inheritance tax. If an asset gains value in excess of inflation, a case can be made that a tax might be applicable to the seller (or estate of the deceased) when that asset is sold or otherwise transferred. That would help in the case of a farm held for 70 years and worth many times the original purchase value, but not so many times more than the inflation-adjusted value.

[angus]

Part of the problem is that land and other assets can appreciate with time.

What is the value of a gift?  If you give me a house that you paid 30 thousand dollars for in 1965, is that house worth 30 thousand dollars?  Is it worth some arbitrary figure determined by assessors based on similar houses in the neighborhood?  Probably it is worth whatever someone will pay for it, and as you suggest that won't be determined till it is sold.  It's really a difficult thing to simplify taxes when they're based on values that aren't really simple to begin with.  I like the idea of taxing the property upon transfer not only because it legitimizes the taxable value but also because it guarantees that the heir can actually afford to pay the taxes.  Unfortunately, that creates loopholes to be exploited.