SB2,
yep, it would.

I think in CA you can transfer a home from parent to child without triggering the resetting of property tax levels that usual changes of ownership cause. So there’s one example.

Your analysis is good as far as it goes, but it does have a serious weakness. It assumes assets are in the form of cash. If the estate is in the form of liquid asssets, you are right, the estate tax isn’t so painful.

But consider the case of a family farm or business where the value of the estate is tied up in real estate. Sure, the heirs have become millionaires on paper, but they sometimes have to sell large parts of the farm or business just to satisfy the one-time tax bite, and at that point, Uncle Sam has effectively put them out of business.

Also, if we recognize the family unit by abolishing estate tax, does that also mean that children should be on the hook for their parents’ debts? I bet now they would like to be autonomous individuals…

I think I would agree that the law ought to recognize obligations of adult children to their parents. I don’t necessarily think that this would require a great deal of compulsion; it could be something as simple as allowing a tax deduction for care of one’s elderly parents.

I have no opinions on the subject of Mormon theology in this domain (I’m a traditionalist Protestant), but I think that the historical norm for human civilization is that the family is defined by enduring transgenerational blood ties, not just by common residence in a household. Households arise from the family, not vice versa.

I remain my parents’ son for as long as I live, even after their death. If I wish to vacate my responsibility to them, I think I certainly ought to be made to show some compelling reason.

Young children and their parents, and spouses to each other, have obligations and entanglements that require legal action to dissolve. The fact that a husband might turn out to be a violent alcoholic does not make marriage laws “a very bad idea.”

Legally recognizing the continuity of the family beyond the household, to some degree, is probably a good idea because it fits with how we work in practice. Adult children are entangled with their parents. Its also a good idea because I’d argue that strong and enduring private institutions are necessary to a republic, and the family is the foremost. The law should not act as if those natural ties completely dissolve at the age of 18. I would further argue that, with caveats (rapists and alcoholics, as you say) children are morally bound to care for their parents in return for the raising their parents gave them, and I see no reason why the law should not recognize this obligation in some way. Legally recognizing some kind of continued tie between parents and children would also incentive child-raising to some degree, which would be good for society as a whole.

Note that under our current system, your victim daughter not only has no choice but to help pay for her dad, she also has to pay for everyone else’s dad to boot, and there’s nothing she can do about it. I also have to pay for her dad and there’s nothing I can do about it either.

Now a lot depends on the details, but I don’t think we can say, in principle, that every single variation is going to be a “very bad idea.”