Getting rid of the stepped up basis doesn’t require that we realize the gain at death. Just transfer the basis to the heirs, and if/when they sell, then realize the gain.

Yes. As a Swede, I don't even think of individual ownership of assets.

I see a line of descent as the unit which holds property, rather than individuals from that line, and from that PoV inheritance tax of course makes no sense, but similarly, disinheriting somebody, and some other notions, don't make sense either, so it's a different perspective.

I think the Swedish state actually takes my perspective on this, because in Swedish inheritance law you can't disinherit somebody, and we don't have inheritance tax.

I think you've misunderstood what they're suggesting - they're considering the transfer from parent to child to not be a realization, so there's no taxes, and no change in basis.

The child who sells the house, then has to pay gains from when the house was first purchase, rather than against the value when they inherited it

> The same law is the one that lets the surviving spouse or children to continue to live in a home rather than be forced to sell due to a sudden realized capital gain. You can argue that you don’t care about keeping multi millionaires in their childhood homes after their parents die, but it’s hardly “obvious” that it should be taxed.

Well, "homestead" exemptions are usually already a thing in most countries' inheritance laws. There is no need to draw stocks into the mix.

> Taxing transfers of assets to your children, whether it’s while you’re alive or after you die is not “obvious”.

It actually is obvious, at least if you want to prevent a return of feudalist eras.

Most parents don’t want meritocracy. They want their children to have an advantage over the children of others. They just have not squared this instinct with political ideology.

This is a kind of odd framing. I have children and I don’t see it as zero sum, as in your description. I want my children to do well. I don’t want other children to do worse, necessarily. I don’t care about other people’s children because I don’t know them and I’m not raising them. I want my kids to do well because I have put huge amounts of labor and love into them. The great beauty of most western systems is that they don’t have to be zero sum and they empower individuals and families.

You have projected your bias onto my comment. I do not advocate for an estate tax and don't necessarily support it. And claiming that opposition to an estate tax is an opposition to the success of other people's children is also definitely not anything I believe or claim. Our economy is not zero sum. Everyone can win. Also, redistributive policies almost always fail and waste vast sums while failing.

I did not argue in favor of redistributive policies. If I am arguing anything, it is against people lying to themselves about their ideology.

> Most parents don’t want meritocracy. They want their children to have an advantage over the children of others.

Thing is, "meritocracy" doesn't exist on its own either. Even if a poor person's child is among the more intellectually gifted in school, it's hard to compete against the children of those who are blessed in money. And that extends to adult life as well: those born to academic parents are much more likely to go into higher education themselves and have an easier time there (both due to connections as well as the simple opportunity of having parents to ask how to best format a paper or to proofread one), those born to rich parents can simply afford to "try themselves out" - for someone with millions to burn, they can easily afford to seed-fund whatever scheme their kid comes up while most other potential founders depend on sheer luck meeting someone in a random elevator.

And the importance of children being "advantaged" ruthlessly is a recent trend too. Up until 30, 40 years ago, most kids worked in farms or the trades and they were happy with it. But ever since employers demanded higher education and everything else became decried as "something for immigrants" aka low economic lifetime perspective, that shifted... funny, cities would drown in garbage in a matter of weeks when there would be no garbage haulers, but they would continue to be livable if Wall Street went up in flames.

> The same law is the one that lets the surviving spouse or children to continue to live in a home rather than be forced to sell due to a sudden realized capital gain. You can argue that you don’t care about keeping multi millionaires in their childhood homes after their parents die, but it’s hardly “obvious” that it should be taxed.

So make an exception for a single home the inheritor personally lives in and tax everything else.

We have this in Canada, but it also means the richer you are, the bigger the subsidy you get.

Also means people over-invest in their homes and remain in homes that are larger than necessary for themselves instead of downsizing.

And renters get squat.

Is it obvious that we should have roads, running water, someone that builds up the basics of society?