Well, anything above $5.25 million. Anything below that is *tax free*. That's a pretty sweet deal, considering how much tax you'd pay if you had to actually work for that money.
Sweet deal? You do know that inheritance involves someone dying, often a close family member. Also, do you realize that the deceased person already payed tax on the sum of money, so it not exactly tax free?
As machines get more efficient, the value of human labor is diluted.
Not it doesn't, only certain types of labor become less profitable, others become more profitable. I think this would be a good place for a 'horse and buggy' analogy from an RIAA related story?
The free market value of some forms of labor has already fallen below what people need to live with dignity.
What does dignity have to do with anything? There is no economic system that protects dignity, dignity is a personal choice, and only in a economic system that protects personal choice can one choose how to live with dignity (if they even care about it).
A cap on income and wealth might be a good thing, but I think it is more important to set a floor that no one is allowed to fall beneath.
Who decides what the upper and lower limits will be? How do they ensure that beneficial activities such at spending $28 billion in charitable contribution is persevered? How do they know that once the current upper limit economic activities have been eliminated there will remain enough economic activity to support those who cannot or choose not to be productive? How do they wade there the infinite number of needs and wants with the unlimited number of outcomes to determine what economic activities people can or cannot undertake?