Hacker News Reader

> vast sums of wealth being dumped back into the economy through luxury purchases

Which feed people in remote countries minimum wage at best and keeps what looks like slavery at worst while it generates handsome profits for others who brought in very little value.

> create a disincentive for wealth accumulation

Which is actually a great thing: all that money will hit the economy much sooner.

> force those people into different investment vehicles

Like giving their offspring an education that'll allow them to pursue well paid positions. Gifts are also taxed and an exponential tax on their market value would be a smart thing. Also, they can be sure their children, no matter how deplorable, won't starve.

> That is really only import for those who are amassing large sums of wealth though

So these people who make insane amounts of money while pressuring down compensation for the rest of society will bear most of the burden. Seems only fair.

Also, keep in mind these people are far too powerful now to freely give up their advantages. These ideas have the potential of getting very, very ugly.

> For the regular person - or even top 10% - all the 100% estate tax would mean is that dad's classic car that you restored together gets sold at auction instead being passed down

Regular people won't be affected, only a fraction of the richest 1%:

> a maximum amount, varying year by year, can be given by an individual, before and/or upon their death, without incurring federal gift or estate taxes:[2] $5,340,000 for estates of persons dying in 2014[3] and 2015,[4] $5,450,000 (effectively $10.90 million per married couple) for estates of persons dying in 2016.[5] Because of these exemptions, only the largest 0.2% of estates in the U.S. will pay the tax.[6]

So you've just advocated literal trickle-down economics here.

You are aware of the historical/empirical problems with it, yes?

Not trickle down, just that 1) there is a difference in economic impact between those who choose not to work and live off of inheritance vs. those who choose not to work and live off of government assistance, and 2) 100% estate tax has no relation to UBI.

The stated objection was that if people don't have to work, they'll choose not to.

If that's perceived as a problem, we already have that happening right now and aren't doing anything about it -- a complete confiscatory estate tax would solve it, though!