Ron Paul should talk about death tax!!!!!!!!

[nyrgoal99]

Everyone hates the death tax. He should mention this in debates.

Thoughts?

[margomaps]

Everyone hates the death tax. He should mention this in debates.

Thoughts?

Ron was, IIRC, the first to sign the "No Death Tax" pledge at the UNH debate in Sept. So it would appear that's an issue he definitely agrees with.

[Churchill2004]

Everyone hates it, but it's also not a unique issue for Dr. Paul. I don't know the run-down and which of the other candidates want to repeal it, but I know it's a "mainstream" enough opinion that it's been seriously debated in Congress several times. Heck, even Bush got behind repealing the estate tax. Debates should be for stressing how Paul is unique- obviously on foreign policy and also by showing that he wants to go a lot further than anyone else in slicing the size of the Federal government.

[Chester Copperpot]

The death tax as well as the AMT are simply *creative* ways for the govt to squeeze more money out of us because of the federal reserve... The Fairtax is the same thing... The govt's growth now has finally caught up to all the inflation theyve caused but theyre like a junkie that wants to keep getting high..... the only cure is getting more money from the people.

We need to rehab the country.. not only STOP these taxes.. but get rid of the income tax ENTIRELY!

[mavtek]

People are so stupid, the Death tax means nothing to average people. You are only accrued a death tax if you have a estate close to $1 million. It's not a tax on poor people. It was designed to limit dynasties to an extent.

[bdmarti]

I think Ron in wrong about the death tax.

IMO the death tax is useful in preventing aristocracy and/or plutocracy.

I have no problem with you having as much wealth as you can earn.

Income tax on wages = bad.
Progressive estate tax to prevent aristocracy = good.

Warren Buffett thinks the same...for whatever that's worth.

[specsaregood]

Progressive estate tax to prevent aristocracy = good.


I came in here to point out that I have met quite a few Republicans that support the estate tax, aka "death tax". For the reasons that it serves to limit aristocracies and serves to keep later generations from being completely lazy.

Many of these Republicans have pointed to european wealthy families as an example of why the estate tax can be a good thing.

[margomaps]

Nothing good can come from this discussion. If you think it is the proper role of the federal government to is "limit dynasties" and redistribute wealth, then you probably need to take another look at the constitution. You are walking near a very slippery slope that leads to the Valley of Ends Justify the Means.

[angrydragon]

If you believe in the redistribution of wealth, then it's the opposite of what Ron Paul has been preaching. The estate tax is exactly that, like the income tax, but at death.

[specsaregood]

If you believe in the redistribution of wealth, then it's the opposite of what Ron Paul has been preaching. The estate tax is exactly that, like the income tax, but at death.

Personally, I'm not arguing pro or con. Just pointing out that I have met a fair number of republicans that argue pro-estate tax.

[jamesmadison]

If you believe in the redistribution of wealth, then it's the opposite of what Ron Paul has been preaching. The estate tax is exactly that, like the income tax, but at death.

And what rights do you have after you die?

The death tax is a necessity to prevent an aristocracy.

[noxagol]

Don't forget that the end of inheritance rights it a plank of the Communist Manifesto.

If rich people become lazy and wasteful, then eventually they will not be rich anymore.

[jamesmadison]

Don't forget that the end of inheritance rights it a plank of the Communist Manifesto.

If rich people become lazy and wasteful, then eventually they will not be rich anymore.

Does everyone here justify positions using logical fallacies?

[noxagol]

And what rights do you have after you die?

The death tax is a necessity to prevent an aristocracy.

It is still your stuff, and most people have delegated what will happen to their stuff once they die. Who is the government to say that they can take part of it against the wishes of the owner. It is a gross violation of property rights.

[jamesmadison]

It is still your stuff, and most people have delegated what will happen to their stuff once they die. Who is the government to say that they can take part of it against the wishes of the owner. It is a gross violation of property rights.

You're dead. What do you mean it's your stuff?

[jamesmadison]

Government should be an entity that exists to promote liberty. IF YOU ARE AGAINST TAX, BY ALL MEANS, BECOME AN ANARCHIST.

[bdmarti]

If you believe in the redistribution of wealth, then it's the opposite of what Ron Paul has been preaching. The estate tax is exactly that, like the income tax, but at death.


The government needs some funds to operate.
Those funds are collected via taxes.
It seems to me that to equate all taxes as an unconstitutional redistrobution of wealth means one wishes to live in an anarchy.

Some taxes must be assesed in order for us to have courts and an army.

In addition: If you don't have rights when you are dead, and I would say you don't, then how can you possibly have property rights when you are dead?

[bdmarti]

wow...and here I am agreeing with jamesmadison after being very much against him in the kucinich thread earlier.

It takes all kinds to make Ron's campaign go.

Hi james.

[bdmarti]

Don't forget that the end of inheritance rights it a plank of the Communist Manifesto.

If rich people become lazy and wasteful, then eventually they will not be rich anymore.

I agree in theory that dumb or lazy rich people will lose their wealth and standing.

However, in practice, it requires a true moron to lose their wealth once at a certain level.

If you start off with billions of dollars you can make millions of dollars even by making conservative, practically brainless, investments.

The typical worker can't hope to compete with anyone who starts with such a head start in capital.

[Churchill2004]

You're dead. What do you mean it's your stuff?

You get to decide who it goes to before you die.

Abolition of inheritance rights is an idea straight from the Communist Manifesto.

Besides, all this crap about "aristocracy" is completely unfounded. All the estate tax does is funnel more money into the Federal government- it does nothing to prevent an aristocracy. Any one rich enough to be considered an "aristocrat" is going to be rich enough that half of their estate is still more than enough for their heirs to be "aristocrats".

[noxagol]

The government needs some funds to operate.
Those funds are collected via taxes.
It seems to me that to equate all taxes as an unconstitutional redistrobution of wealth means one wishes to live in an anarchy.

Some taxes must be assesed in order for us to have courts and an army.

In addition: If you don't have rights when you are dead, and I would say you don't, then how can you possibly have property rights when you are dead?

Because you delegated what is to happen to your property when you die before you die. Even then, what right does the government have to seize your property just because you die? If I have no say over what happens to my property once I die, why even bother with a will?

Through my will, I have ordered what is to happen to my property and to who ownership of my property is going to transfer to. Who is the government to step in and claim that they can violate my wishes for my property.

And I do believe you have rights when you are dead, and those rights are to be treated as you have outlined in your will. Your will is the dictation of how you want your property handled once you die. If you had no rights when you die, then people could do whatever they wanted with your property and no one could really do anything about it once it gets claimed by the first comer who becomes the new owner.

[noxagol]

I agree in theory that dumb or lazy rich people will lose their wealth and standing.

However, in practice, it requires a true moron to lose their wealth once at a certain level.

If you start off with billions of dollars you can make millions of dollars even by making conservative, practically brainless, investments.

The typical worker can't hope to compete with anyone who starts with such a head start in capital.

But that money is still being put to better use than the government would ever put it to. Because essentially, the government would just redistribute the tax to other rich people.

[margomaps]

Should the federal government be allowed to tax gifts as well?

[Churchill2004]

The government needs some funds to operate.
Those funds are collected via taxes.
It seems to me that to equate all taxes as an unconstitutional redistrobution of wealth means one wishes to live in an anarchy.

Some taxes must be assesed in order for us to have courts and an army.

In addition: If you don't have rights when you are dead, and I would say you don't, then how can you possibly have property rights when you are dead?

The estate tax (according to those who buy into the "aristocracy" argument) is about social engineering, not just raising the necessary funds for the government to operate. In reality, all it is a cash cow for the Federal government, giving them a not insignificant chunk of money to do the things we all hate them doing.

[jamesmadison]

You get to decide who it goes to before you die.

Abolition of inheritance rights is an idea straight from the Communist Manifesto.

Besides, all this crap about "aristocracy" is completely unfounded. All the estate tax does is funnel more money into the Federal government- it does nothing to prevent an aristocracy. Any one rich enough to be considered an "aristocrat" is going to be rich enough that half of their estate is still more than enough for their heirs to be "aristocrats".

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-071114buffet-tax,1,1167236.story


"The resources of society I don't think should pass along in terms of an aristocratic dynasty of wealth," Buffett told the panel. "I believe in keeping equality of opportunity as much as you can in this country."

Learn a thing or two from the second richest man in the world.

[Churchill2004]

Should the federal government be allowed to tax gifts as well?

They do. Pretty much any gift that they decide (without any court procedure) is designed to "evade" the estate tax, gets taxed.

[jamesmadison]

They do. Pretty much any gift that they decide (without any court procedure) is designed to "evade" the estate tax, gets taxed.

How can you confirm someones intentions after they are dead?

[bdmarti]

It is still your stuff, and most people have delegated what will happen to their stuff once they die. Who is the government to say that they can take part of it against the wishes of the owner. It is a gross violation of property rights.


Who is the government to say? Well...they are the entity that facilitated your collecting such wealth in the first place. The government protected your property.
Absent the government, property equates to nothing more than what you, yourself, can protect.


As a thinking exercise: Let's pretend for a moment that someone became wealthy enough to buy everything. (this is absurd of course...but it's an exercise). Now that they own everything, every other person on earth depends upon that individual's charity to exist at all. There is exactly zero incentive for such a wealthy person to ever sell any property back to the rest of the world. They can simply sell food and shelter in exchange for labor. The rest of the world is effectivly slaves.

What if instead 1% of the worlds population controlled 90% of the worlds wealth?

How functional is the market when 99% of the market is trying to buy the 10% of the wealth that they share and they have to compete with the buying power of the 1% that controls the other 90% of wealth?

I would contend that the markets are not going to function well under these circumstances.

I abhor the idea of an income tax...but the idea of a death tax seems like a fairly benign way to deal with the situation.

[MS0453]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-071114buffet-tax,1,1167236.story



Learn a thing or two from the second richest man in the world.



Excellent point. Sometimes it's easy to forget that there is a correlation between wealth and intelligence.

[Churchill2004]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-071114buffet-tax,1,1167236.story



Learn a thing or two from the second richest man in the world.

Why should I care what Warren Buffet thinks? Even more importantly, by what claim does he presume to speak for everyone who has to pay that tax, which seems to be what you're implying?


You also seem to be forgetting that this money is spent by the Federal government to do all the unconstitutional things they do. Part of the solution to big government is to cut off the source of funds. That's part of Paul's argument concerning fiat currency and the IRS.

[margomaps]

They do. Pretty much any gift that they decide (without any court procedure) is designed to "evade" the estate tax, gets taxed.

I know the fedgov does...I was asking if it should. :)

[MS0453]

How can you confirm someones intentions after they are dead?

Perhaps some sort of written will?

[jamesmadison]

Why should I care what Warren Buffet thinks? Even more importantly, by what claim does he presume to speak for everyone who has to pay that tax, which seems to be what you're implying?


You also seem to be forgetting that this money is spent by the Federal government to do all the unconstitutional things they do. Part of the solution to big government is to cut off the source of funds. That's part of Paul's argument concerning fiat currency and the IRS.

That's not an argument against an estate tax.

[jamesmadison]

Perhaps some sort of written will?

Hand writing analysis?

[Churchill2004]

Who is the government to say? Well...they are the entity that facilitated your collecting such wealth in the first place. The government protected your property.
Absent the government, property equates to nothing more than what you, yourself, can protect.


As a thinking exercise: Let's pretend for a moment that someone became wealthy enough to buy everything. (this is absurd of course...but it's an exercise). Now that they own everything, every other person on earth depends upon that individual's charity to exist at all. There is exactly zero incentive for such a wealthy person to ever sell any property back to the rest of the world. They can simply sell food and shelter in exchange for labor. The rest of the world is effectivly slaves.

What if instead 1% of the worlds population controlled 90% of the worlds wealth?

How functional is the market when 99% of the market is trying to buy the 10% of the wealth that they share and they have to compete with the buying power of the 1% that controls the other 90% of wealth?

I would contend that the markets are not going to function well under these circumstances.

I abhor the idea of an income tax...but the idea of a death tax seems like a fairly benign way to deal with the situation.

You abhor the idea of an income tax, yet you make the exact same arguments for an estate tax that are used to justify the income tax. What's even more ironic is that you paint a hypothetical scenario about rich people enslaving everyone, yet you start your post by claiming, in effect, that we're all slaves to the government. (the government can take whatever it wants, because (somehow) it couldn't have been earned without the government)

[noxagol]

I would also like to call into contention the Constitutionality of such a tax, sans 16th amendment. Is the death tax even constitutional? I would say it is not, sans 16th amendment, because it is a direct tax that is unaportioned.

[bdmarti]

The estate tax (according to those who buy into the "aristocracy" argument) is about social engineering, not just raising the necessary funds for the government to operate. In reality, all it is a cash cow for the Federal government, giving them a not insignificant chunk of money to do the things we all hate them doing.

No. I buy into the aristocracy argument and I find that the social engineering aspect of the tax is just a nice benefit to a tax that can, and should, be used to generate limited revenues to fund the government.

Any tax can be abused. It's not something unique to the estate tax.

The problem of bloated government can't be solved by stopping the estate tax. That's a certainty.

A good first step would be for us to get Ron Paul elected!

[MS0453]

Hand writing analysis?


Sure, they can do video recordings as well. It'll be great.

[jamesmadison]

You abhor the idea of an income tax, yet you make the exact same arguments for an estate tax that are used to justify the income tax. What's even more ironic is that you paint a hypothetical scenario about rich people enslaving everyone, yet you start your post by claiming, in effect, that we're all slaves to the government. (the government can take whatever it wants, because (somehow) it couldn't have been earned without the government)

Do you have rights before you are born?

[Churchill2004]

That's not an argument against an estate tax.

Yes, it is. The Federal government shouldn't have so much money at its disposal. Part of the solution to that problem is giving them less money.

Taxes, if you accept that they're a necessary evil, are supposed to be limited to the bare minimum needed to operate a government (a government which in turn does the bare minimum). This "anti-aristocracy tax" is taxation for taxation's sake- taxes not to raise funds for the government, but to take away money from people who you don't think should have it. That's exactly the sort of thing Ron Paul is fighting against.

[jamesmadison]

Yes, it is. The Federal government shouldn't have so much money at its disposal. Part of the solution to that problem is giving them less money.

Taxes, if you accept that they're a necessary evil, are supposed to be limited to the bare minimum needed to operate a government (a government which in turn does the bare minimum). This "anti-aristocracy tax" is taxation for taxation's sake- taxes not to raise funds for the government, but to take away money from people who you don't think should have it. That's exactly the sort of thing Ron Paul is fighting against.

The federal government should have enough money to facilitate the liberty of all citizens, not more, not less.

[Van Damme]

The estate tax is nonsense. It is similar to the income tax in that it punishes people that are successful. If I am rich one day I want to ensure that my children can share in my success. Its my money, I earned, and I should be able to give it to whomever I please, especially my posterity, free of taxation. Furthermore, the estate tax does not prevent dynasties. If a family has enough money to be considered a "dynasty" then the family likely has a family owned business, which will continue to provide endless sums of money. The Hiltons come to mind. I don't think the estate tax will be striking that dynasty down.

More importantly, the estate tax has not so much prevented elite dynasties as it has crippled the ability for the first generations of African American millionaires to retain their wealth. That is the most prominent effect of the estate tax.

[noxagol]

Do you have rights before you are born?

Yes. You are a living person at conception, just a very basic and fundamental stage of human life. You don't have rights before you are conceived however, because you do not yet exist as a person.

[jamesmadison]

//

[ACJohn]

http://www.policyandtaxationgroup.com/html/stories.html#stories

[Churchill2004]

Do you have rights before you are born?

You don't exist before you're born (or conceived, or whatever. I don't want to get into abortion). You do exist, in a way, after you're dead. Your wishes still exist, and your property still exists. Why should a person lose all control over their property after they're dead, if when living they specifically took measures to see to it that certain things were done with that property?

[jamesmadison]

You don't exist before you're born (or conceived, or whatever. I don't want to get into abortion). You do exist, in a way, after you're dead. Your wishes still exist, and your property still exists. Why should a person lose all control over their property after they're dead, if when living they specifically took measures to see to it that certain things were done with that property?

No, you exist as much before the sperm meets the egg as you do when you die.

So, do you have rights before the egg or sperm that created you even come into existence?

[Churchill2004]

The federal government should have enough money to facilitate the liberty of all citizens, not more, not less.

You're conflating material equality with liberty- an idea that is central to socialism and antithetical to liberty.

[hawkeyenick]

I think Ron in wrong about the death tax.

IMO the death tax is useful in preventing aristocracy and/or plutocracy.

I have no problem with you having as much wealth as you can earn.

Income tax on wages = bad.
Progressive estate tax to prevent aristocracy = good.

Warren Buffett thinks the same...for whatever that's worth.

80% of wealth is first generation. Almost 100% of wealth is squandered within 3 generations (source: the millionaire mind/the millionaire next door). You fail at this argument, not much wealth is actually even handed down.

If I work my whole life to have something to give to my kids so that they can have a better life, no one should be allowed to take that from me, especially the government.

[Churchill2004]

No, you exist as much before the sperm meets the egg as you do when you die.

So, do you have rights before the egg or sperm that created you even come into existence?

I'm not aware of any pre-people who have made their wishes known to their world, nor any that acquired property.

[jamesmadison]

You're conflating material equality with liberty- an idea that is central to socialism and antithetical to liberty.

What is liberty?

[hawkeyenick]

I'm not aware of any pre-people who have made their wishes known to their world, nor any that acquired property.

Neither the sperm, nor the egg creates you. You ARE the sperm and the egg.

[jamesmadison]

I'm not aware of any pre-people who have made their wishes known to their world, nor any that acquired property.

So when you wish something on the world, because a thought exists, that's a right?

You believe in anarchy?

[noxagol]

This is what our man has to say on the issue.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=152

[MS0453]

No, you exist as much before the sperm meets the egg as you do when you die.

So, do you have rights before the egg or sperm that created you even come into existence?


I take it you're in favor of forced cremation?

[bdmarti]

I would also like to call into contention the Constitutionality of such a tax, sans 16th amendment. Is the death tax even constitutional? I would say it is not, sans 16th amendment, because it is a direct tax that is unaportioned.

I can see why you would question it like that. I feel that the income tax we have is unconstitutional even with the 16th amendment.

However...

I don't think the same problems apply in this case.

Here is why I would say so:

Un-earned income, such as inheritence, is pure profit.

As with corporation taxes, profit is taxable as an INDIRECT tax because it does not diminish the source of profit itself.

This differs from a tax on wages, which does diminish the very value of the individual's labor by taxing the income earned from it.

Indirect taxes have more to do with diminishing the value of the thing taxed than with who is collecting the tax.

A key concept of an indirect tax is that one can avoid the tax with reasonable actions. One can't reasonably avoid a tax on labor without starving. One can reasonably avoid having to pay an inheritance tax.

[jamesmadison]

I take it you're in favor of forced cremation?

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

[Churchill2004]

So when you wish something on the world, because a thought exists, that's a right?

You believe in anarchy?

First, you clearly don't have the slightest clue what anarchism is about. No, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but that has nothing to do with this issue.

Second, when it concerns your property, yes, your wishes are supposed to be inviolate. That's the basis of liberty- that your life, labor, and property are yours to do with as you see fit.

[jamesmadison]

First, you clearly don't have the slightest clue what anarchism is about. No, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but that has nothing to do with this issue.

Second, when it concerns your property, yes, your wishes are supposed to be inviolate. That's the basis of liberty- that your life, labor, and property are yours to do with as you see fit.

What entitles a portion of the universe ownership of another portion of the universe when the conscious decision of ownership no longer exists?

[Churchill2004]

Neither the sperm, nor the egg creates you. You ARE the sperm and the egg.

Uh... ok. What does that have to do with anything?

[MS0453]

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.


Thank you for your non-answer. I repeat:

I take it you're in favor of forced cremation?

[jamesmadison]

Thank you for your non-answer. I repeat:

I take it you're in favor of forced cremation?

No, i don't care.

[Menthol Patch]

James Madison is a socialist troll and is trying to disrupt the forum.

Please ignore him.

[Churchill2004]

What entitles a portion of the universe ownership of another portion of the universe when the conscious decision of ownership no longer exists?

A person is not just "a part of the universe". When you're living, your property is yours to do with as you please (in a free society, anyway). That means that your property is subject to your wishes. After death, the person may no longer exist, but both the property and the wishes still do.

Tell me this- what claim does anyone else have to that property?

As has been pointed out, the estate tax is also unconstitutional.

[noxagol]

I can see why you would question it like that. I feel that the income tax we have is unconstitutional even with the 16th amendment.

However...

I don't think the same problems apply in this case.

Here is why I would say so:

Un-earned income, such as inheritence, is pure profit.

As with corporation taxes, profit is taxable as an INDIRECT tax because it does not diminish the source of profit itself.

This differs from a tax on wages, which does diminish the very value of the individual's labor by taxing the income earned from it.

Indirect taxes have more to do with diminishing the value of the thing taxed than with who is collecting the tax.

A key concept of an indirect tax is that one can avoid the tax with reasonable actions. One can't reasonably avoid a tax on labor without starving. One can reasonably avoid having to pay an inheritance tax.

You cannot avoid the death tax unless you either A) have no property or B) are immortal (I'm going to be immortal or I will die trying!). You could give it away before you die, but it is sort of the same thing as Ron Paul's argument against abortion. If you give it away one second before death, it is ok, but if you give it away one second after death, then it is too late and the government is free to take as much as they please. It is inconsistent in that respect. If it is my property and my rights are to be respected, then my wishes for what happens to my property when I die must also be respected.

[Seanmc30]

People are so stupid, the Death tax means nothing to average people. You are only accrued a death tax if you have a estate close to $1 million. It's not a tax on poor people. It was designed to limit dynasties to an extent.


This is the reason the "Death Tax" should not be a major priority to the campaign... the issue was touted as helping normal people to keep family money in the family after they pass, but all it really benefited was rich people...are you surprised?

[bdmarti]

80% of wealth is first generation. Almost 100% of wealth is squandered within 3 generations (source: the millionaire mind/the millionaire next door). You fail at this argument, not much wealth is actually even handed down.

If I work my whole life to have something to give to my kids so that they can have a better life, no one should be allowed to take that from me, especially the government.

No. I don't fail at this argument.

Plenty of wealth is handed down. The Kenedys, Rockefellers, Rothschilds and many more families are plenty rich and have been so for generations not because of their competence, but because of their daddies.

I agree you should be able to give to your kids. Give as much as you want while you are alive and there is no problem. In addition, I'm not suggesting that the government tax you on daddy's watch or even a "reasonable" amount of wealth in addition.

No, I don't like the idea of congress setting a number on "reasonable" but I'd be comfortable with something above what a typical person earns in a lifetime. Wealth beyond that level is pretty darn absurd.

[user]

Excellent point. Sometimes it's easy to forget that there is a correlation between wealth and intelligence.

I'm shocked that someone who quotes The Law in their signature is in favor of the death tax. Or did I misinterpret your post?

As for the "dead people have no rights issue," what if a rich person is very sick and makes a huge gift to someone? Would you want to tax that too?

[Hurricane Bruiser]

People are so stupid, the Death tax means nothing to average people. You are only accrued a death tax if you have a estate close to $1 million. It's not a tax on poor people. It was designed to limit dynasties to an extent.

The death tax can and does severely impact farmers, small business owners, and any land owner even if they don't have much money. Why should people be taxed on what they earn, their savings are also taxed, and then whatever they are able to accumulate is taxed at VERY high tax rates. It is true that the minimum is pretty high but I find the entire tax morally corrupt as if can force people to sell their land just to pay taxes.

[MS0453]

No, i don't care.


We'll if the rights of an individual are defined his or her existence, and a dead person not exist (being that they're dead and all), and the corpse is incapable of deciding what it wants to happen to itself, how is the choice of burial or cremation not an injustice?

[noxagol]

No. I don't fail at this argument.

Plenty of wealth is handed down. The Kenedys, Rockefellers, Rothschilds and many more families are plenty rich and have been so for generations not because of their competence, but because of their daddies.

I agree you should be able to give to your kids. Give as much as you want while you are alive and there is no problem. In addition, I'm not suggesting that the government tax you on daddy's watch or even a "reasonable" amount of wealth in addition.

No, I don't like the idea of congress setting a number on "reasonable" but I'd be comfortable with something above what a typical person earns in a lifetime. Wealth beyond that level is pretty darn absurd.

It may be absurd, but as long as it is earned in legal ways it is OK. Just because you think it is absurd does not mean everyone does.

[Churchill2004]

No. I don't fail at this argument.

Plenty of wealth is handed down. The Kenedys, Rockefellers, Rothschilds and many more families are plenty rich and have been so for generations not because of their competence, but because of their daddies.

I agree you should be able to give to your kids. Give as much as you want while you are alive and there is no problem. In addition, I'm not suggesting that the government tax you on daddy's watch or even a "reasonable" amount of wealth in addition.

No, I don't like the idea of congress setting a number on "reasonable" but I'd be comfortable with something above what a typical person earns in a lifetime. Wealth beyond that level is pretty darn absurd.

So you want taxation for taxation's sake- someone else has money that you don't think they should have, so you want the government to take it from them.

[ACJohn]

sniff sniff I smell fish or is that troll?

[Cap'n Crunk]

the Estate tax puts a strangle hold on family businesses. It needs to go. I can't believe how many Ron Paul supporters are in favor of it.

http://www.policyandtaxationgroup.com/html/stories.html

[bdmarti]

You cannot avoid the death tax unless you either A) have no property or B) are immortal (I'm going to be immortal or I will die trying!). You could give it away before you die, but it is sort of the same thing as Ron Paul's argument against abortion. If you give it away one second before death, it is ok, but if you give it away one second after death, then it is too late and the government is free to take as much as they please. It is inconsistent in that respect. If it is my property and my rights are to be respected, then my wishes for what happens to my property when I die must also be respected.


Yes. If you give it away one second before death, that's great.
It is perfectly reasonable to give away the bulk of one's wealth before one dies.

But what I was saying is that one can avoid PAYING the estate tax. The dead person isn't paying any tax. In addition to aquiring your parent's wealth before they die, it would also be reasonable to not accept inheritance.

It seems more than just reasonable to give your kids wealth while you are alive, if there were a death tax it would be prudent.

[schmeisser]

What entitles a portion of the universe ownership of another portion of the universe when the conscious decision of ownership no longer exists?

JamesMadison - If you are going to be a troll and infect yet another thread, the least you could do is put up a decent front of libertarian thoughtfulness. Robert Nozick (Google him - I know your reading stopped with Marx) made some very interesting points about dynastic inheritance that actually resonate with some libertarians.

Something well thought out and not snarky little "define this" and mystical nonsense responses might help you to last a little longer around here. At a minimum it would keep you from looking like a complete fool.

Good luck with your Nader/Kucinich ticket

[jamesmadison]

A person is not just "a part of the universe". When you're living, your property is yours to do with as you please (in a free society, anyway). That means that your property is subject to your wishes. After death, the person may no longer exist, but both the property and the wishes still do.

Tell me this- what claim does anyone else have to that property?

As has been pointed out, the estate tax is also unconstitutional.

You are a part of the universe, and you own it as much as you rent an apartment. You have conscious control over a portion of the universe at this instance in time, and that control will no longer exist at another point in time. This conscious control gives you the ability to claim that i have transformed this and that and earned this and that and i am entitled to this and that as reward for my gain. This, we call, property.

What gives you the right to claim property? The applicable function of liberty. Without liberty you have no property rights and you have no property rights because others in the universe do not recognize your right for property. This is what liberty is. Liberty is the understanding of everyone that personal freedom exists within the individual and respect for this freedom. This is what is promoted by government and if you accumulated your property under a government which promoted liberty the government, to ensure liberty in the future, has the right to tax your death for its own survival. There is no violation of rights in this scenario.

[ACJohn]

So I have to gift my business or assets to my kids before I die and leave me at thier mercy until I die. I would love nothing more then to see a kids ex get half of what I gave them. No Thanks.

[bdmarti]

So you want taxation for taxation's sake- someone else has money that you don't think they should have, so you want the government to take it from them.

It is the "someone has money" thing that is under dispute here.

The "owner" of the wealth in question just died. At this instant, nobody "owns" the wealth.

The question is, as a society, do we propogate the wealth on exacltly as the previous owner wished, or is this an appropriate time to tax them.

The alternative is to tax their wealth in various ways while they are alive.

I'd rather be taxed when I'm dead...but that's just me.

[bdmarti]

It may be absurd, but as long as it is earned in legal ways it is OK. Just because you think it is absurd does not mean everyone does.

We differ on what "earned" means.

If you earned it via wages and labor, fine. If you even made some profits from wise investment...that's great for you too.

I don't consider a dead relative handing you a gift to be "earning" anything.

[noxagol]

Yes. If you give it away one second before death, that's great.
It is perfectly reasonable to give away the bulk of one's wealth before one dies.

But what I was saying is that one can avoid PAYING the estate tax. The dead person isn't paying any tax. In addition to aquiring your parent's wealth before they die, it would also be reasonable to not accept inheritance.

It seems more than just reasonable to give your kids wealth while you are alive, if there were a death tax it would be prudent.

Ok, what happens in the very likely event that I die unexpectedly in a car crash? That is the purpose of a will. You have already given ownership to those you designate, but it does not take effect until you die.

[jamesmadison]

Ok, what happens in the very likely event that I die unexpectedly in a car crash? That is the purpose of a will. You have already given ownership to those you designate, but it does not take effect until you die.

It's not a right because your conscious being no longer exists.

[user]

People who are in favor of taxes also usually forget to consider the hidden effects of a tax. One effect of the death tax, children of the rich not having as much unearned wealth, is obvious. Other effects, such as an incentive to consume rather than save, are not as obvious.

[bdmarti]

the Estate tax puts a strangle hold on family businesses. It needs to go. I can't believe how many Ron Paul supporters are in favor of it.


That's an argument against a particular implementation of the estate tax. There is little reason to not exempt a home or a family business from the tax.

Corporate stocks, cash, bonds and so forth are a different animal than faimly businesses. At least to me they are.

[Joey Wahoo]

I hate estate taxes. But I hate income taxes more. I don't know, but I suspect Dr. Paul might agree.

While I want to see estate taxes repealed, the first priority must be eliminating the taxes on our income.

If the government needs revenue, I'd much rather see it come from the estates of dead rich people, than from the incomes of living working people.

[bdmarti]

Ok, what happens in the very likely event that I die unexpectedly in a car crash? That is the purpose of a will. You have already given ownership to those you designate, but it does not take effect until you die.

I understand what a will is.

BUt you haven't really given "ownership" until the event of your death happens.

Living trusts and crazy legal devices would certainly come into existance and be used by the rich to combat an estate tax.

Every now and then, a rich person would get into a car crash and they wouldn't have all their assets passed on properly and the government would make some revenue.

Frankly, I don't even think it would be that much money...but since I want to see the income tax die what's left to us is tarrifs, excise/luxury taxes, and possibly something like the estate tax.

[Churchill2004]

It is the "someone has money" thing that is under dispute here.

The "owner" of the wealth in question just died. At this instant, nobody "owns" the wealth.

The question is, as a society, do we propogate the wealth on exacltly as the previous owner wished, or is this an appropriate time to tax them.

The alternative is to tax their wealth in various ways while they are alive.

I'd rather be taxed when I'm dead...but that's just me.

The alternative is not to tax them at all. That's just like when people say that "well, we have to raise the money some way..." about the income tax. No, you don't have to raise that much money at all.


As for ownership, all that is is having the property in question subordinate to your wishes. After death, both the property and the wishes still exist, so all that is necessary for "ownership" to continue is still present.


Another minor nit-pick. This is not about what "we, as a society" should do, this is about what the government should (not) do. Government /= society.

[user]

I hate estate taxes. But I hate income taxes more. I don't know, but I suspect Dr. Paul might agree.
"Of all the outrageous taxes Americans are forced to pay each year, the death tax is the most outrageous of them all."

-Ron Paul

[jamesmadison]

I understand what a will is.

BUt you haven't really given "ownership" until the event of your death happens.

Living trusts and crazy legal devices would certainly come into existance and be used by the rich to combat an estate tax.

Every now and then, a rich person would get into a car crash and they wouldn't have all their assets passed on properly and the government would make some revenue.

Frankly, I don't even think it would be that much money...but since I want to see the income tax die what's left to us is tarrifs, excise/luxury taxes, and possibly something like the estate tax.

You can argue that an estate tax somehow violatest he rights of those destined to inherit, but not of a individual who no longer has rights.

[Churchill2004]

You can argue that an estate tax somehow violatest he rights of those destined to inherit, but not of a individual who no longer has rights.

A violation of property rights means violating the wishes of a person concerning their property. After death, the person might not exist, but both their wishes and their property still do.

[user]

That's an argument against a particular implementation of the estate tax. There is little reason to not exempt a home or a family business from the tax.

Corporate stocks, cash, bonds and so forth are a different animal than faimly businesses. At least to me they are.

If you exempt family businesses from the tax, you might as well not have the tax. The wealth can go to the business, and then to the heirs with no tax. (No income tax, remember?)

[bdmarti]

People who are in favor of taxes also usually forget to consider the hidden effects of a tax. One effect of the death tax, children of the rich not having as much unearned wealth, is obvious. Other effects, such as an incentive to consume rather than save, are not as obvious.

Here is an argument I agree with!

The question is, are those unintented consequences desireable for us as a society?

I think that having rich people push their wealth back into the economy is likely a good thing.

I also see the incentive to consume for the typical person to be the same, but to be larger for the rich, who don't want the government taking a share of their wealth.

I'm of the opinion that having the rich spend money is generally good, and if we can meet the desired goal of funding our limited government and at the same time encourage consumption by the super rich...then I think that's a win win.

[Ncturnal]

The death tax as well as the AMT are simply *creative* ways for the govt to squeeze more money out of us because of the federal reserve... The Fairtax is the same thing... The govt's growth now has finally caught up to all the inflation theyve caused but theyre like a junkie that wants to keep getting high..... the only cure is getting more money from the people.

We need to rehab the country.. not only STOP these taxes.. but get rid of the income tax ENTIRELY!

Well stated.


People are so stupid, the Death tax means nothing to average people. You are only accrued a death tax if you have a estate close to $1 million. It's not a tax on poor people. It was designed to limit dynasties to an extent.

The limit is beside the point. It's not the governments property to take, therefore it is theft. Thanks, but I don't need the government limiting dynasties for me. Dynasties have no affect on me or anyone else. They have the rights to their property just like I do and it should not be stolen from them.


Nothing good can come from this discussion. If you think it is the proper role of the federal government to is "limit dynasties" and redistribute wealth, then you probably need to take another look at the constitution. You are walking near a very slippery slope that leads to the Valley of Ends Justify the Means.

Amen. I'm appalled at those that think otherwise.


You get to decide who it goes to before you die.

Abolition of inheritance rights is an idea straight from the Communist Manifesto.

Besides, all this crap about "aristocracy" is completely unfounded. All the estate tax does is funnel more money into the Federal government- it does nothing to prevent an aristocracy. Any one rich enough to be considered an "aristocrat" is going to be rich enough that half of their estate is still more than enough for their heirs to be "aristocrats".

Likely those that are rich enough protect all of their assets via legal controls in the system that the elitists have in place to benefit them. For those that know the system, it's easy to legally avoid taxation. The middle class sheep that don't know any better are the ones that pay taxes. They think the burden is on the rich but the joke is on them.

[jamesmadison]

A violation of property rights means violating the wishes of a person concerning their property. After death, the person might not exist, but both their wishes and their property still do.

A wish cannot be executed without conscious effort. Property rights are ensured as much as liberty is present, and liberty is a function of understanding within all members of society. When the understanding breaks down, so do property rights. They are not an a priori.

[Joey Wahoo]

If given the choice between allowing the government to confiscate a portion of the incomes of the living, or a portion of the estates of dead rich people, does anyone honestly prefer the income tax??

[user]

That brings up another point. As soon as you start with the exemptions for taxes like these, the rich will be far more likely to find and exploit loopholes in the tax, while the not-so-rich will not have that advantage. This is one of the hidden subsidies to the rich we have today, just like inflation.

[bdmarti]

The alternative is not to tax them at all. That's just like when people say that "well, we have to raise the money some way..." about the income tax. No, you don't have to raise that much money at all.

Sorry. That is the alternative. Even though I agree we don't need much money to run a constitutional government, we need some.



As for ownership, all that is is having the property in question subordinate to your wishes. After death, both the property and the wishes still exist, so all that is necessary for "ownership" to continue is still present.

Not so. Society has to agree with you. We certainly aren't giving the native american's their land back, dispite their heirs still being here. The Isralis aren't in a hurry to give back land to the Palestinians.

We as a society have to agree who the property belongs to. I understand that you would like property rights to extend beyond death, but I don't wish to make an exeption for property rights that doesn't exist for other rights. dead people don't have rights...they're dead.




Another minor nit-pick. This is not about what "we, as a society" should do, this is about what the government should (not) do. Government /= society.

when it comes to what rights are, the line is pretty blurry.

I'm a strong defender of property rights for the living. I think it's the only way we can get along. It's that whole "you're dead" thing that muddies the waters for me.

[Joey Wahoo]

Y'all do realize that the first two million dollars of every estate is completely exempt from tax?

this tax should be repealed along with many others, but this should be a much lower priority than elimination of the income tax

[Churchill2004]

If given the choice between allowing the government to confiscate a portion of the incomes of the living, or a portion of the estates of dead rich people, does anyone honestly prefer the income tax??

Who cares which is worse? Get rid of both.

[Joey Wahoo]

Who cares which is worse? Get rid of both.

Agreed. But lets start with the income tax. Once the incomes of Americans are free from taxation, then I'm OK w/ killing the estate tax. But NO WAY should estates be free from tax, while the incomes of Americans are still being taxed.

[jamesmadison]

It's simple.

Property rights do not exist without other conscious beings acknowledging your right to property, ie. liberty.

The government exists to ensure that liberty exists and flourishes.

After death, when you no longer have rights, the government taxes your property which you acquired under the functional form of liberty present within the government to ensure that the government functions to promote liberty in the future.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as property rights and the only right is to your own body.

[Churchill2004]

Sorry. That is the alternative. Even though I agree we don't need much money to run a constitutional government, we need some.


Back in the day it was run off taxes on imports, and that was when there were a lot less imports than we have today.




Not so. Society has to agree with you. We certainly aren't giving the native american's their land back, dispite their heirs still being here. The Isralis aren't in a hurry to give back land to the Palestinians.

We as a society have to agree who the property belongs to. I understand that you would like property rights to extend beyond death, but I don't wish to make an exeption for property rights that doesn't exist for other rights. dead people don't have rights...they're dead.



So if society decided you didn't have a right to free speech, that right wouldn't exist? This thinking, combined with your "society = the government" line of thought, amounts to saying that rights come from the government.

[Churchill2004]

It's simple.

Property rights do not exist without other conscious beings acknowledging your right to property, ie. liberty.

The government exists to ensure that liberty exists and flourishes.

After death, when you no longer have rights, the government taxes your property which you acquired under the functional form of liberty present within the government to ensure that the government functions to promote liberty in the future.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as property rights and the only right is to your own body.

This money isn't being used to protect anyone's liberty, and we all know it.

This isn't about rights after death, it's about the right of the living to decide what will happen with their property at some point in the future.

[jamesmadison]

Back in the day it was run off taxes on imports, and that was when there were a lot less imports than we have today.



So if society decided you didn't have a right to free speech, that right wouldn't exist? This thinking, combined with your "society = the government" line of thought, amounts to saying that rights come from the government.

Of course it wouldn't exist.

No, it's saying that rights come from the human mind and only exist within a society that acknowledges the liberty of individuals. And the government exists to naturally create an environment that these rights flourish in.

[user]

...consequences desireable for us as a society?

No offense, but that is the kind of question that has led us to where we are today. Statists constantly ask such questions and force their answers on everyone. The whole point of liberty is that we should be allowed to disagree and not have someone else's will forced upon us.


I think that having rich people push their wealth back into the economy is likely a good thing.

This is a major distortion in the free market, with all kinds of far-reaching consequences.

[bdmarti]

If you exempt family businesses from the tax, you might as well not have the tax. The wealth can go to the business, and then to the heirs with no tax. (No income tax, remember?)

what family business are you talking about?

large family farms or something? the corner store? exempt them.

someone like the hiltons, who own instead 10% of the shares of Hilton corporation would be taxed. If you wanted to give cash and wealth outside of the stock, or even the stock itself to a corporation...well that's great because I think corporate profits should be taxed.

Even a small corporation would be subject to corporate income tax.

[jamesmadison]

This money isn't being used to protect anyone's liberty, and we all know it.

This isn't about rights after death, it's about the right of the living to decide what will happen with their property at some point in the future.

I'm talking about a government that functions to promote liberty, not the current government.

[Churchill2004]

I'm talking about a government that functions to promote liberty, not the current government.

That sort of government wouldn't need the money from an estate tax.

[Churchill2004]

Of course it wouldn't exist.

No, it's saying that rights come from the human mind and only exist within a society that acknowledges the liberty of individuals. And the government exists to naturally create an environment that these rights flourish in.

That is the antithesis of what every advocate of liberty throughout history has ever stated, including the Founding Fathers. Rights do not exist at the whim of society and the state, and they still exist even when they are violated.

[bdmarti]

No offense, but that is the kind of question that has led us to where we are today. Statists constantly ask such questions and force their answers on everyone. The whole point of liberty is that we should be allowed to disagree and not have someone else's will forced upon us.


No offense taken. I think you think the impact of this is way bigger than it would be though.

all I'm saying is that the minor social engineering consequences of using an estate tax for some revenue is good. particularly when compared to other possible revenue streams. Where should all the money come from? A tax on cars? a flat tarriff? we need some money...where shall we get it all? Getting a little from the dead rich people seems reasonable, and in fact as unoffensive (to me), as any possible tax.



This is a major distortion in the free market, with all kinds of far-reaching consequences.

distortion? I don't really agree. In some cases, some rich people, may sometimes spend money differently than they do now.
What we are talking about here is a tiny revenue stream needed to run the government. We've cut the personal income tax and eliminated 50% or more of government spending. The remaining revenue required is a kick in the bucket and I hardly agree that it would be a "major" distortion of the market to use this particular tax as opposed to a higher tariff or a different excise tax. a tax is a tax. they all distort.

[user]

what family business are you talking about?

large family farms or something? the corner store? exempt them.

someone like the hiltons, who own instead 10% of the shares of Hilton corporation would be taxed. If you wanted to give cash and wealth outside of the stock, or even the stock itself to a corporation...well that's great because I think corporate profits should be taxed.

Even a small corporation would be subject to corporate income tax.

But now you're creating arbitrary exemptions for a tax, which means lobbyists would be able to fight for all kinds of special treatment like they do today.

I didn't know you were in favor of the corporate income tax. BTW from what I understand Ron Paul is against all income taxes. (I know you're not him.)

[schmeisser]

Otherwise, there is no such thing as property rights and the only right is to your own body.

Under your logic, only until you die, then the government can chop you up into pieces and body parts to serve the greater good by using the organs and/or furthering science right?

Personal and economic freedoms are not separable.

[jamesmadison]

Under your logic, only until you die, then the government can chop you up into pieces and body parts to serve the greater good by using the organs and/or furthering science right?

Personal and economic freedoms are not separable.

If humans evolved to lose their cognitive enhancement over chimpanzee, there would be no rights. Only darwinistic social structures and rights governed by the alpha males.

[bdmarti]

So if society decided you didn't have a right to free speech, that right wouldn't exist? This thinking, combined with your "society = the government" line of thought, amounts to saying that rights come from the government.

I don't agree. The rights don't come from the government, they are just protected by it.

If we as a society collectivly agreed that there was no "right" to free speech, and we used the government to enforce silence, then there would effectivly be no such right.

As Americans we've all enetered into a social contract where we agree that we all have certain rights though. We all agree that the government won't be used to infringe upon those rights. I think this is great. Sure, we don't have a complete enumeration of rights...but at least we have a partial enumeration and we have a system whereby society itself can decide what other "rights" the government can't infringe upon as we go along.

[mavtek]

Y'all do realize that the first two million dollars of every estate is completely exempt from tax?

this tax should be repealed along with many others, but this should be a much lower priority than elimination of the income tax


That's what I'm saying........ I could honestly care less about this issue because it's a non issue for 98% of the people and it's dishonest for politicians to purport as if it is. This is like Mitt Romney's want to repeal taxes on investments under $200,000 which is effectively just stupid as it does almost nothing for no one.

[schmeisser]

If humans evolved to lose their cognitive enhancement over chimpanzee, there would be no rights. Only darwinistic social structures and rights governed by the alpha males.

Oh, it all makes perfect sense now...:rolleyes:

:eek:

[user]

distortion? I don't really agree. In some cases, some rich people, may sometimes spend money differently than they do now.
What we are talking about here is a tiny revenue stream needed to run the government. We've cut the personal income tax and eliminated 50% or more of government spending. The remaining revenue required is a kick in the bucket and I hardly agree that it would be a "major" distortion of the market to use this particular tax as opposed to a higher tariff or a different excise tax. a tax is a tax. they all distort.

It sounds like everyone here agrees there shouldn't be a gift tax. So if we have a death tax, isn't that like having some kind of perverse lottery? If a rich person is dying slowly or growing old, they'll have plenty of time to give their wealth to their heirs. On the other hand, if a rich person dies unexpectedly, their heirs are SOL?

So now if you lose someone in a tragic accident, we're adding insult to injury by taxing the estate, which would've been avoided if the deceased had time to plan?

[Churchill2004]

I don't agree. The rights don't come from the government, they are just protected by it.

If we as a society collectivly agreed that there was no "right" to free speech, and we used the government to enforce silence, then there would effectivly be no such right.


But that would still be wrong, right? And it would be wrong because...?



As Americans we've all enetered into a social contract where we agree that we all have certain rights though. We all agree that the government won't be used to infringe upon those rights. I think this is great. Sure, we don't have a complete enumeration of rights...but at least we have a partial enumeration and we have a system whereby society itself can decide what other "rights" the government can't infringe upon as we go along.

I despise the idea of a "social contract" (I never signed one), but I don't want to get into that here.

[jamesmadison]

But that would still be wrong, right? And it would be wrong because...?



I despise the idea of a "social contract" (I never signed one), but I don't want to get into that here.

It's a right because it is a function of advanced order of the human mind. Biological order, then creates social order and rights come to existence. Without the biological order there are no rights, only hierarchical order - as you see in the animal kingdom. It is wrong, as long as a human has the capacity to state that it is wrong.

[ACJohn]

I don't agree. The rights don't come from the government, they are just protected by it.

If we as a society collectivly agreed that there was no "right" to free speech, and we used the government to enforce silence, then there would effectivly be no such right.

As Americans we've all enetered into a social contract where we agree that we all have certain rights though. We all agree that the government won't be used to infringe upon those rights. I think this is great. Sure, we don't have a complete enumeration of rights...but at least we have a partial enumeration and we have a system whereby society itself can decide what other "rights" the government can't infringe upon as we go along.

This is why our founding Fathers’ wanted a REBUPLIC not a Democracy. So thinking like this, if the collective society thinks there is no free speech so be it, or as they would say the tyranny of the majority should not be allowed.

[bdmarti]

But now you're creating arbitrary exemptions for a tax, which means lobbyists would be able to fight for all kinds of special treatment like they do today.

Indeed you might have people lobby for exemptions. It is my sincere hope that with the government revenue stream being so small that congress itself would be less corrupt and suseptable to lobbiest influence.

All taxes are arbitrary. No matter what thing you choose to tax, you are then taxing that thing and not some other thing. I don't seem much strength to this


I didn't know you were in favor of the corporate income tax. BTW from what I understand Ron Paul is against all income taxes. (I know you're not him.)

I'm not 100% sure about how ron feels about corporate taxes. In any case...i just jumped into the thread because someone said "everyone hates the estate tax" and I don't hate it.

I love Ron though. We need this guy elected.

No matter what we need to shrink the government. We can quibble over where to raise 1/10th as much taxes later.

[jamesmadison]

This is why our founding Fathers’ wanted a REBUPLIC not a Democracy. So thinking like this, if the collective society thinks there is no free speech so be it, or as they would say the tyranny of the majority should not be allowed.

Government is only a function of the individuals within it. If the majority does not want free speech, they will enforce this no matter what government exists.

[Churchill2004]

It's a right because it is a function of advanced order of the human mind. Biological order, then creates social order and rights come to existence. Without the biological order there are no rights, only hierarchical order - as you see in the animal kingdom. It is wrong, as long as a human has the capacity to see that it is wrong.

Which is just another way of saying rights exist at the whim of "society" (in reality, the government.)

"Yeah, rights exist, as long as everyone agrees they exist!" ? What kind of perverse nihilism is that?

[jamesmadison]

Which is just another way of saying rights exist at the whim of "society" (in reality, the government.)

"Yeah, rights exist, as long as everyone agrees they exist!" ? What kind of perverse nihilism is that?

I'm not sure how else you define rights except that they are a product of thought which is a function of biology. If a single human being can state that this is wrong, then rights exists, otherwise they don't. The application of rights is a different story which depends on agreements between individuals.

[user]

Anyone who is using the "dead people have no rights" argument, doesn't that mean there has to be a 100% death tax? How can you only partially honor the deceased's wishes by giving only a portion of the estate to the heirs, if the intent was to give all of it?

You can either agree that the will is valid or consider it totally invalid. I don't see how there is an in-between.

[bdmarti]

It sounds like everyone here agrees there shouldn't be a gift tax. So if we have a death tax, isn't that like having some kind of perverse lottery? If a rich person is dying slowly or growing old, they'll have plenty of time to give their wealth to their heirs. On the other hand, if a rich person dies unexpectedly, their heirs are SOL?

So now if you lose someone in a tragic accident, we're adding insult to injury by taxing the estate, which would've been avoided if the deceased had time to plan?

Yeah. The people you describe would be SOL as you put it.

I don't feel real bad though. We're talking about unearned wealth and poor planning in combination. It's not as if we're even talking about suddenly making the heirs destitute or something...the current exemption is something like 2 million bucks. even with poor planning and a sudden death...those rich kids will be way better off than the typical person.

[Churchill2004]

Yeah. The people you describe would be SOL as you put it.

I don't feel real bad though. We're talking about unearned wealth and poor planning in combination. It's not as if we're even talking about suddenly making the heirs destitute or something...the current exemption is something like 2 million bucks. even with poor planning and a sudden death...those rich kids will be way better off than the typical person.

Planning has nothing to do with it. The estate tax is applied regardless of whether or not there's a will.

[Ncturnal]

Some of you seriously need a class on the Constitution. The first segment covers a lot of this quite well.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=36708

jamesmadison needs to watch the entire 8 hour series about 10 times. He's so far gone I'm not even sure if that will bring him back to reality. Every time I see him post something the only reasonable reaction to his troll responses is....

http://www.ncturnal.com/smiles/megarolleyes2bw.gif

[schmeisser]

Anyone who is using the "dead people have no rights" argument, doesn't that mean there has to be a 100% death tax? How can you only partially honor the deceased's wishes by giving only a portion of the estate to the heirs, if the intent was to give all of it?

You can either agree that the will is valid or consider it totally invalid. I don't see how there is an in-between.

Don't confuse these guys with logic. :D

[user]

Planning has nothing to do with it. The estate tax is applied regardless of whether or not there's a will.
What I meant by "planning" in the post bdmarti responded to was that, with an estate tax but no gift tax, rich people who plan well would make sure to give most of their wealth away before dying.

[ACJohn]

Government is only a function of the individuals within it. If the majority does not want free speech, they will enforce this no matter what government exists.

Only if the government ignores the rule of law and the Constitution. If that happens then the system beaks down and then that majority better have more force then the minority.

[bdmarti]

Which is just another way of saying rights exist at the whim of "society" (in reality, the government.)

"Yeah, rights exist, as long as everyone agrees they exist!" ? What kind of perverse nihilism is that?

Perverse nihilism?

You think you have rights when there is a stronger force telling you otherwise? What sort of extreme naiveity is that?

It is by mutual consent that we have these rights. Even if you think god gave you these rights, if you can't use them because a stronger force prevents you from doing so then you effectivly don't have that right.

It's not that complicated.

Our government's partial enumeration of rights, and agreed upon mutual respect for rights is a great thing. I'm glad our founders agreed we had certain rights, I'm glad they didn't try to list them all, and yes, I'm glad that society can figure out what else should be rights as we go along such that we can prevent our government from infringing upon what should be our right, as determined by us.

when the constitution itself aknowleges that it doesn't have a full enumeration of rights, and yet expects the government to not infringe upon any rights, even those not listed, how is that supposed to work? Is Jesus supposed to show up at congress one day and say..."gee, we need to add this right to your enumeration". No. What's supposed to happen is society, if needed, will inform the government what else it can't do.

[user]

Perverse nihilism?

You think you have rights when there is a stronger force telling you otherwise? What sort of extreme naiveity is that?

It is by mutual consent that we have these rights. Even if you think god gave you these rights, if you can't use them because a stronger force prevents you from doing so then you effectivly don't have that right.

It's not that complicated.

Our government's partial enumeration of rights, and agreed upon mutual respect for rights is a great thing. I'm glad our founders agreed we had certain rights, I'm glad they didn't try to list them all, and yes, I'm glad that society can figure out what else should be rights as we go along such that we can prevent our government from infringing upon what should be our right, as determined by us.

when the constitution itself aknowleges that it doesn't have a full enumeration of rights, and yet expects the government to not infringe upon any rights, even those not listed, how is that supposed to work? Is Jesus supposed to show up at congress one day and say..."gee, we need to add this right to your enumeration". No. What's supposed to happen is society, if needed, will inform the government what else it can't do.
Even if you don't agree with them, I don't think there is any doubt that the founders were strong believers in natural rights.

[Ncturnal]

bdmarti, you need to watch the Constitution class as well. You are sadly misguided.

[user]

Anyone who expects society as a whole to do something, I assume you mean democratically. If so, please read this (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/).

[bdmarti]

Anyone who is using the "dead people have no rights" argument, doesn't that mean there has to be a 100% death tax? How can you only partially honor the deceased's wishes by giving only a portion of the estate to the heirs, if the intent was to give all of it?

You can either agree that the will is valid or consider it totally invalid. I don't see how there is an in-between.

So...either we outlaw beer, or we allow beer...but we can't tax beer.

Or...I wish to buy a beer for $1 and not for $1.25 after taxes. How can we ignore your wishes to purchase a beer for only $1?

Not great analogies...but all taxes are bad in that someone has to pay them.


We can agree to honor the wishes laid out in a will, with the understanding that a small portion of particularly large estates will be taken to help fund the governments limited needs. If you want the government to facilitate the easy transfer of your wealth, and continued protection of it, it seems like a small price to pay.

[Ncturnal]

Even if you don't agree with them, I don't think there is any doubt that the founders were strong believers in natural rights.

Exactly. To the point that they used the term inalienable rights. Just because some governments or individuals infringe on those rights does not mean you don't have them. It simply means you have to fight the infringing force to exercise those rights.

[Churchill2004]

You think you have rights when there is a stronger force telling you otherwise?

YES!

http://www.aoc.gov/images/declaration_independence.jpg

That's exactly what these guys thought. That is the very foundation of liberty- you don't have your rights because a majority of your neighbors agree you have them, you have rights because they are an inalienable, immutable fact of the universe that exist even if violated. It is that indestructible existence that makes it wrong to violate them. After all, there's nothing wrong with violating someone's rights if violated rights don't exist.

[Churchill2004]

So...either we outlaw beer, or we allow beer...but we can't tax beer.

Or...I wish to buy a beer for $1 and not for $1.25 after taxes. How can we ignore your wishes to purchase a beer for only $1?

Not great analogies...but all taxes are bad in that someone has to pay them.


We can agree to honor the wishes laid out in a will, with the understanding that a small portion of particularly large estates will be taken to help fund the governments limited needs. If you want the government to facilitate the easy transfer of your wealth, and continued protection of it, it seems like a small price to pay.

The estate tax rate is something like 50%. Not exactly "small."

[bdmarti]

bdmarti, you need to watch the Constitution class as well. You are sadly misguided.

I disagree quite strongly.

Perhaps you should consider your own perspective and knowledge.

I'm very open to discussion and some people are presenting pleasant discussion on a very minor issue, but you feel the need to insult my intelligence and understanding of the constitution.

very sad for you.

[noxagol]

Rights are rights because you do not need anyone else to give you permission to do it. If you need permission, it is a privilege. If everyone decided that no one has the right to their property, that doesn't nullify the right, it violates it.

Rights are derived from ownership. If I own something, I am the sole dictator of what happens to it and anyone who violates my wishes to my property owe me compensation as I see fit and as is on scale with the scope of the violation.

This idea that we have some sort of social contract is ridiculous and anathema to personal liberty. We don't get our right because others let us have them, we get our rights as an inherent part of being a human being. The granter of something can also take that something away. If we only have rights because everyone else says we do, then everyone else could take them away. That is a democracy at its worse right there. If everyone says we don't have the right to dictate what happens to say our body when we are alive, that doesn't mean we don't have the right, that means that they are grossly violating our rights.

[bdmarti]

Even if you don't agree with them, I don't think there is any doubt that the founders were strong believers in natural rights.

Indeed they did. I'm pretty sure they also understood that the people themselves would be the ones to identify what those rights were and this is at least in part the reason why they were sure to mention that the bill of rights was not a complete enumeration.

[jamesmadison]

YES!

http://www.aoc.gov/images/declaration_independence.jpg

That's exactly what these guys thought. That is the very foundation of liberty- you don't have your rights because a majority of your neighbors agree you have them, you have rights because they are an inalienable, immutable fact of the universe that exist even if violated. It is that indestructible existence that makes it wrong to violate them. After all, there's nothing wrong with violating someone's rights if violated rights don't exist.

Rights exist if one person thinks that a right exists, otherwise, they don't. Rights are an biological evolution of order in the universe. The more ordered the biology becomes, the more evident the rights. The application of rights does depend on the majority. You can believe you have rights, but if a given majority dictates that you do not, as in the case with illegal drugs - if you exercise your rights, then you end up in prison. The right exists within your mind, but the application exists within the stream of liberty in society.

The constitution can say whatever it wants it does not ensure us rights. Only the individuals mind ensures him rights because they are formed through thought.

[user]

So...either we outlaw beer, or we allow beer...but we can't tax beer.

Or...I wish to buy a beer for $1 and not for $1.25 after taxes. How can we ignore your wishes to purchase a beer for only $1?

Not great analogies...but all taxes are bad in that someone has to pay them.


We can agree to honor the wishes laid out in a will, with the understanding that a small portion of particularly large estates will be taken to help fund the governments limited needs. If you want the government to facilitate the easy transfer of your wealth, and continued protection of it, it seems like a small price to pay.
No, the argument against a tax on beer comes from liberty of contract, and both parties are alive. Nobody is using the "dead people have no rights" argument to try to argue for a tax on beer.

Again, either the wishes laid out in a will are to be considered, or not. If you want them to be only partially considered, then "dead people have no rights" makes no sense. There would have to be another basis for the death tax.

[bdmarti]

The estate tax rate is something like 50%. Not exactly "small."

on estates of over 2 million dollars

not exactly a lot of those around...

[Churchill2004]

Rights exist if one person thinks that a right exists, otherwise, they don't. Rights are an biological evolution of order in the universe. The more ordered the biology becomes, the more evident the rights. The application of rights does depend on the majority. You can believe you have rights, but if a given majority dictates that you do not, as in the case with illegal drugs - if you exercise your rights, then you end up in prison. The right exists within your mind, but the application exists within the stream of liberty in society.

The constitution can say whatever it wants it does not ensure us rights. Only the individuals mind ensures him rights because they are formed through thought.

So now it's "you have whatever rights you think you have."? What about all the people think they have a "right" to healthcare?

[Churchill2004]

on estates of over 2 million dollars

not exactly a lot of those around...

Why does it matter how many there are?

[bdmarti]

That's exactly what these guys thought. That is the very foundation of liberty- you don't have your rights because a majority of your neighbors agree you have them, you have rights because they are an inalienable, immutable fact of the universe that exist even if violated. It is that indestructible existence that makes it wrong to violate them. After all, there's nothing wrong with violating someone's rights if violated rights don't exist.

I stand corrected.

I spoke poorly and you have shown me the truth.

We agree that you "have" your rights no matter what someone else says.

I however still find the ability to execute those rights freely to be relevant and it is by mutual consent of what one's rights are that this is possible.

[jamesmadison]

So now it's "you have whatever rights you think you have."? What about all the people think they have a "right" to healthcare?

Since it is contingent on another, and enforcement of it, then it would have to be some contractual agreement within society for a right like this to become applicable. Otherwise, without an applicable platform the right does not exist.

[ACJohn]

on estates of over 2 million dollars

not exactly a lot of those around...

Almost every small business in the country, also accumulating assets of 2 million in a lifetime is easier then you think. Add to that the pace of Fedlation (my word for inflation) 2 million will be peanuts.

[noxagol]

Rights exist if one person thinks that a right exists, otherwise, they don't. Rights are an biological evolution of order in the universe. The more ordered the biology becomes, the more evident the rights. The application of rights does depend on the majority. You can believe you have rights, but if a given majority dictates that you do not, as in the case with illegal drugs - if you exercise your rights, then you end up in prison. The right exists within your mind, but the application exists within the stream of liberty in society.

The constitution can say whatever it wants it does not ensure us rights. Only the individuals mind ensures him rights because they are formed through thought.

Wrong. Rights are derived from property. If you own it, you dictate with 100% authority what happens to it. I own my body, I dictate what goes in it and what happens to it. I own my life, I dictate what I do with my life. I own my house, I dictate what happens to it. Right don't come from anything other than ownership.

Just because the majority thinks it is not a right does not make the right to cease to exist. It just means that a lot of people wish to violate your rights.

[jamesmadison]

Wrong. Rights are derived from property. If you own it, you dictate with 100% authority what happens to it. I own my body, I dictate what goes in it and what happens to it. I own my life, I dictate what I do with my life. I own my house, I dictate what happens to it. Right don't come from anything other than ownership.

Just because the majority thinks it is not a right does not make the right to cease to exist. It just means that a lot of people wish to violate your rights.

If there is no structure to enforce the majority from violating your rights, you have no applicable right - just a theoretical one.

[Churchill2004]

I stand corrected.

I spoke poorly and you have shown me the truth.

We agree that you "have" your rights no matter what someone else says.

I however still find the ability to execute those rights freely to be relevant and it is by mutual consent of what one's rights are that this is possible.

Very good. Then you also accept that it immoral to violate rights?

[Ncturnal]

I disagree quite strongly.

Perhaps you should consider your own perspective and knowledge.

I'm very open to discussion and some people are presenting pleasant discussion on a very minor issue, but you feel the need to insult my intelligence and understanding of the constitution.

very sad for you.

Perhaps not. I didn't insult your intelligence. You are simply ignorant on the matter. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and offering an opportunity to increase your level of understanding so you don't come across in an ignorant fashion as you have so far in this thread. If you choose to remain ignorant on the matter then perhaps your intelligence requires questioning. There's nothing minor about the discussion in my opinion. If you think it is ok to allow theft of an individuals property or violate his wishes for that property, or to allow an infringement of rights, then you are the one in the sad position. Seriously, watch the class. You've missed some key points.

[Churchill2004]

If there is no structure to enforce the majority from violating your rights, you have no applicable right - just a theoretical one.

Which is a wonderful argument against anarchy, but has nothing to do with the estate tax. Unless you really want to try to claim that repealing the estate tax would result in anarchy.

[bdmarti]

No, the argument against a tax on beer comes from liberty of contract, and both parties are alive. Nobody is using the "dead people have no rights" argument to try to argue for a tax on beer.

Again, either the wishes laid out in a will are to be considered, or not. If you want them to be only partially considered, then "dead people have no rights" makes no sense. There would have to be another basis for the death tax.

BOth parties are alive when I buy a beer and pay a tax the the government? The government isn't alive and they are making me or the vendor depending on your perspective, pay a tax against their wishes. I don't see why this is different from when we tax an estate against the wishes of the now dead esate holder. I find it even more compelling to tax the estate because the owner of the wealth died. if you can tax a beer, it seems like it should be even better to tax an estate.

[user]

I don't think there is much point in debating the right percentage for a tax when the basis for the tax itself is not clear. Take the income tax, for example. When you go from no income tax to a 1% income tax, I think that is a much bigger leap than going from, say, 1% to 50%. As Ron Paul says, the existence of an income tax assumes that the government owns your life.

[noxagol]

If there is no structure to enforce the majority from violating your rights, you have no applicable right - just a theoretical one.

And that is the purpose of government. To protect the rights of the individual from the majority. Nothing more nothing less. The government however, since it is created by the people, cannot do anything that an individual could not do. The created cannot have more power than the creator. I cannot take things against your wishes as dictated by your will when you die, therefor the government can't.

The only taxes that should be tolerated are those that are paid voluntarily. A sales tax is a good example. I do not have to pay the sales tax if I do not want to by not buying anything from the store. An unavoidable tax is rent on our liberty or property and cannot be tolerated. That is what the death tax is, a rent charge on our property and liberty.

[bdmarti]

Very good. Then you also accept that it immoral to violate rights?

I would agree to that.

However, I hope you aren't trying to trap me in some moral paradox.

[jamesmadison]

And that is the purpose of government. To protect the rights of the individual from the majority. Nothing more nothing less. The government however, since it is created by the people, cannot do anything that an individual could not do. The created cannot have more power than the creator. I cannot take things against your wishes as dictated by your will when you die, therefor the government can't.

The only taxes that should be tolerated are those that are paid voluntarily. A sales tax is a good example. I do not have to pay the sales tax if I do not want to by not buying anything from the store. An unavoidable tax is rent on our liberty or property and cannot be tolerated. That is what the death tax is, a rent charge on our property and liberty.

The government exists to create an environment where liberty flourishes - and to do this it must tax citizens. If the citizen of the government does not agree with the tax which allows the government to function then it is his right to leave. Otherwise, the citizens gives his money to the government, volentarily at their request.

[user]

BOth parties are alive when I buy a beer and pay a tax the the government? The government isn't alive and they are making me or the vendor depending on your perspective, pay a tax against their wishes. I don't see why this is different from when we tax an estate against the wishes of the now dead esate holder. I find it even more compelling to tax the estate because the owner of the wealth died. if you can tax a beer, it seems like it should be even better to tax an estate.

I'm against a tax on beer, probably like most people in this thread. From what I've read in this thread, even some people who are against taxes like a beer tax for the reason you stated are in favor of the death tax, and are using "dead people have no rights" as an argument for it. What I'm saying is, if that is your argument, there has to be a 100% death tax. If that's not your argument, then what is your justification for the death tax?

[jamesmadison]

I'm against a tax on beer, probably like most people in this thread. From what I've read in this thread, even some people who are against taxes like a beer tax for the reason you stated are in favor of the death tax, and are using "dead people have no rights" as an argument for it. What I'm saying is, if that is your argument, there has to be a 100% death tax. If that's not your argument, then what is your justification for the death tax?

It has to be as much as the government, which is a compilation of individual beliefs, agrees it to be to ensure its own survival.

[Churchill2004]

I would agree to that.

However, I hope you aren't trying to trap me in some moral paradox.

Just to point out the logical conclusion of it- that what the majority thinks your rights are shouldn't enter into a discussion about what the government should or shouldn't do concerning those rights.

[bdmarti]

Perhaps not. I didn't insult your intelligence. You are simply ignorant on the matter. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and offering an opportunity to increase your level of understanding so you don't come across in an ignorant fashion as you have so far in this thread. If you choose to remain ignorant on the matter then perhaps your intelligence requires questioning. There's nothing minor about the discussion in my opinion. If you think it is ok to allow theft of an individuals property or violate his wishes for that property, or to allow an infringement of rights, then you are the one in the sad position. Seriously, watch the class. You've missed some key points.

Yes, you did insult my intelligence, and you're doing it again now even if that isn't your intent.

Dead people don't have rights.

Perhaps Chief Crazy Ass of the early natives wanted all of the Americas to be open and only lightly inhabited. As the first people here, did they own the land? Are we respecting what the early natives wanted? Are we respecting even what the heirs of native people with whom we had treaties? Unfortunatly, not to often.

But should a treaty even matter? If the early natives had rights, as all men do, shouldn't we respect what they wanted for this land?

I don't see how we can apply a standard on property rights that we ourselves aren't keeping.

We stole this country. Make no mistakes about it. It is "ours" now because we can defend it. If the natives had rights, you're in violation of them now unless you live on tribal land that you bought from them.

[user]

The only taxes that should be tolerated are those that are paid voluntarily. A sales tax is a good example. I do not have to pay the sales tax if I do not want to by not buying anything from the store. An unavoidable tax is rent on our liberty or property and cannot be tolerated. That is what the death tax is, a rent charge on our property and liberty.

A sales tax is as unacceptable as the income tax because they are both involuntary taxes on exchange. If I want to sell someone a ball in exchange for money, and neither of us wants to pay any tax, we should be allowed to do that. If I want to sell my labor to someone in exchange for money, the same thing applies.

[bdmarti]

I'm against a tax on beer, probably like most people in this thread. From what I've read in this thread, even some people who are against taxes like a beer tax for the reason you stated are in favor of the death tax, and are using "dead people have no rights" as an argument for it. What I'm saying is, if that is your argument, there has to be a 100% death tax. If that's not your argument, then what is your justification for the death tax?

Justification for the death tax:
1) the government needs revenue and all taxes are bad...let's choose
2) unearned income, like corporate taxes, or inheritance taxes seem like a reasonable place for the government to get revenue from. The supreme court has ruled a number of times that unearned income like this is taxable.
3) the fact that the owner of the wealth being taxed just died seems like a reasonable time to tax their wealth, as they can't miss it or be offended when they are dead
4) since we have to choose a tax for revenue, and this tax may have a nice side effect of tempering aristocracy...it seems like a good one to use for at least some revenue

[jamesmadison]

Yes, you did insult my intelligence, and you're doing it again now even if that isn't your intent.

Dead people don't have rights.

Perhaps Chief Crazy Ass of the early natives wanted all of the Americas to be open and only lightly inhabited. As the first people here, did they own the land? Are we respecting what the early natives wanted? Are we respecting even what the heirs of native people with whom we had treaties? Unfortunatly, not to often.

But should a treaty even matter? If the early natives had rights, as all men do, shouldn't we respect what they wanted for this land?

I don't see how we can apply a standard on property rights that we ourselves aren't keeping.

We stole this country. Make no mistakes about it. It is "ours" now because we can defend it. If the natives had rights, you're in violation of them now unless you live on tribal land that you bought from them.

Good point.

[user]

Yes, you did insult my intelligence, and you're doing it again now even if that isn't your intent.

Dead people don't have rights.

Perhaps Chief Crazy Ass of the early natives wanted all of the Americas to be open and only lightly inhabited. As the first people here, did they own the land? Are we respecting what the early natives wanted? Are we respecting even what the heirs of native people with whom we had treaties? Unfortunatly, not to often.

But should a treaty even matter? If the early natives had rights, as all men do, shouldn't we respect what they wanted for this land?

I don't see how we can apply a standard on property rights that we ourselves aren't keeping.

We stole this country. Make no mistakes about it. It is "ours" now because we can defend it. If the natives had rights, you're in violation of them now unless you live on tribal land that you bought from them.

These are very good questions, and as far as I know the best response is that most of the territory was not actually homesteaded. Even taking that into account, however, there have obviously been some flagrant abuses of the natives' rights.

[noxagol]

A sales tax is as unacceptable as the income tax because they are both involuntary taxes on exchange. If I want to sell someone a ball in exchange for money, and neither of us wants to pay any tax, we should be allowed to do that. If I want to sell my labor to someone in exchange for money, the same thing applies.

Yeah you are right, I was just trying to come up with an example in a hurry and committed an epic fail.

[bdmarti]

Just to point out the logical conclusion of it- that what the majority thinks your rights are shouldn't enter into a discussion about what the government should or shouldn't do concerning those rights.

saying something shouldn't enter into a discussion...well...I dunno about that...its just a discussion. let it in...it seems at least relevant. i'm not tossing out football scores or something.

the majority certainly shouldn't be choosing what rights are or how the government deals with them, but it sure is handy when we have the majority's consent or even blessing in limiting our government in regards to our rights. it makes things much nicer when the majority plays along when it comes to rights.

[user]

Justification for the death tax:
1) the government needs revenue and all taxes are bad...let's choose
2) unearned income, like corporate taxes, or inheritance taxes seem like a reasonable place for the government to get revenue from. The supreme court has ruled a number of times that unearned income like this is taxable.
3) the fact that the owner of the wealth being taxed just died seems like a reasonable time to tax their wealth, as they can't miss it or be offended when they are dead
4) since we have to choose a tax for revenue, and this tax may have a nice side effect of tempering aristocracy...it seems like a good one to use for at least some revenue

But if you're not using "dead people have no rights," then natural rights would be violated, even if you, me, and/or the majority of people thought the death tax would be a good idea.

[user]

saying something shouldn't enter into a discussion...well...I dunno about that...its just a discussion. let it in...it seems at least relevant. i'm not tossing out football scores or something.

the majority certainly shouldn't be choosing what rights are or how the government deals with them, but it sure is handy when we have the majority's consent or even blessing in limiting our government in regards to our rights. it makes things much nicer when the majority plays along when it comes to rights.
I agree that it's nicer when the majority plays along, but we can't trust the majority to do the right thing when it comes to liberty. So whenever we give more power to the majority we are hurting our cause.

[Avalon]

Let me take a stab at this; perhaps we can all come to agreement on my position, which seems to satisfy the arguments of both sides. Please bear with me until the end.

Proponents of the estate tax here are arguing from a practical perspective. I haven't read any real arguments in this thread against the practical ramifications against a "properly" implemented estate tax, whatever that may mean. The practical negatives that I see include the requirement of an accompanying income tax and gift tax (of some sort) to prevent easy subversion of the stated point of the tax (reducing dynasties, improving economic output of the born rich, and raising money). And of course you have the (near certain) practical negative of congress not implementing these three taxes "properly".

Those who take the other side are approaching it from a philosophic perspective. This is the philosophy of the founders, not only in that it is outside the narrow role defined for the government, but also that it creates a tyranny of the majority, where the individual is harmed for the benefit of the many. We currently have a federal government that is so powerful the people themselves have very little effect on its functions (ie. ~80% of americans want to stop illegal immigration).

The founders wanted a republic so that each state could be it's own society. Each state would have its own right to self determination, and since the people's enumerated rights are protected by the (more powerful in terms of arms) federal government, any local tyranny could be overthrown through the exercise of those rights. The idea of apportioned taxation is that the states could implement their own means of raising revenue, the means that their constituents decided on.

Some people hate income taxes, others hate property taxes, others hate consumption taxes. Let people elicit change in their state to function the way they want or allow them to move to another state that they prefer. Don't make leaving the country the only viable option. And let states compete on these matters of policy.

[user]

Yeah you are right, I was just trying to come up with an example in a hurry and committed an epic fail.
I would add though that in our current situation, I would probably prefer the FairTax to the IRS as the lesser of two evils. At least we would be rid of the loopholes, which are just hidden subsidies for the rich.

[jamesmadison]

But if you're not using "dead people have no rights," then natural rights would be violated, even if you, me, and/or the majority of people thought the death tax would be a good idea.

Matter that is not conscious cannot have rights because it has no choice. If it acted on its choice before it's death, that it its right - otherwise it loses it's rights upon death. And we, as a people, decide what is just to do with his property. If we believe that someone with over 100m dollars should be taxed on his death, when he no longer has rights, we implement this as a society because we understand that his wealth accumulation occured under the prosperity of a government that ensured his liberty was not violated. We do this to ensure future liberty is not violated and aristocracy does not form.

In my opinion, 99% of people should be exempt from this tax.

[bdmarti]

But if you're not using "dead people have no rights," then natural rights would be violated, even if you, me, and/or the majority of people thought the death tax would be a good idea.

i just slide "dead people have no rights" into my 3rd point. the dead guy can't complain about a violation of his rights. It doesn't seem to me that they have any rights.

I personally don't see property rights extending beyond death.

and since we have to pick from among bad taxes, taxing the dead guy who can't complain seems like a winner.

tax me when I'm dead. really..

until then, how about I get to keep all my stuff.

I'm off to bed soon.

THanks to all who had a pleasant discussion on this!

It sucks having to choose what tax to use. Any time you use force to take money it's bad. There are good arguments to be made against the estate tax, but I'm not convinced they are any better than arguments against other taxes...at least I'm not convinced yet.

Let's get Ron elected. I'm not all that worried about the estate tax anyway...a nice flat tarrif would be fine to...we'll hammer that out in Ron's second term.

[noxagol]

I would add though that in our current situation, I would probably prefer the FairTax to the IRS as the lesser of two evils. At least we would be rid of the loopholes, which are just hidden subsidies for the rich.

Yeah, the fair tax is better than the income tax, it makes more sense really and is MUCH easier to implement than the income tax, but I much prefer the idea of no tax at all.

[user]

Let me take a stab at this; perhaps we can all come to agreement on my position, which seems to satisfy the arguments of both sides. Please bear with me until the end.

Proponents of the estate tax here are arguing from a practical perspective. I haven't read any real arguments in this thread against the practical ramifications against a "properly" implemented estate tax, whatever that may mean. The practical negatives that I see include the requirement of an accompanying income tax and gift tax (of some sort) to prevent easy subversion of the stated point of the tax (reducing dynasties, improving economic output of the born rich, and raising money). And of course you have the (near certain) practical negative of congress not implementing these three taxes "properly".

Those who take the other side are approaching it from a philosophic perspective. This is the philosophy of the founders, not only in that it is outside the narrow role defined for the government, but also that it creates a tyranny of the majority, where the individual is harmed for the benefit of the many. We currently have a federal government that is so powerful the people themselves have very little effect on its functions (ie. ~80% of americans want to stop illegal immigration).

The founders wanted a republic so that each state could be it's own society. Each state would have its own right to self determination, and since the people's enumerated rights are protected by the (more powerful in terms of arms) federal government, any local tyranny could be overthrown through the exercise of those rights. The idea of apportioned taxation is that the states could implement their own means of raising revenue, the means that their constituents decided on.

Some people hate income taxes, others hate property taxes, others hate consumption taxes. Let people elicit change in their state to function the way they want or allow them to move to another state that they prefer. Don't make leaving the country the only viable option. And let states compete on these matters of policy.

This is the federalist (or anti-federalist) position that Ron Paul would probably take. It's a lot better than what we have now, which is why I think so many of us libertarians support him. I don't think any libertarians would see this as the ultimate solution at the state level, however. We generally don't want taxes, whether they're at the state or federal level.

[user]

Matter that is not conscious cannot have rights because it has no choice. If it acted on its choice before it's death, that it its right - otherwise it loses it's rights upon death. And we, as a people, decide what is just to do with his property. If we believe that someone with over 100m dollars should be taxed on his death, when he no longer has rights, we implement this as a society because we understand that his wealth accumulation occured under the prosperity of a government that ensured his liberty was not violated. We do this to ensure future liberty is not violated and aristocracy does not form.

In my opinion, 99% of people should be exempt from this tax.

Even if we accept your reasoning, the only justified death tax would then be a 100% tax on ALL estates that is redistributed to every member of society equally. By your argument, why should 99% of people be exempt? Do some dead people have more rights than other dead people?


i just slide "dead people have no rights" into my 3rd point. the dead guy can't complain about a violation of his rights. It doesn't seem to me that they have any rights.

I personally don't see property rights extending beyond death.

and since we have to pick from among bad taxes, taxing the dead guy who can't complain seems like a winner.

tax me when I'm dead. really..

until then, how about I get to keep all my stuff.

I'm off to bed soon.

THanks to all who had a pleasant discussion on this!

It sucks having to choose what tax to use. Any time you use force to take money it's bad. There are good arguments to be made against the estate tax, but I'm not convinced they are any better than arguments against other taxes...at least I'm not convinced yet.

Let's get Ron elected. I'm not all that worried about the estate tax anyway...a nice flat tarrif would be fine to...we'll hammer that out

Good night bdmarti, and thanks for the conversation.

in Ron's second term.
I like your thinking.

[Avalon]

We generally don't want taxes, whether they're at the state or federal level. Generally doesn't enter into it. Government at all levels NEEDS some money to operate. How you raise that money should be determined by the people, libertarians included (but not limited to them).

[jamesmadison]

Even if we accept your reasoning, the only justified death tax would then be a 100% tax on ALL estates that is redistributed to every member of society equally. By your argument, why should 99% of people be exempt? Do some dead people have more rights than other dead people?



Good night bdmarti, and thanks for the conversation.

I like your thinking.

Because the average person, through financial means, cannot negatively impact liberty through lobbying or any means possible where money can influence government. Government, a function of people which exists to promote liberty within its borders, should tax the rich who have accumulated wealth under freedoms that exist within its borders when they die.

[Churchill2004]

Generally doesn't enter into it. Government at all levels NEEDS some money to operate. How you raise that money should be determined by the people, libertarians included (but not limited to them).

How about we just keep cutting the size of government, and if at some points disaster results, we'll stop. If that point is no government (or a voluntarily funded "government"), all the better. If that point is a minarchist-libertarian government, that's great, too. The ideal is to have the smallest government possible, and that means not excluding any system as "not enough" government.

[user]

Generally doesn't enter into it. Government at all levels NEEDS some money to operate. How you raise that money should be determined by the people, libertarians included (but not limited to them).

Even if we assume you're right, a democratic decision could still violate natural rights.

[user]

Because the average person, through financial means, cannot negatively impact liberty through lobbying or any means possible where money can influence government. Government, a function of people which exists to promote liberty within its borders, should tax the rich who have accumulated wealth under freedoms that exist within its borders when they die.

You're not really responding to my argument, so what can I say?

[lloydian]

I am absolutely stunned by the ammount of people on this thread that support the Estate Tax.

How in the world can one support Ron Paul and at the same time agree that the government has a right to forcefully seize assets (against his wishes stated when living) of the deceased and his heirs.

This is shocking. Geez guys - this is redistribution of wealth in its purest form.

[Goldwater Conservative]

It's not an issue that excites a lot of people, nor would it even if they fully understood it (that's what sets it apart from the Fed, gold standard, etc.). He should answer honestly about his opinion, as he always does, but he shouldn't make it any special part of his campaign.

And I see the "death tax stops aristocracy" sentiment has more support here than I would have guessed. The way I see it, if you inherit a lot of money but are an idiot, you'll waste it away anyway. Otherwise, I don't see the problem, because a lot of people work hard precisely so they can provide generously for their family, and often a big one.

All the death tax does is give people an incentive to waste money in their later years even if they think it'd be better off being passed to their heirs. I think there are better ways to prevent aristocracy, including having a free enterprise economic system that enables great social mobility, unlike much of Europe. Personally, I'm against it.

[user]

There are better ways to prevent aristocracy, including having a free enterprise economic system that enables great social mobility, unlike much of Europe.

I agree. Replacing corporatism with capitalism would do a lot more to prevent aristocracy than a death tax.