If you were a politician...

[DC Al Fine]

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

Is that true for the people these taxes are targeting? I mean, the average Joe's wealth is mostly in his house, but I imagine the super rich are mostly in investments which would've been taxed on their interest or dividends.

[traininthedistance]

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.

One thing that would help in your in-laws' case is to do what Vermont does, and change the code so that productive land (agricultural, forestry, etc.) is taxed at its "use value" rather than at its "sale value".  As long as it remains in production, it gets a far lower rate that is reflective of the economic value of its crops, timber, etc., rather than what it would fetch for subdivisions.

[Lief 🗽]

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

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I like politicus's ideas a lot. The fact that they further complicate the tax code is, to my mind, more than made up for by the fundamental fairness of what she's suggesting. I'd perhaps support higher actual rates than she would; I don't know.

[Indy Texas]

No.

And furthermore, there's nothing particularly generous about leaving an inheritance to your children. You literally cannot use the money or assets once you're dead, so it's not as if you're giving anything up.

Why not give the estate to your children while you're still alive? Why not just spend it? Why not give it away?

[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.

One thing that would help in your in-laws' case is to do what Vermont does, and change the code so that productive land (agricultural, forestry, etc.) is taxed at its "use value" rather than at its "sale value".  As long as it remains in production, it gets a far lower rate that is reflective of the economic value of its crops, timber, etc., rather than what it would fetch for subdivisions.

MA apparently didn't see things the same as VT. This was a horse farm with stables, fields, and exercise track, so I also wonder how VT would determine the production value when many of the animals were not owned by the farm.

[AggregateDemand]

Estate tax is justifiable when all other living taxes are eliminated. Taxing people for dying destabilizes capital investment, and gives an unfair advantage to foreign direct investment in the US economy.

[Vega]

I would propose to have the President and Senate elected by the Alternative Vote; whilst the House of Representatives is elected by the Single Transferable Vote, in Multi-member districts.

Also would repeal the 22nd Amendment.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Most certainly!

[RogueBeaver]

Most certainly!

[H. Ross Peron]

Lolno. I'd raise it MASSIVELY.

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

[RosettaStoned]

 Hell yes.

[angus]

Why not just spend it? Why not give it away?

Well, to be fair, we love our children.  (Or perhaps we desire immortality and cannot achieve it, so passing on our genes and our ideologies forward, in smaller versions of ourselves, is the closest we can achieve, and since the mini-me versions of ourselves represent us in the abstract, we want those versions to succeed in life, and we call that love.)  Whatever, in any case we all want our children to have as much as we can give them.  When we're alive we direct the spending of our fortunes in a way that will benefit our families.  We know best what is good for them so it is important that we insist on that oversight.  Once we're dead, we no longer have the ability to direct the spending, and if we have educated our progeny well, we have a reasonable hope that they will spend the money in a manner in which we would approve.

If I had a billion dollars of course I'd leave it to my child.  I might also leave some to the hospital that birthed him, and some to the university that schooled him, and some to the NGO that funded the research that lead to a cure for his disease, but the bulk of it I'd leave to my child.  Still, I also think that it is fair that he can be expected to help fund his government's program with his massive inheritance.  After all, a stable functioning state with good roads and good schools and equal opportunity for all is in his best interest as well.   

[MATTROSE94]

I would increase it on estates that are worth over $250,000. I am not sure what rate I would increase it to though.

[Repub242]

Yes, defiantly.

[Indy Texas]

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

So I guess when you pay someone to mow your lawn, they shouldn't have to pay income taxes on that money, since it was already taxed when you received it from your own income or capital gains.

I have no problem with the "death tax." Isn't taxing dead people preferable to taxing those who are still alive?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, without a doubt.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

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

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.

No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Of course I'd abolish it.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.

No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money? Should people be able to not work a day in their lives because of their rich parents while others work two jobs just to get by?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

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

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.

No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money? Should people be able to not work a day in their lives because of their rich parents while others work two jobs just to get by?

Its MY money, I worked for it so I can spend it how I choose.Besides I would not just give it to them. I would make sure they have jobs, and or are going to college. A good example will be Bill Gates. He said each kid gets 10mil each,the rest is going to charity. I have no problem giving to the poor, but punishing success is not the right way to fix it.

[SPC]

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

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.

No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

In any event, assessing inheritance as something the recipient "deserves" is a straw man, since nobody seriously advocates that position. Inheritance is the right of the giver, as having earned his fortune through valuable work and saving he is free to do with it as he pleases. Knowing that his earnings can help provide for his descendants provides greater incentive to save it rather than knowing that his earnings will be wasted by government bureaucrats as soon as he isn't around to stop them.

[TNF]

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

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.

No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

In any event, assessing inheritance as something the recipient "deserves" is a straw man, since nobody seriously advocates that position. Inheritance is the right of the giver, as having earned his fortune through valuable work and saving he is free to do with it as he pleases. Knowing that his earnings can help provide for his descendants provides greater incentive to save it rather than knowing that his earnings will be wasted by government bureaucrats as soon as he isn't around to stop them.

Unfortunately, the only people who do valuable work in society are, by-and-large, the ones with nothing to pass on to their children. Thus inheritance becomes a means of perpetuating parasitism, and nothing more.

[Maxwell]

Yes.

[SPC]

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

Basically. Maybe only tax everything above $1 million or so, but at a certain point, all of it should start going to the government.

No it shouldn't. the government doesn't deserve a cent of what is meant for my children. Anyway that is unfeasible, it would never pass.

Do your children deserve that money?

Does a complete stranger?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how the latter part of the question is relevant unless you seek to use envy as a basis for crafting policy.

In any event, assessing inheritance as something the recipient "deserves" is a straw man, since nobody seriously advocates that position. Inheritance is the right of the giver, as having earned his fortune through valuable work and saving he is free to do with it as he pleases. Knowing that his earnings can help provide for his descendants provides greater incentive to save it rather than knowing that his earnings will be wasted by government bureaucrats as soon as he isn't around to stop them.

Unfortunately, the only people who do valuable work in society are, by-and-large, the ones with nothing to pass on to their children. Thus inheritance becomes a means of perpetuating parasitism, and nothing more.

The value of someone's "work" is determined subjectively by how much other people are willing to pay for it, not by how much physical effort when into said work. While you may denigrate those that use their land, mental labor, and capital to benefit their fellow man rather than their physical labor¹, I guarantee that your life would be significantly worse off without their services. What I find truly ironic is that, if one were to actually implement a 100% inheritance tax after a certain amount, that would only encourage people to enter early retirement (since there is no point in working any more if that extra dollar is just going to go to a complete stranger anyway), rather than working for income that someone with a strong emotional connection to that individual (not to mention a substantial fraction of their DNA) could benefit from.

On the other hand, if someone truly has nothing to pass down to their children after a lifetime of work, that implies that said individual either spent all of their earnings during their lifetime, in which case they deliberately deprived their children of inheritance, or (far less likely) despite a lifetime of vocation never earned above sustenance, in which case it is dubious as to whether their work could be considered "valuable."

¹Lest my ambiguous phrasing be misinterpreted, benefiting their fellow man is the effect of their work, not the motivation, which is purely self-interest.