Every so often the inheritance tax comes up in our national discussion as Democrats in Congress look for new ways to squeeze revenue out of Americans. Though we don’t have a national inheritance tax, the United States does have an estate tax that functions in a similar way. Both are rooted in the misguided idea that those who inherit have done nothing to earn, and so have no absolute claim to, the inheritance they receive.
Daniel Pitt, a scholar at the University of Sheffield, argues against this notion in a recent article for the Critic. Citing a number of conservative thinkers, he articulates well the fact that leaving an inheritance is foundational to keeping different generations connected and promoting stability across time. He opens his piece with a discussion of Edmund Burke:
According to Burke, society is a partnership between the dead, the living and the unborn. Thus, a core purpose for individuals, society or a country is to continue that partnership into the future. This means passing on your inheritance, be it cultural, spiritual or property, from one generation to the next. Doing so is a good thing in and of itself, but it is also a main source of social and political stability.
He is correct to cite Burke on this topic. Burke himself had something to say on the subject of inheritance:
The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that which tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself. It makes our weakness subservient to our virtue; it grafts benevolence even upon avarice.
The words of Burke, and Pitt’s interpretation of him, ring true on this matter. The act of leaving an inheritance for future generations is both morally righteous on a personal level and invaluable to the continuation of civilization. The death tax is immoral on both these grounds, and conservatives should continue to push to repeal it wherever it is still levied.
You can read the rest of Pitt’s piece here.