>>>>
>>>>Unless you have a plan to circumvent the currency, these people have the world by the short and curlies. Why? Because I can't think of a way to target unearned wealth vs self-made people who deserve it all.
>>>
>>>It's pretty easy, really.
>>>90% tax rates on inherited wealth and much higher tax rates in the very high income brackets.
>>>I'm flexible on the deductible amounts, but passing along billions is unacceptable.
>>>Those rates were in place after WWII - and the country prospered - but they were gradually eroded by the anti-government rants of the wealthy.
>>
>>It didn't work on the very rich then and it won't work today. If it did work then please explain the Ford, DuPont, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan etc. families
>
>If I tax $10 billion at 90%, the heir is still a billionaire.
>

The math is correct but the truth is the heir(s) will still have about $10 billion. The Walton family is a good example. When Sam Walton died in 1992 he was worth about 8.6 billion and the estate tax rate was 55%. He left most of his money to his wife and 4 children. Estimated estate tax - $0. His wife Helen died in 2007- estate tax rate 45% - estimated estate tax - 0. Sam's son John died in 2005 leaving his money to his widow Christy and son Lukas - estate tax rate 47% estimated estate tax-0. Lucas, Sam's grandson is now about $5 billion richer than his mother and the 4th richest Walton at $17.6 billion and #70 on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and behind his uncles Rob $49.7 billion #12, Jim $49.1 billion #14 and aunt Alice $48.4 billion #17.

I do not begrudge any of them 10¢ of their money.


>If the heir just puts the billion in municipal bonds, that heir's heir will probably also be a billionaire.