By definition and in practice, inheritance is not the product of one’s own labor but is rather the relocation of wealth from one source to another in a closed monopoly. A deeper historical look at inheritance shows that its practice has resulted in locking in the circulation of wealth within the members of the same tribe, a kind of impenetrable feudalism. Since ancient times, communities were stratified as land-owners and peasants, priests and chiefs, slaves, rich and poor, and the practice of passing on assets and titles to one’s family members pushed a large segment of society into the margin and into poverty, and inequality. This extremely entrenched practice feels outdated in today’s world and yet it continues. As it continues to keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy – this is the basis of the growing inequality that we see everywhere.

It is worth asking: Why in death should we leave our wealth and property behind for our children or the nearest kin? Or: How long will the families of the rich continue to get richer, bestowing their offspring with unearned fortunes? Some children are randomly born to multimillionaire families, while other children live in substandard conditions in the deprived parts of the world. It is a human rights question to ask why some can own multimillions, and then that automatically means the children have the rights to that money? Could greater taxation on wealth and deeper taxation of the inheritance, as well as setup of foundations after death solve the issue of fair ownership of the funds?

The answer to why do we do this? can be found in the psychology and history of bloodlines and tribalism. As social primates, family bonds fortified our evolution and survival. And the tribal practice of inheritance was previously a means of protecting and strengthening one’s family lineage. But in today’s collective, interdependent world, such a practice can no longer be seen as a necessary biological instinct, but rather as an instinctive and long-established practice of gluttony and greed.

To limit or abolish personal inheritance certainly requires creating another level of awareness, and points to a rethinking of our relationship with others. To do away with this unjust practice may come as a big shock to consider, but we do emphasize the change in mindset about humanity; it’s a different kind of human ecology. It requires a collective sense, which is a substantial psychological shift for the world.

The parents who leave their assets for their children often do not psychologically or ethically feel responsible for the poverty of other people. This, in theory sounds logical: the wealthy ones did not directly make poor families poor. But in reality, accumulating wealth by its very nature creates inequality, even more so when it is passed down as inheritance to family members who did not earn it. This isolates those born into poor families from accessing resources that are tied up within one family. And the habitual practice of family inheritance seems so automatic and unquestioned that parents can hardly imagine their wealth being shared with unknown people or families they having no emotional affiliation with.

Ways to Reduce Inequality

So what can be done? There are of course exceptional examples of wealthy people who also leave their assets to foundations or charity organizations. But other than that, there has been no systematic solution to inequality perpetuated by inheritance practices, except the application of varying levels of taxation by some governments. Such moves to tax those whose wealth exceeds a certain amount, or tax the inheritance itself, are bold but not complete remedies to fill the wide gaps between the super-wealthy and the enormously-poor.

Freeing the capital locked up in the families who are legally entitled but perhaps not morally entitled to it would be a revolutionary effort. This effort can take shape in two levels: 1. limiting by putting a cap on it, or abolishing inheritance legally altogether; 2. leaving it to the individual’s altruistic decision. The former seems to be a more radical and faster solution to global poverty.

Some wealthy social activists have taken admirable steps to modify the reflexive routine of inheritance that they themselves have been the beneficiaries of. Members of the foundation called “Millionaires for Humanity” are calling for the wealth of millionaires, including themselves, to be taxed for the equitable redistribution of wealth in the society. Philanthropists have different personal interests and are inclined to give their millions to the promotion of music, art, sciences, news outlets, etc., which is an honorable thing to do. However, a greater structural change could prevent the compilation of millions by taxing the wealthy and passing on the left-over capital to humanity. (see “She’s Inheriting Millions. She Wants Her Wealth Taxed Away,” NYT (Oct. 21, 2022) (https://millionairesforhumanity.org/).

This idea requires an enormous psychological shift for the whole world. The questions are many, and it is impossible in this short piece to figure out the logistics of how it would or could work. But it’s a bold idea worth thinking about, worth reflecting on how inheritance money is tied up within families unfairly. What about orphans who have no family, and thus no opportunity to receive the free money of inheritance? Imagine instead if funds were available for someone like Zaki, a 23-year-old Afghan man who works for $75 a month struggling to support himself and his wife. Zaki grew up an orphan, and so has no chance to inherit anything.

Since there is almost no precedent for this shift, coming up with a new model for passing on inheritances to non-family members will be a substantial challenge. Perhaps creating a simple family foundation before death is a way to pledge one’s assets to be shared with those who need it the most, regardless who and where. Another alternative is to write a will in order to dedicate one’s wealth to specific disadvantaged families, if the person knows some. As the number of altruists and the number of family foundations increase, the hope for reducing poverty increases. But structural change and the creation of a global trust fund rest in the hope of making laws tougher that would limit or even abolish inheritance.

To consider such a change requires creativity, imagination, and bravery, stepping outside of ‘tradition’ and expectations and habit for the sake of a greater good to benefit all.