re: #605 lawhawk

Sorry, let me rephrase the question. My thinking was that given that you are asserting that disruptions are limited by lower estate taxes, they’d be even more limited by a non-existent tax.

So in the particular case where the assets inherited are a business or a house, rather than, say, shares of stock or other liquid assets, a low inheritance tax will prevent disruptions— though the sale of companies is not generally perceived as a ‘disruption’ in the business world, and of course the inheritors have every right to immediately sell the business, thus causing that ‘disruption’.

Now, do you feel that rationale holds when the assets are in liquid form as well, and if so, why? Or is there a different rationale for limited the estate tax on liquid assets?