Corporations are legal fictions through which their owners operated. If ownership of corporations can’t be inherited, it doesn’t make “corporations” more powerful, it just distributes power over corporations (presuming that the absence of inheritance means that assets escheat to the State, and that the State itself is fundamentally democratic.)
The dead person's estate is responsible for paying back creditors, even if that means liquidating the estate to do so.
Not quite. You should have life insurance and something the bank can seize to be able to get financing. So even if you die the bank can recover some of the principal. You can also file Chapter 11; that's actually a reset.
I think it's better for people to stop working when they get pretty rich, like $20mil. People should stop working when they get rich enough to pay for an awesome life, and give someone else the chance. And if they actually enjoy working, they can do it pro bono.
I do not trust the uber rich to mind their own business and stay out of other people's lives.
Making money is generally a positive sum endeavour as long as you're not generating unpriced externalities such as carbon pollution, and as such I don't like the idea that rich people stop working after they're rich. As long as they're not creating externalities we want them to continue building and contributing to society. It's a much better alternative to them relaxing on a yacht somewhere, which contributes nothing.
It's also inaccurate to think that making money by building crowds out other people from doing so. The opposite is the case. It's the same mindset behind the "immigrants took our jobs" train of thinking.
I'm not worried about making money being zero sum. I'm worried about uber rich people doing uncalled for things with too much money. No one should have that kind of power.
> No one should have that kind of power.
I fundamentally disagree. I strongly prefer that Bill Gates gets to spend his money the way that he sees fit rather than it go to the federal government. Just the same with Elon Musk and Warren Buffet.
You'll certainly remove their clout over society but I think you also need to consider the significant downsides to this proposal. Maybe you would be better off finding ways to limit the power of rich people over society (eg political contribution laws) instead of trying to ban being rich?
1. Have real practical advantage over other people in their community 2. Have real practical power to shape their community
For #1 that's mostly the middle class, who want better schools for their children, and safe pleasant environments for their families. Actions that remove that incentive, make the middle class irrelevant. Very few people are willing to work 9+ hour days during the start of their career, just so they can have more toys, and not a larger house in a good neighborhood later in life.
For #2 that's mostly the elite. If they're denied influence via money, they'll simply go into politics or religion where we'll end up with a society shaped by lucky charismatic people, and not necessarily anyone who has any skill. At least we can say non-hereditary wealthy people are lucky, and skilled as opposed to just being lucky.
What about just charging income tax on inheritance (but allowing deferral of tax recognition of windfall income over a period of, say, up to 10 years from the date of receipt.)
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/a-pr....