Why isn't an extreme wealth/inheritance tax pushed more by progressives?

I meant a 100% wealth/inheritance tax.

Recent Guardian op-ed

quote:

---

The idea that we should be able to pass on our life’s accumulated wealth to descendants is deeply embedded. It appeals to the fundamental biological urge to protect your offspring and propagate your genes. Though only a small minority of estates are subject to inheritance tax in Britain as it currently stands, opinion polls consistently find that the majority of people oppose it. Instinct seems to override common sense. VAT falls disproportionately on people with low incomes, but it’s far less hated.

---

quote:

---

In contemporary times, most people agree that tax should facilitate transfer of wealth from those who “have” to those who “need”. Public spending is messy and complicated, but the overall redistributive flow is from the relatively rich to the comparatively poorer. Justifications for not totally eradicating income equality have both moral and practical arguments: it’s argued that people morally deserve to be rewarded for being good at their job, and also that society needs to offer financial rewards to encourage people to work hard and be productive.

Neither of these arguments really apply in the case of inheritance. Morally speaking, people who stand to inherit large sums haven’t done anything to earn that money. An accident of birth placed them in a comparatively wealthy family and they’ve benefited from that their whole life. Some people who stand to inherit have struggled, true, but so have many people who won’t inherit anything at all.

---

quote:

---

Cultural norms teach us that the inheritance of private property is the default and any expropriation of this wealth must be justified. It should be the other way round. There’s some value in respecting the wishes of the dead, yes, but why is that more important than social housing, healthcare or any number of other possible uses for the money? It’s natural to want to protect and care for your family, but what about people who don’t stand to inherit a penny? Is there any reason their needs should matter less? We have to fund our state somehow – what makes inheritance tax more objectionable than income tax or VAT charged on essential consumer goods?

A 100% estate tax (perhaps with a small allowance for objects of sentimental value) isn’t a policy we can expect to see in a party manifesto any time soon. It’s well outside the current spectrum of mainstream political opinion. Questioning the status quo is always going to be a somewhat uncomfortable process, though, and all kinds of major social changes seemed impossible until suddenly they weren’t.

---

the argument makes 100% sense within their world view and policy goals. i may not agree with the policy but i fully admit it is a much better argument related to all sorts of alleged institutional ills than a policy framed around income or consumer behavior.

for example, a major argument behind institutional racism centers around home ownership. whites prevented minorities (primarily black people) from owning homes or, at the last, owning valuable and marketable homes. further institutional racism prevented black people from saving/investing in home ownership. this created a major wealth-transfer gap that created the chasm we see today.

a progressive income tax won't solve this problem but an inheritance tax will. from a purely policy perspective, it just makes all the sense in the world to attack wealth and not income. the wage gap is small potatoes compared to the wealth gap.

i'm assuming the 2 major issues are (1) support and (2) administration. i don't think the public supports this sort of policy today, however as the wealth gap grows and the underclass population grows with it, the political capital will eventually be there to steal accumulated wealth. also the "debt society" we live in is going to mean further people will even care because they simply will not have any property to leave their children. also those with property are having fewer children, further adding to the demographic problem. as wealthier people have fewer children, the wealth transfers are going to become even more consolidated while that population loses democratic share of the government.

administration is probably also a major issue. an income tax is very stable, even more than property or sales taxes. inheritance-based taxes would vary wildly from year to year. also a ton of perverse incentives would be present, especially in light of Medicare. if government is projecting a higher level of spending or lower "natural" returns, it will cut back on care for the elderly rich to ensure their death and more tax revenues for that year. that's very black helicoptery, but we all have to admit that shite would happen in this system.