**TL:DR: Cancelling inheritance tax would benefit the most wealthy people at the expense of all others. A reasonable inheritance tax would serve as funding for many government programs.** Inheritance tax represents an ideal means of economic redistribution when levied appropriately. More specifically, an inheritance tax on the most wealthy people could give the government more revenues without burdening the vast majority of taxpayers. Since the inheritance tax focuses on wealth and assets, it could more effectively target the wealthiest individuals in society. In the United States, inheritance tax comes in the form of the estate tax on assets. The current system of estate tax already gives too many loopholes for exploitation, and an outright repeal can have disastrous outcomes. A proposal to abolish the tax is estimated to cost the Federal Government [$151 billion](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2017/11/16/442836/4-ways-repealing-estate-tax-expand-racial-wealth-gap/). To amend the fiscal gap, the government would have to either cut essential programs or levy more taxes on less wealthy individuals. Hence, this repeal would increase financial burdens on the government and make the U.S. federal tax sys[tem more regressive. Furthermore, the repeal would raise issues of racial equity. Currently, 9 out of every 10 households](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2017/11/16/442836/4-ways-repealing-estate-tax-expand-racial-wealth-gap/) subject to the estate tax are white. Hence, the repeal would benefit exclusively wealthy white individuals and increase racial inequality. Studies have shown that a reasonable inheritance tax represents an effective tool to reduce wealth inequality. According to the Tax Policy Center, a 35% inheritance tax on cumulative taxes beyond $1.5 million could [create $600 million](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/to-reduce-inequality-tax-inheritances/#:~:text=Preliminary%20estimates%20by%20the%20Urban,would%20yield%20more%20than%20%24600) over eight years for the federal government. The revenues represent extra sources for government funding and do not burden working-class Americans. Furthermore, the tax could incentivize wealthy individuals to divide their inheritances to more people, reducing wealth concentrations. Overall, inheritance tax represents an effective and reasonable way to reduce wealth inequality and increase government funding. For these reasons, the inheritance tax should be repealed.

As a preface, with the current tax code in the United States, inheritance tax is necessary and shouldn't be scrapped—but that does not mean that inheritance tax is good in and of itself. An annual wealth tax is necessary. Our current system, which imposes taxes when there is a transfer (such as an inheritance) or a sale of capital, allows for the radically disproportionate accumulation of wealth. Mass-accumulated wealth (such as billionaires') is largely unproductive for society, held in business interests, stock, and real estate (1). Ronald Reagan's "trickle-down economics" predicted that, rather than solely accumulating capital, the upper classes would spend and their wealth would spread (trickle-down) through the economy, helping people of all classes. This has been proven largely false (2). An inheritance tax remedies this to some extent, but a well-functioning government must have consistent tax revenue, rather than one-time windfalls whenever a billionaire dies—were Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or Bill Gates to die today, the government (both state _and_ federal, in some cases) would see inheritance tax revenues in the tens-of-billions (3). Currently, politicians like Bernie Sanders (4) and Elizabeth Warren (5) are fighting for a wealth tax and, although neither has advocated it to be an alternative to inheritance tax, per se, there are clear similarities in the two types of tax and a swap between them is imaginable at the very least. Second, 1. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-assets-make-wealth/ 2. https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572 3. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/21/average-billionaires-death-means-a-165-million-windfall-for-states.html 4. https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/ 5. https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-jayapal-boyle-introduce-ultra-millionaire-tax-on-fortunes-over-50-million

**TL;DR: Inheritance tax fails to redistribute wealth** The need for an inheritance tax is an indication that the current tax and economic model does not work. The wealth that an individual wants to pass on has already been subject to income, national insurance as well as discretionary charges such as VAT and fuel duty, depending on the spending habits and lifestyle of the individual with the wealth. Therefore any savings that have been accrued have already been subjected to a multitude of taxes. A person should not be further taxed for wishing to pass on money they have worked for and which has already been proportionately taxed. The school of thought that an inheritance tax will help to resolve the wealth gap is redundant when the multitude of taxes already in place cant solve this problem. The fact that huge masses of wealth can be accumulated whereas others scrape by on a day by day basis shows that the issue of wealth inequality will not be resolved by one individual tax but require a monumental shift in the distribution of resources. Individuals should be able to gift the wealth they have accumulated without it being further taxed.