If such legislation were implemented, it will just incentivize people even more to gift their wealth away before they die. All that's been achieved is simply shifting a boundary condition. My general view is that negative incentive structures are not particularly effective in what they set out to achieve. Better to try and craft positive incentive structures for people to donate money over time before they pass on.
There are essentially 4 ways to spend money:
1) You can spend your own money on yourself.
2) You can spend your own money on someone else.
3) You can spend somebody else’s money on yourself.
4) You can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.
People are are most careful with (1) and least careful with (4). Taxes fall into bucket 4 and donations/gifts fall into bucket 2. I'd much rather see charitable foundations and organizations self-directing the appropriation of money at the local level rather than state/federal government doing the appropriation.
All this is not to say that inheritance and wealth taxes should not be collected. I think they should and should be done to help fund the essential functions of government, but I think dialing that percentage up to a 100% of someone's wealth when they die would be a mistake.
There are essentially 4 ways to spend money:
People are are most careful with (1) and least careful with (4). Taxes fall into bucket 4 and donations/gifts fall into bucket 2. I'd much rather see charitable foundations and organizations self-directing the appropriation of money at the local level rather than state/federal government doing the appropriation.All this is not to say that inheritance and wealth taxes should not be collected. I think they should and should be done to help fund the essential functions of government, but I think dialing that percentage up to a 100% of someone's wealth when they die would be a mistake.