Should inheritance be taxed at 100%?
The thread explores inheritance taxation with three distinct positions: one arguing for substantially higher rates as practical policy (7.2), one opposing confiscatory taxation on principle using a family business example (7.8), and one proposing a pragmatic middle ground - 50-60% on large estates with carve-outs for family businesses and farms - based on enforceability constraints rather than ideology.
5 responses
Feb 25, 2026
The 100% thing is actually a red herring because it'll never happen and we all know it. The real question is whether we're cool with letting wealth concentrate across generations, and I think most of us aren't - we just disagree on the fix.
Feb 25, 2026
My wife and I aren't rich, but we're trying to leave our kids something - not a fortune, just enough maybe for a down payment. A 100% tax would erase that dream for millions of regular families trying to get ahead. This isn't just a billionaire problem.
Feb 25, 2026
Practically speaking, you'd need an army of IRS agents to enforce that, and honestly we've got other priorities. Maybe 50-60% on estates over $10 million, with legitimate exemptions for family businesses and farms? That feels like we could actually pull off without collapsing the whole system.
Feb 25, 2026
My grandpa built his business from nothing and wanted to leave it to my mom. If the government took all of it, what was the point of his sacrifice? You can't tell me he didn't earn the right to decide what happens to his own money. That's not justice, that's confiscation.
Feb 25, 2026
Honestly? Taxing inheritance heavily is just practical. We've got crumbling infrastructure and underfunded schools. The ultra-wealthy aren't missing that seventh vacation home, but kids in my district are sharing textbooks. A 100% rate seems extreme, but substantially higher rates would actually help.