Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: How to prove the right of inheritance ?

  1. #1

    Question How to prove the right of inheritance ?

    Hello everyone,
    some people I've spoke to refuse to believe in the right of inheritance (from father to son, for instance) because they say that simple "blood relation" is not enough to configure a voluntary agreement.Of course I'm supposing the scenario without a written will, since there would be no problem if one was made.Well than, how can you (if possible) derive the right of inheritance trough natural law, for instance ?
    Obs: I'm new to libertarianism, so still studying.
    Obs2: I thought that there might be an implied will, derived from the parent's behavior. What do you think ?
    Thanks !



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Usually this is people who don't like wealth to pile up and want things like 100% estate taxes.

    Say okay, 100% estate tax. Congratulations you finally removed all the land from the indigenous peoples. Such colonizer, such imperialism. Much wow.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    Usually this is people who don't like wealth to pile up and want things like 100% estate taxes.

    Say okay, 100% estate tax. Congratulations you finally removed all the land from the indigenous peoples. Such colonizer, such imperialism. Much wow.
    That's not what those links say.

    I see what you're saying now. Bear in mind these are the same people that insist that you signed a social contract agreeing to give them some of your wealth.

    They're not ever going to see things your way. Their goal isn't a logically consistent position. Their goal is to take everything you own. Treat them as such.
    Last edited by angelatc; 07-29-2018 at 10:22 AM.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  6. #5
    The libertarian argument is that you should be able to do what you want with your property. Plus that money has already been taxed. You should be able to write a contract just like any other contract if you are no longer around to make decisions. The practical argument is a 100% inheritance tax wouldn't work and it would make people in general worse off. A 100% inheritance tax would encourage people to squander their money instead of investing it and growing the economy. And people would find ways to shift assets to their heirs.

    All of that said, an inheritance tax is the tax I hate least. The paradox of inheritance is the people most deserving off an inheritance are the people who wouldn't need or want it.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lupan View Post
    Hello everyone,
    some people I've spoke to refuse to believe in the right of inheritance (from father to son, for instance) because they say that simple "blood relation" is not enough to configure a voluntary agreement.Of course I'm supposing the scenario without a written will, since there would be no problem if one was made.Well than, how can you (if possible) derive the right of inheritance trough natural law, for instance ?
    Obs: I'm new to libertarianism, so still studying.
    Obs2: I thought that there might be an implied will, derived from the parent's behavior. What do you think ?
    Thanks !

    Turn it around on them. Who, according to you (them), then holds the right to the deceased's estate? Oh lemme guess... the governmob? Based on what valid assumption?

    Let them attempt to dope it out and wish them good luck. Such people usually make an embarrassment of it. To be frank, they are not worth speaking with, but if you feel compelled, then this is one approach you can take. Turn the tables on them and make them prove the higher claim of a non-blood relation.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "It’s just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill people’s fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  8. #7
    I intend to use the effed up tax code to leave all of my stuff to my family members and pay no taxes .
    Do something Danke

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Plus that money has already been taxed.
    Not necessarily. If a decedent owned securities worth $15 million that he paid $1 million for, the $14 million gain has never been taxed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    You should be able to write a contract just like any other contract if you are no longer around to make decisions.
    A will isn't a contract. It is simply an expression of one's desires regarding the disposition of his property on his death that the government will enforce if the will is prepared and signed with certain formalities.

    Inheritance has always struck me as one of the weaknesses of anarchy: with no government, who determines who gets a decedent's property, especially if there's no will (whether a will should be enforced is a question for another day)? It's hard to see how a dead person can have rights, so if the property that belonged to a decedent while he was alive is simply confiscated by the first person to take possession (like the scene in A Christmas Carol where Scrooge's possessions are taken by his charwoman, laundress, and undertaker), who's in a position to complain?

    Yes, there are ways to avoid this situation (e.g., lifetime gifts of future interests), but people don't always plan ahead like they should.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Not necessarily. If a decedent owned securities worth $15 million that he paid $1 million for, the $14 million gain has never been taxed.



    A will isn't a contract. It is simply an expression of one's desires regarding the disposition of his property on his death that the government will enforce if the will is prepared and signed with certain formalities.

    Inheritance has always struck me as one of the weaknesses of anarchy: with no government, who determines who gets a decedent's property, especially if there's no will (whether a will should be enforced is a question for another day)? It's hard to see how a dead person can have rights, so if the property that belonged to a decedent while he was alive is simply confiscated by the first person to take possession (like the scene in A Christmas Carol where Scrooge's possessions are taken by his charwoman, laundress, and undertaker), who's in a position to complain?

    Yes, there are ways to avoid this situation (e.g., lifetime gifts of future interests), but people don't always plan ahead like they should.
    You form a trust with all your $#@! with your lawyer... and some other lawyers. Your will is a contract with them because they become the owners of the trust when you die.

    Its a hack but it would work pretty easily.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by idiom View Post
    You form a trust with all your $#@! with your lawyer... and some other lawyers. Your will is a contract with them because they become the owners of the trust when you die.

    Its a hack but it would work pretty easily.
    Such a trust would be "contractual" only of it's irrevocable, which may not be a good idea. If the estate is large enough the creator of the trust could owe gift tax because he would have made a completed gift of the future interest in the property, and many people don't want to incur such a tax. In addition, the property owner may wish to change his mind later on and leave his estate to someone else.

    There are many ways to avoid dying intestate. But some people don't want to think about their own death, and as a result they don't plan for the disposition of their property. The issue is what happens if someone doesn't specify who is to receive his property after he dies. In the real world, each state has enacted intestacy laws that spell out who gets the property -- usually spouses and children. But in the absence of government, who is entitled to the decedent's property -- the first one to grab it?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Such a trust would be "contractual" only of it's irrevocable, which may not be a good idea. If the estate is large enough the creator of the trust could owe gift tax because he would have made a completed gift of the future interest in the property, and many people don't want to incur such a tax. In addition, the property owner may wish to change his mind later on and leave his estate to someone else.

    There are many ways to avoid dying intestate. But some people don't want to think about their own death, and as a result they don't plan for the disposition of their property. The issue is what happens if someone doesn't specify who is to receive his property after he dies. In the real world, each state has enacted intestacy laws that spell out who gets the property -- usually spouses and children. But in the absence of government, who is entitled to the decedent's property -- the first one to grab it?
    Ah the libertarian utopia with gift taxes. Marry your lawyer.

    The English had a very interesting tradition of everything going to the eldest surviving child. This had a huge social benefit in that all the other well educated children had to out into the world and start from the bottom. Its stopped a super fat aristocracy from forming as it did in Europe. It also meant serious social mobility.

    The fact that inheritance laws can be so different and yet functional seems to rule out a naturally correct version. The English version sucks for the immediate family, but keeps the wealth intact and benefits broader society.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Not necessarily. If a decedent owned securities worth $15 million that he paid $1 million for, the $14 million gain has never been taxed.
    Probably the same reason the decedent wasn't taxed for it. It isn't taxed until it's cashed in.
    go small or go home
    Taxation is Theft



Similar Threads

  1. Can a non-believer take inheritance of the Kingdom?
    By phill4paul in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 03-05-2014, 11:55 AM
  2. What are the Estate and Inheritance Taxes in your state?
    By Keith and stuff in forum Personal Prosperity
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-22-2013, 04:16 PM
  3. Is Inheritance Good?
    By better-dead-than-fed in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 162
    Last Post: 05-12-2013, 01:55 AM
  4. The Inheritance Tax and Progressive Thought
    By AlexMerced in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-20-2010, 08:47 PM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •