Should Inheritance Be Banned?

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.

In that case, thank you for supporting the economy by repeatedly injecting your cash into it rather than hording it in the form of static wealth.

So why should you benefit from the hard work your parents put in?

Saving money is a good thing. This would discourage it.

I see a lot more reason why they should benefit over someone down the road who hasn't worked a day in their life and are claiming benefits, don't you?

Also realise, its not just family that inherit the money. In some cases it can be friends or even charities. Lots of charitable organisations run on the basis of this cash, shall we close them?

This thread is just pure jealousy

I disagree with the principal of inheritance tax on the basis that the money the properties/possesions have been bought with will already have been taxed once so why tax it again? I know a lot of people will disagree/neg but it's my opinion.

I see a lot more reason why they should benefit over someone down the road who hasn't worked a day in their life and are claiming benefits, don't you?

Also realise, its not just family that inherit the money. In some cases it can be friends or even charities. Lots of charitable organisations run on the basis of this cash, shall we close them?

This thread is just pure jealousy

The practicalities of it are too complex but I strongly agree with the principle of it. If you are paid so much that you have an extravagant surplus wealth remaining after your death beyond a reasonable amount (and assuming your death wasn't sudden/unexpected/premature) then obviously you are being paid an unreasonable amount. That wealth could be redistributed more fairly among the population.

I'd rather my money went to my own children or partner than some sort of program and/or benefits for someone I don't know. Selfish it sounds but its only a natural feeling. If I had children and I (and my partner) died whilst they were young they wouldn't have anything, when everyone else is getting money of their parents for university or they have a place to stay when times are bad my children would literally have nothing if this was in place. If my partner was disabled and I was the sole earner and I died, my partner would be worse off. If I die suddenly and didn't have a funeral plan my family would have to pay for the funeral and sort out all my debt from their own pocket. What about my possessions, not my house or car or anything like that but smaller things and more sentimental things, would the government get those as well? I would hate it if my family didn't have anything to remember me by. If this law was in place when my nan died I wouldn't have got my last birthday present from her (she bought it in advance) and even though it is literally a watch, it holds so much emotional value to me you couldn't imagine and I'd hate it if someone said I'd need to give that away so it can go to someone else who won't feel any of the emotional attachment that I do to it.

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

True, this is a valid point. I don't consider it to be compelling enough to swing the argument though.

On the one hand, saving is only good up to a certain level - there is a balance to be struck between saving and consumption, so an absolute regarding either is a bit misguided. It is equally possible that wealthy individuals sitting on their wealth are damaging the economy by not spending enough.

Equally, the revenue raised could be saved by the government, so the problem disappears. A similar argument (through subsidies) can be applied with regards to reduced investment.

So let me get this straight. You believe in the principle of stealing off dead people?

And that you also believe that having assets and savings is unreasonable?


Awful code of morality. Born out of the fact that either you are utterly ignorant of economics or that you are a miserable little collectivist.

The best charity is ultimately the government, as the population of the country indirectly decides what is done with its resources.

Why would you want to ban inheritance? Just because a few people get rich because of the work of their parents doesn't mean the entire concept is wrong.

What makes the state a better decision maker then who earned the money?

And if you ban the intrafamily accumulation of wealth, guess what? The rich will export their money out to places where UK law does not apply. Lots of ways you can gain control of money without actually transferring it.

Stop trying to control what people do with their money, just because it's not fair. Life isn't fair. Why should anyone attempt to accumulate any wealth at all?

Banning in inheritance will drive your country into the Third World.

Firstly, you can't isolate principle from practice. This would not only be completely and utterly unworkable, but even detrimental to government finances. No-one takes kindly to their wealth being taxed 100%, so everyone would dodge this: money would be moved abroad, people would leave the country, people would set up trusts, people would give it to family members before death, people would do any number of things to avoid it. To counter this, you'd have to close up every loophole, and place unprecedented controls on the egress of money and people from the country - and there could be no better way of driving away business and investment from Britain than establishing a system where it's hard to get cash out.

Secondly, there are plenty of objections to the principle as well. People are already taxed up to 50% on what they earn - double taxing is unfair and not transparent; why should we not be free to give away our taxed money to whomever we want? It's also hugely interventionist to have a 100% direct tax on anyone, and who's to say that the government won't just waste all the extra money (it's pretty good at that). There'd be a massive disincentive to earn money, and widespread alienation of people from a government which wants to deprive children of their rightful bequests, which their parents have worked hard to accumulate. There'd be no incentive to be sensible and frugal with money - something which should be rewarded, and is, in the long term, beneficial to the government and to society.