But giving your resources to your heirs is a transaction, assets change hands – this is a typical occasion for governments to collect taxes.

How is it so drastically different from a situation when your employer sends you a paycheck – from his resources, already taxed? In fact, your employer can even be a member of your family, your father, for example.

I agree that what one does with his resources is his business, but once he decides to give his resources to someone else – all bets are off.

That virtual moment when these resources are hanging in limbo – relinquished by the previous owner but not secured by the new owner yet – at this vulnerable moment the government pops up out of nowhere and says: ‘I am the only guarantor and only reason you are being able to perform this transaction and I want my share.’ And inheritance is as much of a transaction as any other, correct?

Does it make sense to you, James?

Many people also believe Elvis didn’t really die on the toilet in 1977. I have yet to see a reason why I should take the first group any more seriously than I take the second.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

Namely their persons, their houses, their papers, and their effects. The constitution strangely lacks the idea of all wealth generation being a result of state largess. The law of the land is already biased in favor of an individual right to property.

uncle Kvetch – Many individuals do infact believe that taxation is a form of legal theft. Some simply believe that you should only be taxed once. After that what you do with your resources is your business.

Wouldn’t said individual be against all taxes on the same grounds?

And wouldn’t it be logical for those of us who actually live on Planet Earth to ask said individual just what kind of ideal world they envision, given that they view taxation in this way?

Your stance that “it is by the grace and actions of the state that people are able to build fortunes.” is an unproven presupposition.

the idea that “property rights” is an individual right.

Perhaps Marx was even more foresighted than the most fervent Marxists believe.

r. clayton – Your stance that “it is by the grace and actions of the state that people are able to build fortunes.” is an unproven presupposition.

And people are offended by a philosophy that implies they have no natural right to do this – that being able to leave their worldly goods to their family is possible only at the discretion of the state according to whatever arbitrary limit is in effect at the time of their death.

I must’ve missed the part where I made claims about the Democratic leadership.

Finally, why do libertarians object so much more vigorously to taxes on “unearned” income than they do to income taxes and payroll taxes?

But the estate tax, as constituted is not a tax on income (earned or unearned) but on wealth. As for capital gains vs labor. I believe they should be taxed equally myself and, in fact, I think the government should be collecting capital gains taxes it’s missing out on.

Why do lots of Americans object to estate taxes because of their effects on small businesses and family farms? Possibly because even though there is not much of that happening now, it has happened recently and, depending on what transpires, may happen again.

Beyond that, many people who would never be affected nevertheless object to the estate tax (and are persuaded to despise it as a ‘death tax’) because of what it embodies—the idea that your assets are yours to dispose of only so long as you stay below the threshold of what the government considers ‘rich’ (which threshold, of course, is subject to review at any time).

The ‘Angel of Death’ loophole, on the other hand, is both an unjustifiable boondoggle (avoidance of any taxes whatsoever on capital gains) and a major source of inheritance windfalls.

What would the effect be of eliminating both the estate tax and ‘angel of death’? Increase or decrease in tax revenues? How much?

Also, to clarify my earlier “ineducable” comment, I was suggesting to John Emerson that MPowell did not appear to be one of the fanatics he was warning me about. And I did not apply the word to people who have a particular political philosophy but to people who would continue to believe that the estate tax affects thousands of “ordinary folks” and “family farmers” rather than the top 2% (or as amended 0.3%) of estate.

Finally, why do libertarians object so much more vigorously to taxes on “unearned” income than they do to income taxes and payroll taxes? I suppose it’s because the estate tax and taxes on capital gains are more oppressive to the godlike capitalist supermen who create our world (and their equally deserving idiot children), while the income and payroll taxes oppress only us peons. And they wonder why they don’t have a lot of waitresses and janitors flocking to join their party.

Straw man? See response #15 in particular for a succinct expression of the philosophy I was describing:

but having died, I see no reason at all that those goods not return to the care of the greater society from whence they came. This, to me, is the essential arguement for an estate tax – it should be 100% – then there would be a faint chance of an egalitarian society developing.

In other words, your assets are not really ‘yours’, they are on loan from the state and therefore they should naturally revert to the state when you die.

Philosophically, the Dem position (at least judging by the conversation here) seems to be, the original owner is dead, the undeserving heirs didn’t actually earn any of the money, therefore they have no natural right to any of it, therefore it really belongs to the state, and the heirs should count themselves damn lucky for any fraction they get.

Well, that philosophy rubs a lot of people the wrong way—even many of that vast majority who wouldn’t come close to paying anything under the current Democratic proposal. Why? Because providing for one’s children and grandchildren by leaving a legacy is a pretty basic desire. It is one of the things that gives meaning to people’s lives. And people are offended by a philosophy that implies they have no natural right to do this—that being able to leave their worldly goods to their family is possible only at the discretion of the state according to whatever arbitrary limit is in effect at the time of their death.

I think the Dems would do much better to push vigorously for the elimination of the “Angel of Death Loophole” which is patently unfair. Elminating it would generate significant revenues when heirs sold inherited property (and would apply to all estates, not just the uber-rich). This would neatly avoid the ‘small business’ / ‘family farm’ problem (even as a rhetorical device).

OK, what am I missing?

Posted by jet · April 19th, 2005 at 8:49 am

If you live in Fantasyland, where up is down, black is white, and Republicans are not corrupt Plutocrats who kick the poor while fawning over the oligarchs.