In his classic Democracy in America, written in the mid-1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville perceptively observed that, “Once the legislator has regulated the law of inheritance among citizens, he may rest from his labors for centuries.” By this he meant that the forces set in motion by such regulation worked inexorably toward a given end. If fortunes were passed on intact from generation to generation, from oldest son to oldest son, the concentration of property and power created an aristocracy. But if, as in America, estates were divided up and distributed among a number of heirs, “the death of every owner of property entails a revolution in ownership” — a revolution that is the basis of democracy. When each generation must strive to succeed anew, the playing field is leveled and merit has an equal chance to compete.

Surprisingly, perhaps, present-day Americans are not as fond of this model as one might suppose for a country that prides itself on being a meritocracy. Public opinion polls consistently report that a majority would like to reduce or eliminate the federal estate tax — which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, justly describes as “the most progressive component” of the tax code, affecting only the estates of the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans. That’s right: The tax is imposed only on the value of estates that exceed exemptions of $5.43 million per person, or $10.86 million per couple. Even among the few estates that were subject to the tax in 2013, the effective tax rate averaged 16.6 percent, far below the top statutory rate of 40 percent. 

The public distaste for the estate tax probably reflects the success of Republicans in rebranding it as “the death tax,” although of course it is not levied on the dead, but on the living. This is accompanied by the notion that the tax frequently forces heirs to sell small businesses and farms. In fact, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center reports that in 2013, only about 20 such enterprises nationwide were subject to the tax; a 2005 Congressional Budget Office study found that even of the small number subject to it, the overwhelming majority would have sufficient liquid assets to pay what they owed without touching the business. And then there’s the idea that the estate tax somehow results in double taxation on wealth accumulated over a lifetime, when the fact is that much of the money in large estates consists of unrealized capital gains that have never been taxed.

So despite the fact that the estate tax is a significant revenue source  — the CBO estimates it will generate about $246 billion between now and 2025 under current law — there appears to be little appetite to discuss it on the presidential campaign trail. All three Republican candidates still in the race favor repealing it, and the two Democratic candidates haven’t made enhancing it a centerpiece of their efforts, either, despite the fact that the estate tax is one of the most effective ways in which to address the pressing issue of inequality of wealth. It does so not only by redistributing wealth to promote the general welfare but also by preventing rich families from constituting a plutocracy based on inheritance, with all the anti-democratic baggage that carries. 

Inherited wealth on a large scale not only undermines the premise of a society that professes to be one where everyone has an equal chance to rise; it also often robs those who inherit it of motivation and initiative to use their talents. Andrew Carnegie, who was one of the richest people in the world in his lifetime, observed that, “Great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than the good of the recipients.” He gave away most of his fortune while alive and urged his wealthy colleagues to also devote their resources to philanthropy. Now’s the time to renew the discussion about how the great fortunes being accumulated today can be better put to use for society’s benefit.