The Student Room Group

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.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I would move out of the country immediately. I'm not even wealthy. This is a stupid idea.
Capitalism generally works in favour of the rich and encourages the accumulation of wealth. You're saying for that to happen then you just take it back at the end? That's sort of stupid, and furthermore there'd be huge loopholes such as the money being used to purchase property, or businesses and/or other assets which can then be transferred
Reply 3
Principle rather than practice. Would you care to tell me why exactly you believe the principle of banning inheritance is not acceptable?
Reply 4
What's the point in working hard to produce a decent future for your children if it's going to the governments coffers when you pop your clogs?

While I'll admit I am jealous of those that do get to live off their parents earnings, assuming nothing dodgy has happened with the money (tax evasion) the government has received it's share of the money.

Oh and inheritance tax already takes 40% of everything above £325,000 (currently).
Reply 5
Scenario: I'm a teenager and both my parents die in a car crash. As a result, my family home and all my possessions are seized by the government as I'm not allowed to inherit anything. Therefore I am left utterly penniless and have to live on the streets. Wow - what a great idea, I'm surprised such a law isn't already in place. /sarcasm
Reply 6
Original post by hazelsaurus
Capitalism generally works in favour of the rich and encourages the accumulation of wealth. You're saying for that to happen then you just take it back at the end? That's sort of stupid, and furthermore there'd be huge loopholes such as the money being used to purchase property, or businesses and/or other assets which can then be transferred


He was talking about the principle, not the practicality of it.

I think that in principle inheritance should not exist as it would generate so much revenue for the state.
Reply 7
What's the point in working hard my whole life to leave something behind for my children, if it's not going to be given to them, kinda simplistic view, but I am tired :smile:


Also... hypothetically what would stop me just transferring cash to them before I died?
Reply 8
Original post by Dause
Principle rather than practice. Would you care to tell me why exactly you believe the principle of banning inheritance is not acceptable?


Probably better in the Philosophy forum then..
David Camerons father dies

Bet he regrets not increasing inheritance tax threshold now!
Reply 10
that ^ is the problem. however fair you think it may be, higher inheritance tax will drain britain of the wealthy. inheritance tax is a huge source of income for the government, imagine what they'd do without 40% of the life earnings of every millionaire in this country.
Reply 11
No it should'nt be banned. There is nothing wrong with giving your wealth, which you have earned, to your children or any other family member. You earnt it so you can do what the hell you like with it, even in death.

It should still be taxed though.
Original post by james22
He was talking about the principle, not the practicality of it.

I think that in principle inheritance should not exist as it would generate so much revenue for the state.


I think in principle it would be a good idea to privatise the NHS
Reply 13
Interesting. I agree with inheritance tax, and it could even be taxed a bit more in principle. But take my own family for example. My parents both have decent jobs and we would have gone through a very **** stage financially if my parents inheritance hadn't come when it did.

In the end you can't stop people from supporting their children if they want to. I mean I'm not sure what you can call inheritance and what you can't, but I can imagine if a law banning inheritance was introduced you'd get a lot of old people selling their properties and just "randomly" donating their children all their wealth. Can you stop someone giving another person something that they own?

I think it's just a bastard that some people get it easy because they live off inheritance, there's nothing you can do.
Reply 14
Original post by Flying Flowers
I did not reply to the OP, can you not read you moron ? Did you not take English as a GCSE ?


Ah what a lovely pleasant place TSR is. Bliss. :smile:
My father wasn't a rich man but he worked hard all of his life to save up money. As a result, I won't have to wait until I'm 40 to be able to put a deposit down on a house like a lot of my friends will. If all the money were taken by the government, it would have been a waste of his time and I'm sure he would have spent it on himself and my mother rather than trying to provide a better start for me out of love. Inheritance doesn't just come from wealthy people and most people will still have to work to support themselves. Anyone who inherits enough to not have to work will have 40% taken by tax anyway.
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.
Reply 17
Work hard all your life for a good life for your family, then wham, they have no savings anymore. That is principally wrong, it's stealing the benefits of hard work from a worthy family to put into government coffers... NO, especially to make the poor less poor, socialism is a demotivator.
Reply 18
Original post by ExcessNeo
What's the point in working hard to produce a decent future for your children if it's going to the governments coffers when you pop your clogs?

While I'll admit I am jealous of those that do get to live off their parents earnings, assuming nothing dodgy has happened with the money (tax evasion) the government has received it's share of the money.

Oh and inheritance tax already takes 40% of everything above £325,000 (currently).


This is is the first reasonable response, but I don't accept that the reduced incentive to work outweighs the benefits. For a start, consider those who don't have children (or have committed themselves to not having children) and ask whether they work less than those who do. Or ask whether a professional athlete would be less inclined to succeed if his/her earning could not be bequeathed.

While I accept that some small part of the motivation to work is driven by a bequest motive, it is naive to think that people have their children's interest solely at heart. The desire to achieve, as well as provide for retirement, greatly outweigh this effect.


Original post by Tefhel
Scenario: I'm a teenager and both my parents die in a car crash. As a result, my family home and all my possessions are seized by the government as I'm not allowed to inherit anything. Therefore I am left utterly penniless and have to live on the streets. Wow - what a great idea, I'm surprised such a law isn't already in place. /sarcasm


Scenario: I'm an underprivileged teenager and both my parents die in a car crash. As a result, my parents had no savings or valuable possessions to leave me. Therefore I am left utterly penniless and have to live on the streets.

Why should one orphan do better than the other simply because his/her parents were wealthy? What if the revenue from the inheritances was pooled and distributed evenly amongst these orphans? What if inheritance was permissible to an extent in the case of your parents deaths? There are a million and one ways around this.
Well if you earn the money over your life time surely you should have the say in where that money goes.

Quick Reply

Latest