I've never understood why the government thinks that just because someone has died, they deserve 40+% of money that has already been taxed.
Unless you were a truly stingy person in life, your affluence will have already have had huge positive impacts on those near and dear to you. Once you're dead, why should they be any more important than any other person?
Why favor your family, friends, or countrymen over any other person during your lifetime either? Everyone behaves this way. For example, why does government sponsored health care in western countries only cover their own citizens? Do the lives of people in less affluent countries not matter? Do they have less intrinsic value?
Most governments enforce a person’s will after they die. People generally elect to distribute their property to particular people, specifically to avoid it ending up in the hands of “we, as a society”.
It really just sounds like you think we are all children under one global nation.
I personally will never agree to that, and want my offspring to do better than the rest so we will be at odds at some point.
Adam Smith: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
This is taxation for policy reasons, not income.
The inheritance tax is not a Pigovian tax, but its purpose can also be primarily non-budgetary.
Economic mobility should be solely predicated on the expression of competence/ability in the pursuit of providing value to others in your society. It's not even that hard[1]. Get an education and a job, avoid the big economic sinks.
> This means that 40 percent of why some Americans are extraordinarily well off has nothing to do with smarts, hard work, frugality, lucky gambles or entrepreneurial ingenuity. It is simply because they were born to rich parents.
We should not fear the money landing in undeserving hands, it will rapidly be drained away if that is the case. Many(most?) very wealthy families employ wealth managers that ensure that money is profitably engaged with the society anyways, so in reality the money is not really in the heir's hands anyways, but is tied up in companies that are serving the country and employing others.
[1]: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-t...
Post-tax dollars aren't magical things that mean you never pay taxes again. They're just an accounting tool that makes dealing with some tax-exempt activities easier.
Given that, is there anyone who could possibly need their money less than the dead?
There is plenty more you can read on the topic. The general idea is that it helps create a meritocratic society.
"Some will argue that this example ignores any income and payroll tax the wealthy parents paid when they originally earned the $50 million. But if the couple paid their personal chef’s wages out of after-tax income, we wouldn’t think their personal chef should get credit for the taxes they paid. Similarly, we should ignore any income or payroll tax the couple paid when considering how much their son should contribute to the costs of government."
Why don't I have a downvote button for this?
I could go on. Art collection, old cars, even immaterial rights or stocks that are massively undervalued right now for one reason or another (for instance because the founder just died suddenly).
Inheritance taxation is inherently unjust because it cannot distinguish between goods that are easily traded for and the ones that cannot easily be sold.