The inheritance tax already kicks in at a pretty high rate above $5 million and change.  Are you advocating for an even higher rate?  Close to 100%?  If so, keep in mind that inheritance and gifting (while still alive) are directly connected.  A 100% inheritance tax means you functionally prevent people from giving any sizable amounts of property to any other person (sans spouse presumably).  This has a lot of implications.   Even under such a system, if I am a wealthy parent, can I invest in a child&#x27;s startup?  What&#x27;s the difference between a legitimate investment versus a transfer of wealth masked as an investment?  Can I buy a 5th house in the city in which my child lives and allow them to live there rent free forever, or will the Government want to impute rental income?  Will we create a new layer of (expensive, game-able) bureaucracy to decide what&#x27;s fair use versus unfair use?  Will the fact that effective transfers of wealth now require a higher degree of sophistication make inequality even worse?<p>My point being that these types of taxes tend to introduce a lot of complexity, cost, and inefficiency (and that&#x27;s before considering the inevitable loopholes that lobbyists pay to include).  And ultimately, lots of unintended consequences.  I agree that the tax system can and probably should be used as a tool to encourage more equality but let&#x27;s do it in a simpler and more efficient way, like land value and other consumption taxes.