Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should Inheritance be Abolished?
Inheritance should be abolished.
Fights over inheritance drives siblings apart unnecessarily.
The more money you have the easier it is to make more money (by investing, rent, etc.).
The money that is collected from inheritance could be used to fund a welfare system that helps to ensure that everyone is born with equal opportunities.
If, instead of inheritance, the property of the deceased goes back to the state, this would provide an enormous new source of funds to eradicate poverty, invest in health and education, and support other social programs and projects that benefit society as a whole.
The law would be unenforceable because the wealthy would just use corporations and/or offshore accounts to hold their wealth.
In a free market it should be the earner's right to choose where their money and properties go when they die.
Wealth confiscation upon death is very unpopular, and will lead people to oppose any government that imposes such a policy.
It is better to tax inheritance progressively than to abolish it.
Inheritance cannot be abolished because wealth cannot be destructed and there is no viable recipient for such funds. Any single recipient of inherited wealth, such as a state, a church, or some societal body would become too powerful and eventually it will become corrupt.
Knowing that any wealth they create will be confiscated rather than being allocated according to their wills will decrease the incentives people have to create wealth, and thus make the economy poorer.
Abolishing inheritance might lead to children not treating their parents as well as they would have otherwise.
Inheritance is part of a long-standing link between the different generations of a family and abolishing it would deprive future generations of meaning and a sense of connection to the past.
Should Inheritance Be Minimized to Create an Equal Outset for Everyone?
Should Religious Exemptions to Discrimination Laws Be Abolished?
Should Referendums Be Abolished?