Abstract
Solidarity, Dominance, and the Taxation of Bequests
Highlights
Concerns regarding the impact of bequests and inheritance upon society are not new
That alternative approach is what I call the ‘solidarity approach’ because it grounds the regulation of bequest on the moral concern that large bequests undermine a society’s sense of community and, its ability to mutually support its members
This approach accepts Halliday’s empirical claim that bequest creates economic segregation, but it differs insofar as it locates what is wrong with bequest in terms of bequest’s negative impact on communal solidarity—not just its harm to equality of opportunity and democratic equality
Summary
Concerns regarding the impact of bequests and inheritance upon society are not new. For instance, philosophers as distinct as Mill (2004), Marx (1869 & [1867] 2000), and Rawls (1999) have all opposed unregulated forms of inheritance and bequest. That alternative approach is what I call the ‘solidarity approach’ because it grounds the regulation of bequest on the moral concern that large bequests undermine a society’s sense of community and, its ability to mutually support its members. This approach accepts Halliday’s empirical claim that bequest creates economic segregation, but it differs insofar as it locates what is wrong with bequest in terms of bequest’s negative impact on communal solidarity—not just its harm to equality of opportunity and democratic equality. I further develop the solidarity approach, demonstrating how it can be used to further the moral critique of unregulated bequest
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
