Should Inheritance Be Banned?

Then let me be clearer: I oppose monetary transfers from living parents to the same extent as dead ones, provided such monetary transfers unduly influence opportunity. Education falls under this. McDonalds does not.

100% taxes dont earn an revenue, you can't just calculate the amount of inheritance and say you could give it to the poor because people will just make sure they blow all their money before they die rather than save up for no reason. This means the idea cannot work so we shouldn't do it.

No, because banning those things would be stupid. Cost > benefit in my eyes. Not so with inheritance. Your last point is probably the one thing we can agree on: this would be political suicide. The majority would oppose it: some people would have good reasons, most would not.

Seeing as you have no problem with monetary transfers as long as they do not provide too large an opportunity, why should inheritances of small monetary value be taken away?

An inheritance of, for example, $5000 isn't really going to offer someone a great advantage in life, but it might help them out if they're in dire need of money. Similarly, any sort of heirloom of emotional value is not going to give someone undue advantage.

Your proposed blanket ban of inheritance would not even allow these simple transfers.

OK fair enough I was going a little extreme, but where would you draw the line - for instance what if you set up an after death trust fund for your young child in case you and your partner died, would that be legal? I think it's too complex a matter to be able to just ban.

I have no doubt that the incentive to bequeath exists. I do believe that it is far less influential than you believe, and certainly less than the motives of precaution and provision for retirement. Regardless, the increased productivity of the next generation would far outweigh any perceived loss in the older generation.




And again I tell you, I am suggesting nothing of the sort. I am saying that inheritance and meritocracy appear fundamentally incompatible, and to support one is to reject the other.

I am saying that giving heirs wealth for nothing reduces their incentive to work, and reduces the opportunities available to others (had the income been redistributed). Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

This is fine. If you are prepared to accept a society that is not a meritocracy, then inheritance does not pose a problem.



Because not all decisions regarding our money are in society's interest. Again, consider the example of illegal drugs. Why aren't you outraged that you cannot dictate where your money goes in this case? You already accept there are certain things you cannot do with your money because it would be detrimental to society. I believe that inheritance is one of those things.

Regarding charities: I don't care what you do with the money as long as it's sensible. If you want to give it all to charities, go for it. I don't think this would be the most effective form of redistribution, but that's another argument for another day.




Their incentives are not right in front of your eyes.




Thanks for stopping by.

Why shouldn't they be able to do these things?

I disagree with your premise entirely. I think any decent parents who have been successful would ensure their children were brought up to have a strong work ethic.

I would love to here what opportunities the poorer people are lacking. School is free; if you work harder and are a high achiever, you can get grants and scholarships at private schools, or go to a grammar school, etc. Again, we see hard work is key.

Similarly with university; the student loan system is much kinder to those who are less well off, so if anything they have a better opportunity in this respect; many wealthier parents see no obligation to pay for university, at which point the "child" is eighteen, and should be funding themselves. Not all wealthy parents shower their children in money all the time, you know. On the contrary, the government gives grants, reduced fees, benefits, and so on to those less well off.

Education wise there are no lacking opportunities. Working hard at school is what is needed, not money.

If your parents have investments and assets which you have seen with your own eyes, which they repeatedly tell you that you are going to inherit and which is being done to give you a decent start in life, what are you going to think and say ...errm actually i don't believe you because you're my enemies not my parents and you don't to give me a decent start in life?

This is fine. If you are prepared to accept a society that is not a meritocracy, then inheritance does not pose a problem.

Because not all decisions regarding our money are in society's interest. Again, consider the example of illegal drugs. Why aren't you outraged that you cannot dictate where your money goes in this case? You already accept there are certain things you cannot do with your money because it would be detrimental to society. I believe that inheritance is one of those things.

Regarding charities: I don't care what you do with the money as long as it's sensible. If you want to give it all to charities, go for it. I don't think this would be the most effective form of redistribution, but that's another argument for another day.

Because you will be forced to establish some arbitrary limit, such as £5,000. This is still an unfair advantage, as there are many families that cannot leave their children even this small amount. Surely they are in equally dire need for money?

I agree with you regarding heirlooms. The problem is ascertaining which have sentimental value and which do not. There would doubtless be many people claiming that their parents' Ferrari means an awful lot to them. The only way to sort the truthful from the fraudulent is to require that they buy them back. The Ferrari would cost thousands. The picture of your parent's wedding day might set you back £1. It's not ideal, but it works.

I'm sorry, but this is really stupid. Income tax takes money from hard-workers. Inheritance tax takes money from the lucky. One taxes achievement, the other taxes ascription. Meritocracy, aristocracy. Take your pick.

I'm under no illusions that we do not have a true meritocracy. Are you not prepared to accept it?

Why is giving an inheritance not sensible? What if a parent gave conditions that meant say, the inheritance was to be used to start up the childs idea for a new gadget or company which would benefit society with the jobs created and help stimulate the economy.

If you accept that giving the money to charities should be accepted as it can bring abour redistribution of the money then why do inheritances have to be any different?

(I will concede that a lot of inheritances are set up like that but what about the few which will be?)

Your idea seems to suggest that it doesn't matter about the character of the person or their own abilities in receiving the inheritance. How do you know that by taking it away it would do more good than allowing it and then if the person was so inclined they could help in the local area.

I should probably preface this by saying I am discussing this idea in principle rather than in practice, so arguments about the incompetency of government, etc. should have no bearing just now.

I'm having trouble reconciling the concept of inheritance (a transfer payment) with that of either capitalism or meritocracy. Surely a society that subscribes to either ideology must consider bequests to be a violation of their principles? I would be very interested to hear people's opinions on this, but let me make a few brief points first.

The argument for a 100% tax rate seems pretty compelling to me... The most immediate of these is the government revenue that it would produce, which could be used for any number of worthwhile purposes. It could be redistributed to the lower classes, increasing their opportunities in life and reducing wealth inequality. Those 'deprived' of large inheritances would be forced to earn their keep in life, rather than living off their parents' work.

This would go some way towards satisfying a basic tenet of both capitalism and meritocracy, that of equality of opportunity (as opposed to the equality of outcome espoused by Communism). Abolishing inheritance would also help to reduce wealth inequality (again, as opposed to income inequality).

A number of obvious objections doubtless come to mind, and I would love to hear them. I think I can respond to most of them, but I am interested to see what others think.

You are deluding yourself. There are countless studies showing the correlation between socioeconomic group and educational achievement. You are right about scholarships - what you are missing is that the poor have to earn this privilege, while others (again, myself included) merely paid for it. The poor student has to work hard to achieve parity with the rich student who does not.

That's not even to mention the sort of home environment many underprivileged children must live in. When I was in school I never had to get a job. I had my own room, my own desk, my own laptop. Are you saying this didn't contribute to my educational results? I know that I owe a lot to my parents' wealth; I also know that this is not acceptable under a meritocracy.

This is point is getting slightly off-topic though, so perhaps we should agree to disagree and focus instead on the concept of inheritance.




Hopefully a simple thought experiment will resolve this: imagine you die tomorrow. Your brothers and sisters, should you have any, also perish in this sudden tragedy. Fast forward a year. Where are your parents? Have they quit their jobs, sold their assets and spent all their money, resigned to living at subsistence level off social welfare? If you can honestly answer 'yes' to these questions you must be one hell of a kid.

Principle rather than practice. Would you care to tell me why exactly you believe the principle of banning inheritance is not acceptable?