Subject: Re: 3 generations & 70/90 rule
I understand now what you’re talking about…an estate tax on the beneficiaries of a large inheritance, not on the estate of the grantor, donor, or testator.

Yes, but in the sense that it would be a tax on the recipient of a bequest when the recipient dies (i.e., their estate), not when the original benefactor died.

To achieve its goal of somewhat damping the tendency to perpetual dynastic wealth (a nobility class without any need for nobility, if you like), then basically all bequests to individuals would be taxed other than those from parent to child beyond what the parent had inherited. Parent to grandchild would be taxed, unless perhaps the intervening children have predeceased them, because skipping generations would be an obvious way to double the lifespan of the fortune.

In the UK, a study concluded that descendants of people with Norman surnames (like Percy, Glanville, Darcy, Mandeville, Baskerville) still do far better than average in income and education, and live 3 years longer than average, almost 1000 years after the events that gave them the original boost. The only reason this isn't true in the US is presumably that there wasn't much in the way of concentrated wealth in 11th century New York. From a study by a guy in California, give him time.

Jim