How Universal Inheritance Could Level the Economic Playing Field

The United States currently boasts around 900 billionaires and 24 million millionaires. None of these individuals will live forever, resulting in approximately $4 trillion (with a T) being inherited annually over the next three decades from all estates. Most Americans will inherit little or nothing, while wealth remains concentrated among a small number of families. This trend has fueled growing economic inequality, which diminishes government accountability for public welfare.

A shift in inheritance practices could significantly benefit most Americans. To achieve this, several foundational principles must be established:

First, individuals must own resources before they can pass them on. But how are property rights rightfully obtained? John Locke (1632-1704) provided a relevant but incomplete answer: applying labor to natural resources should grant workers ownership of the results, assuming sufficient resources remain for others.

Today, with Earth’s finite population and limited resources, someone must determine who can use particular natural resources. Governments typically manage this process, but it should not be arbitrary. Instead, acting as a trustee for the public, governments could auction temporary rights to use specific resources. The revenue would flow into a trust fund—distinct from government treasuries.

This fund must be distributed equally among all U.S. residents. As Locke understood, natural resources are collectively owned, and no individual deserves more than an equal share of their benefits. The Alaskan oil dividend could serve as a model for such a system.

We can refine Locke’s principles into two key tenets:
1) People have unequal rights only to the value they add through labor.
2) Dead individuals cannot own property—consistent with Jesus’ words in Luke 18:25: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

If people inherit property at death, who receives it? The first principle applies: deceased persons’ property was not created by those remaining. Therefore, estates should be treated like natural resource rents and distributed equally among all U.S. residents—men, women, and children.

A departed person’s estate could be temporarily held for a surviving spouse or reserved for an incapacitated child. For instance, annual inheritance of $4 trillion divided equally would provide $11,760 per person—or $47,000 annually for a family of four. Those receiving this amount have not earned it, but neither have those inheriting vast fortunes today.

While such reforms could create new challenges—such as increased immigration incentives—the system could be phased in gradually with safeguards. For example, immigrants might require residency periods before inheritance rights are granted, and laws would prevent billionaires from taking their wealth abroad without restrictions.

Ideally, universal inheritance would operate at a global scale to eliminate immigration and emigration concerns. However, until world economies are more balanced, national reforms remain the most practical approach.

This reform does not constitute an estate tax but rather redefines how inherited assets are distributed. Government revenue could potentially increase if gifts and inheritances were classified as taxable income, following tax expert Ray Madoff’s advice.

Critically, inheritance reform would not eliminate billionaires—many become wealthy through innovations that benefit society. Instead, it would specifically target hereditary wealth, ensuring all Americans share in the collective benefits of resource distribution.

Paul F. deLespinasse is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science at Adrian College.