The economy of inheritances

[darynthe]

Many prominent people end up having not kids and/or having a great ammount of wealth.
Often the inheritances end up going to charities in the form of foundations.

I wonder of such situation affects economy in the long run as more often than not this means that money will be given away and spent, as opposed to invested to continue the production cycle.

Therefore a great fortune may end up dissapearing in a generation or less. I was thinking of this as I wondered what happened with the estate of Salvador Dalii who didn't have any kids and also remembered that a certain famous businesswoman gave all her millions to her dog. I seem to think the dog also died and now PETA is claiming stakes on the one hundred millions or so.

Plus someone told me that Bill Gates also planned to leave almost all his immense fortune to his foundation. That would be quite a lot.

Your thoughts?

[SirJac]

Philanthropy isn't new among the worlds elite, so I'm not expecting any changes to how the economy runs from this. It's common for once an elite reaches old age and findly has to decide what to do with the fortune they amassed to turn phlianthropy (Carnegie) and/or use it to build a family legacy (Rockefeller). Certainly the Gates/Buffett foundation will be one to watch due to the combined fortunes of the two billionares, but it's not a new phenomena.

I'm expecting for common inheritances to decline over the long term though, which might have some interesting side effects on the economy. Most old age savings have been ravaged by the recession, forcing many baby boomers to put off retirement. Also their parents are living longer and many no longer have the savingsto support themselves as they were planning. Not to mention the already declining savings that baby boomers have put aside for retirement.

Net result I'd expect to be for there to be a decline in the sizes of inheritances over the next 20 years or so as people become more concerned about having enough savings to support themselves through retirement rather then leaving sizable inheritances for their children.

[Storm]

I think you make a mistake in your argument by assuming that charities don't produce anything. Not being profit driven doesn't mean that production isn't taking place. Often such charities are research based and make new advancements in the arts, sciences, academics, or social goals.

[Mader]

Estate taxes in the US.

First, you really need a will. If you do not have a will, then the state becomes involved and receives up to 30% of the estate. That means that if you are married, or have children, and you neglect to write a will, you will generally divides up the assets three ways.

I do not know if the estate tax (death tax) is currently in place how. This extraordianary law determines a tax that the estate must be paid to the state. This is often a reason why a piece of property is prevented from traveling from generation to generation. This puts family farms and other small businesses out of business.

If they don't have any family to whom they should give other the family goods, I thik it would be best to give your money to an already established charity. Or, do a bit of research before hand, and then use the money to buy land to be placed in a government environmental easement, protecting that land from ever being developed.

[Undead Bonzi]

I think you make a mistake in your argument by assuming that charities don't produce anything. Not being profit driven doesn't mean that production isn't taking place. Often such charities are research based and make new advancements in the arts, sciences, academics, or social goals.

I agree with Storm although I would point out that charities biggest role in the economy is as a consumer. Charities often buy property/food/education for their target groups as well as employ a number of people as support staff if the charity is large enough. Giving money to these organizations does not mean the money vanishes from the market, it simply changes where it will be spent.

For a direct point, the Gates foundations goal is to vaccinate children in Africa. Money spent by them goes to pharamsutical companies who would in turn use the money for R&D/Overhead/Employee ect. Thus the money reenters the economy from a different, more diffuse direction.

Estate taxes in the US.

First, you really need a will. If you do not have a will, then the state becomes involved and receives up to 30% of the estate. That means that if you are married, or have children, and you neglect to write a will, you will generally divides up the assets three ways.

I do not know if the estate tax (death tax) is currently in place how. This extraordianary law determines a tax that the estate must be paid to the state. This is often a reason why a piece of property is prevented from traveling from generation to generation. This puts family farms and other small businesses out of business.

If they don't have any family to whom they should give other the family goods, I thik it would be best to give your money to an already established charity. Or, do a bit of research before hand, and then use the money to buy land to be placed in a government environmental easement, protecting that land from ever being developed.

Actually most simply take advantage of the loophole that allows you to avoid estate tax if you skip a generation with the inheritance (ie grandparents leaving their wealth/land to their grandchildren rather than their children). As long as you skip a gen. the taxes don't hurt you (this is how most family farms/land are passed on now).

[thod]

But we are not taxed as families we are taxed as individuals. Your tax bill has nothing to do with what your father or brother earns. Inheritance is a gift from one individual to another. If I should give you a sum, you would pay tax on that income. So why should inheritance be treated any differently? I say do away with inheritance laws in entirety and treat it as a gift between strangers. Thus you will not have dynastic families retaining their privileged positions, each generation must work add new value if they want to attain the wealth of their forebears.

The problem with inherited wealth is it works against meritocracy. All men are not born equal. One man spends 30 years scrimping and saving to pay a mortgage, another is given a house free, another gets a house, a lump sum and a business. Thus it is not fair.

[Mader]

Families often work for the betterment of the next generation. Why would I bust my ass for 30 years to buy a piece of land, land that I raised my children on, just for that land to be sold to pay taxes. Estate taxes discourage hard work. Often, it is not just the Papa who does the work, families work together.

Remember, no will and the government automatically gets its cut, it does not go to your wife or husband or children or Mom first.

[thod]

Why would I bust my ass for 30 years to buy a piece of land, land that I raised my children on, just for that land to be sold to pay taxes.

You cannot take it with you. You will lose your entire wealth when you die. You wish to gift a gift to a child, and I am happy with that. Yet if you give it to a non blood related, he pays tax, if blood related, he does not. Where would you set the limit? I am related to you, maybe 30 generations back. Should I then not be able to gift you tax free?

[Aristocrat Porn]

You cannot take it with you. You will lose your entire wealth when you die.

Really, you've been there once aye? Tell us more about it.

[thod]

I deduced such from observation. There have been many wealthy men who have died. Not one of them has taken their land or bank balance with them.

The argument we see above is that it discourages work. The point to consider though is why should I care if an alien on some remote planet works hard or not. I never see the fruits of his labour, thus I could not care less how hard he works. Likewise the family farm, if they consume what they produce it matters not one whit to me what that level is. I do not see anything from it. Thus the guy saying I wish to work hard and keep all that I work for is no argument. I do not gain from his work. I would much sooner have someone that works half as hard and pays his taxes. I gain something from that as opposed to nothing. I could not care less about the hard working family farm that gives me nothing. The very best thing that could happen for me is for that family to die. That way there is a vacant farm going for free.

What the inheritors are trying to argue for is aristocracy. A child can have all his need met in a communist system. But they do not wish this, what they are trying to achieve is not a meeting of needs, but to give their chosen child and advantage over other children in the form of wealth. This is patronage, your chances in life are not governed by your own abilities but rather by your obtaining of a patron. Thus each child's position is determined by the abilities of his father. Yet whenever patronage raises one child above another, it disadvantages the other who must compete with fewer resources. I can be the best chess player in the world but I cannot win if I start a queen down. You either support meritocracy or you support aristocracy.

[darynthe]

Thus each child's position is determined by the abilities of his father. Yet whenever patronage raises one child above another, it disadvantages the other who must compete with fewer resources. I can be the best chess player in the world but I cannot win if I start a queen down. You either support meritocracy or you support aristocracy.

But parents work hard to give back the queen to his children. This is more often than not the case with small inheritances, for instance a small apartment for five children, or savings the father made to pay for their university. I don't see how the goverment getting money out of those small savings made with great effort could help anyone.

In what pertains huge wealth, I agree with you, however.





darynthe added to this post, 4 minutes and 17 seconds later...

I think you make a mistake in your argument by assuming that charities don't produce anything. Not being profit driven doesn't mean that production isn't taking place. Often such charities are research based and make new advancements in the arts, sciences, academics, or social goals.

Yeah of course, if done carefully yes, but Storm, truth is very complex when it comes to donations. You should check out what happens with donations of international funds in third world, there is a whole lot of corruption.

They usually build bridges to nowhere all over the place, they have rules to have "experts" of their own country/foundation/family overseeing the whole thing, which ends up eatinig up most of the funds. This happens also with loans, in which case, the third world countries end up with huge debts that are in the pockets of the lenders. This is how the foreign debt of latin american happened.

So beware charities.

Money spent is gone, money invested in capital goods will produce. This is the main distinction I was making in the first post.

[XFire35]

I deduced such from observation. There have been many wealthy men who have died. Not one of them has taken their land or bank balance with them.

The argument we see above is that it discourages work. The point to consider though is why should I care if an alien on some remote planet works hard or not. I never see the fruits of his labour, thus I could not care less how hard he works. Likewise the family farm, if they consume what they produce it matters not one whit to me what that level is. I do not see anything from it. Thus the guy saying I wish to work hard and keep all that I work for is no argument. I do not gain from his work. I would much sooner have someone that works half as hard and pays his taxes. I gain something from that as opposed to nothing. I could not care less about the hard working family farm that gives me nothing. The very best thing that could happen for me is for that family to die. That way there is a vacant farm going for free.

What the inheritors are trying to argue for is aristocracy. A child can have all his need met in a communist system. But they do not wish this, what they are trying to achieve is not a meeting of needs, but to give their chosen child and advantage over other children in the form of wealth. This is patronage, your chances in life are not governed by your own abilities but rather by your obtaining of a patron. Thus each child's position is determined by the abilities of his father. Yet whenever patronage raises one child above another, it disadvantages the other who must compete with fewer resources. I can be the best chess player in the world but I cannot win if I start a queen down. You either support meritocracy or you support aristocracy.

Is that not the meaning of life though, to ensure that your genetic lineage continues, to give your offspring the most advantageous life you can offer, so that in turn they can do the same for their children. It may not be fair, but it is life and makes sense.

[timetraveler]

Many prominent people end up having not kids and/or having a great ammount of wealth.
Often the inheritances end up going to charities in the form of foundations.

I wonder of such situation affects economy in the long run as more often than not this means that money will be given away and spent, as opposed to invested to continue the production cycle.

Therefore a great fortune may end up dissapearing in a generation or less. I was thinking of this as I wondered what happened with the estate of Salvador Dalii who didn't have any kids and also remembered that a certain famous businesswoman gave all her millions to her dog. I seem to think the dog also died and now PETA is claiming stakes on the one hundred millions or so.

Plus someone told me that Bill Gates also planned to leave almost all his immense fortune to his foundation. That would be quite a lot.

Your thoughts?

It's their money, they should be able to leave it to whoever or whatever they want.

[Grimstad]

As someone who is struggling to hold on to the bottom fringes to middle classdom, and stands to inherit nothing from my folks, I am opposed to the inheritance tax as a whole. The concept bothers me.

[hubcap]

What the inheritors are trying to argue for is aristocracy. A child can have all his need met in a communist system. But they do not wish this, what they are trying to achieve is not a meeting of needs, but to give their chosen child and advantage over other children in the form of wealth. This is patronage, your chances in life are not governed by your own abilities but rather by your obtaining of a patron. Thus each child's position is determined by the abilities of his father. Yet whenever patronage raises one child above another, it disadvantages the other who must compete with fewer resources. I can be the best chess player in the world but I cannot win if I start a queen down. You either support meritocracy or you support aristocracy.
I support the government keeping it's hands out of the citizen's pockets.

Life is not fair so we need to get past the whole fairness thing.

Laboring under the impression that government is going to make things fair by leveling the playing field is quite idealogical but also quite delusional.

Your argument that one must support either or is flawed. In a true aristocracy an individual cannot change his status. In our system a rich person can end up poor and a poor person can end up rich. Also, in our system the amount of wealth one possess' does not determine the social class in which one exists.

[Hamburglar]

obviously forced equality is not equal at all... but what about equitable distributions of wealth, power, etc...?

[Lucid]

I support the government keeping it's hands out of the citizen's pockets.

Life is not fair so we need to get past the whole fairness thing.

But aren't you against the government taxing citizens because you think it's unfair?

[Tyrant Soup]

Life is not fair so we need to get past the whole fairness thing.


If you own something I want, why shouldn't I just shoot you between the eyes and take it from you. If I get prosecuted, I'll just use the ingenious "Life ain't fair. Get over it" defense.





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 2 minutes and 50 seconds later...

As someone who is struggling to hold on to the bottom fringes to middle classdom, and stands to inherit nothing from my folks, I am opposed to the inheritance tax as a whole. The concept bothers me.

So? Should universal moral principles be based on your gut feelings? :)





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 4 minutes and 51 seconds later...

It's their money, they should be able to leave it to whoever or whatever they want.

The supreme arbitrator of ethics has spoken. Case closed. :)

[Grimstad]

So? Should universal moral principles be based on your gut feelings? :)

As good as that sounds I'm pretty sure I don't want the responsility.

[hubcap]

obviously forced equality is not equal at all... but what about equitable distributions of wealth, power, etc...?
So who gets to decide what's equitable? You?

How about letting people determine what they want to do with the legally gained fruits of their labor?

Tyrant Soup wrote:
If you own something I want, why shouldn't I just shoot you between the eyes and take it from you. If I get prosecuted, I'll just use the ingenious "Life ain't fair. Get over it" defense.
Do you really expect me to take this seriously?

The bottom line is that personal property rights must be recognized. As soon as those rights are relinquished you no longer own yourself, and the government can tell you how to run every aspect of your life.





hubcap added to this post, 4 minutes and 20 seconds later...

So? Should universal moral principles be based on your gut feelings?

Not at all. They should be based on the fact that every person owns themself and no one has the right to interfere with another person's self-ownership. In other words leave people alone to do what they want to do with themselves and their legally gained private property.

[Hamburglar]

So who gets to decide what's equitable? You?

How about letting people determine what they want to do with the legally gained fruits of their labor?


Hey bro, I have a game for you:
Game (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

ha-ha-ha....Yes, I get to decide, and so do you, and everyone else. Democracy for the win.
I have a much different notion of representative democracy than most. I would be happy to share, but it's OT.

I have a question for the anti-inheritance tax people. Would you support a system where:

Income taxes are abolished
A federal sales tax is instituted
All income and property has to be reported to the fed on a bi-annual basis
At death 66% of your "wealth" is taxed.
-This number is not arbitrary. I chose it because it is a significant portion and encourages people to work that much harder to leave more for their children. If your children will only inherit 1/3 of your wealth, there is a lot of incentive to make sure that the 1/3 is large. 1/3 of 6million is still 2million dollars right? So your kids will have a leg up, just not as big of one; which will allow the fed, hopefully, to level the playing field/i.e. public funded edu, health care, defense, and all other functions of government. (it should also be noted that many wealthy Americans are making the choice to donate all their money to charity, this should be encouraged and non-taxed. So long as they are not donating to so called 'human-funds'-Seinfeld reference.)

This is all really hypothetical, but meant to spur conversation. Have at it.

[paleoeco]

Estate taxes in the US.

First, you really need a will. If you do not have a will, then the state becomes involved and receives up to 30% of the estate. That means that if you are married, or have children, and you neglect to write a will, you will generally divides up the assets three ways.

I do not know if the estate tax (death tax) is currently in place how. This extraordianary law determines a tax that the estate must be paid to the state. This is often a reason why a piece of property is prevented from traveling from generation to generation. This puts family farms and other small businesses out of business.

If they don't have any family to whom they should give other the family goods, I thik it would be best to give your money to an already established charity. Or, do a bit of research before hand, and then use the money to buy land to be placed in a government environmental easement, protecting that land from ever being developed.

Empahsis mine: Current estate-tax law has a specific exemption for family-farms. Don't just parrot the "death-tax" talking points, Mader.

Also, I don't believe it's all that "extraordinary" when we look at the actual figures.


Estates must file tax returns within nine months of the decedent’s death. Thus, most returns filed in 2007 were for people dying in 2006 when the estate tax exemption was $2 million. About 2.4 million people died in that year; of those, only 1 in 73 generated an estate tax return and only 1 in 163 had to pay any estate tax

1 in 163 means that in 2006, only .6% of all people dying had an estate which required payment on taxes. I don't consider this to be so significant as to be a huge drain on people's hard work or much of a deterant to attempting to provide for your children and grandchildren.

[Profit]

I have a question for the anti-inheritance tax people. Would you support a system where:

Income taxes are abolished
A federal sales tax is instituted
All income and property has to be reported to the fed on a bi-annual basis
At death 66% of your "wealth" is taxed.
-This number is not arbitrary. I chose it because it is a significant portion and encourages people to work that much harder to leave more for their children. If your children will only inherit 1/3 of your wealth, there is a lot of incentive to make sure that the 1/3 is large. 1/3 of 6million is still 2million dollars right? So your kids will have a leg up, just not as big of one; which will allow the fed, hopefully, to level the playing field/i.e. public funded edu, health care, defense, and all other functions of government. (it should also be noted that many wealthy Americans are making the choice to donate all their money to charity, this should be encouraged and non-taxed. So long as they are not donating to so called 'human-funds'-Seinfeld reference.)

This is all really hypothetical, but meant to spur conversation. Have at it.

Interesting Ham, although I have very few problems with the inheritance tax I'm going to throw my thoughts in the ring anyway. The federal sales tax worries me because it would be shifting the burden of taxes to the middle and lower class (being the largest group they would be paying the largest percentage of federal taxes). How large of a sales tax are we talking (I know you can't answer that)? This could have a huge impact on those living pay check to pay check already or even those in the middle class trying to pay down debt and/or build up savings. As far as the 66% 'death' tax...if someone only leaves property, say 100 acres of farmland, to their children will they 'owe' the fed 66% of the value of the property at the time of inheritance? Or will they only owe the fed money when/if they sell the property?

[Hamburglar]

Interesting Ham, although I have very few problems with the inheritance tax I'm going to throw my thoughts in the ring anyway. The federal sales tax worries me because it would be shifting the burden of taxes to the middle and lower class (being the largest group they would be paying the largest percentage of federal taxes). How large of a sales tax are we talking (I know you can't answer that)? This could have a huge impact on those living pay check to pay check already or even those in the middle class trying to pay down debt and/or build up savings. As far as the 66% 'death' tax...if someone only leaves property, say 100 acres of farmland, to their children will they 'owe' the fed 66% of the value of the property at the time of inheritance? Or will they only owe the fed money when/if they sell the property?

I was thinking of these objections while I was writing, thank you for addressing them. I fully realize that this shift would be occurring, but saying that the largest portion is paying the largest portion is not really a valid criticism. They would be paying their fair share, right? This could then justified by the fact that when you die you pay your fair share as well, 66% of your wealth. So even if the upper class doesn't spend a whole lot more than the lower classes (that is debatable) they will be paying their fair share when they die.
The property question was an interesting quandary. But I think it has to stand that you would owe the gov't 66% of your wealth, which includes property. So if you wanted to keep the property you would have to 'buy-out' the government or sell, take the remaining 1/3 and create your own stake.

I do realize the flaw of my argument which is that it leads to corporatism, but I do not know that is necessarily a bad thing.

[Causa Mortis]

Many prominent people end up having not kids and/or having a great ammount of wealth.
Often the inheritances end up going to charities in the form of foundations.

I wonder of such situation affects economy in the long run as more often than not this means that money will be given away and spent, as opposed to invested to continue the production cycle.

Therefore a great fortune may end up dissapearing in a generation or less. I was thinking of this as I wondered what happened with the estate of Salvador Dalii who didn't have any kids and also remembered that a certain famous businesswoman gave all her millions to her dog. I seem to think the dog also died and now PETA is claiming stakes on the one hundred millions or so.

Plus someone told me that Bill Gates also planned to leave almost all his immense fortune to his foundation. That would be quite a lot.

Your thoughts?

Congratulations on thinking about non-traditional forms of economics using the economic frame of mind! That's difficult to do and requires a robust understanding of the basic principles of economics.

That said, I do not think that inheritence dispersal significantly impacts real levels of capital, and the relationship between capital and income is basically 0 for developed economies. Capital looks like it matters a lot to go from a 3rd world country to a 1st, but once you are a first world economy, technology and human capital become much more important.

[Tyrant Soup]

How about letting people determine what they want to do with the legally gained fruits of their labor?

But a person who inherited property did not lift a finger to produce it.


Do you really expect me to take this seriously?

Most definitely. If you don't believe in fairness, then anything goes. Might is right.


The bottom line is that personal property rights must be recognized. As soon as those rights are relinquished you no longer own yourself, and the government can tell you how to run every aspect of your life.

I think you are overly fixated on the narrow focus of property rights. Property rights are not intrinsic. You have no rights unless others are willing to defend them on your behalf. They won't do this for free. You need to make it worth their while.

[hubcap]

But a person who inherited property did not lift a finger to produce it.

If I give you a gift that you did nothing to earn do you think the government should tax the gift? The fact that the person who inherits the property didn't "earn" the property is irrelevant.


Most definitely. If you don't believe in fairness, then anything goes. Might is right.
Wrong. Anything only goes when anarchy exists.


I think you are overly fixated on the narrow focus of property rights. Property rights are not intrinsic. You have no rights unless others are willing to defend them on your behalf. They won't do this for free. You need to make it worth their while.
Property rights are an absolute necessity in order for liberty to exist. If property rights aren't absolute then neither are any other rights.

Does this sound familiar? -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You do know what "unalienable Rights" are don't you?

[MikeC]

Plus someone told me that Bill Gates also planned to leave almost all his immense fortune to his foundation. That would be quite a lot.
Your thoughts?

Even Warren Buffett is leaving most of his wealth to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A foundation that aims to benefit as many people as possible sounds good in my book.


Money spent is gone, money invested in capital goods will produce. This is the main distinction I was making in the first post.

You have missed out the most vital input of production - the human capital.

Point #1 - Without their brains and the intersecting opportunistic time and space, the astronomical returns on capital is simply unsustainable. Or else, the Rockefellers and the descendents of Carnegie (these guys are waaaay richer than BIll Gates) would still be the richest people around. Yeah, I know, they are still fucking wealthy. Rich kids are more likely to blow it all. The Chinese believe that wealth does not normally last long enough for the fourth generation.

Point #2 - Diminishing rates of return also applies to the quantum of returns on funds. It would be difficult to have a portfolio of $100 billion and expect it to grow at a compounding rate of 25% perpetually.

Point #3 - Even greedy people have a point of satiation where the marginal increase in wealth does not yield as much marginal utility. This is when you see rich people giving away money.

Point #4 - Rich people don't give money away willy-nilly. The principles of maximising returns still applies to charity.

[paleoeco]

Property rights are an absolute necessity in order for liberty to exist. If property rights aren't absolute then neither are any other rights.

Can you please explain this "absolute necessity" between property rights and liberty? To make this claim, you need to provide some rationale as to why is this the case.

[hubcap]

Can you please explain this "absolute necessity" between property rights and liberty? To make this claim, you need to provide some rationale as to why is this the case.

No problem.

There are only 3 possible means of ownership of individuals.

1. You own yourself.
2. Someone else owns you.......ie the King
3. Everyone owns everyone........ie socialism or communism

Self-ownership is the correct answer for citizens of this nation as the Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear that LIBERTY was an inalienable right when they wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence.

Ownership of property is a necessary implication of self-ownership because all human action involves property of one form or another. Property is not limited to land or goods but is anything that people can use, control or dispose of. Intellectual property is recognized as property just the same as capital, or land.

Individuals must have the right to acquire and exchange property in order to fulfill their needs and desires. In order for individuals to save and invest they need to be assured that their property rights are secure............In other words that the government isn't going to come seize them because the majority of voters feel it isn't fair.

Freedom of speech is in fact a property right. Where does a man possess the right to free speech? Only when he is on his own property or the property of someone who has agreed to let him be present.

Without unalienable property rights, no other rights are unalienable.

[Hamburglar]

your notion of a link between liberty and property is confounding to say the least. Especially considering that liberty must be forsaken in order to secure property rights...

[phej]

Self-ownership is the correct answer for citizens of this nation as the Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear that LIBERTY was an inalienable right when they wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence.

your notion of a link between liberty and property is confounding to say the least. Especially considering that liberty must be forsaken in order to secure property rights...

Hi hubcap and Hamburglar, before this turns flamey, would both of you define liberty in a [spoiler] tag?

[Tristan]

Especially considering that liberty must be forsaken in order to secure property rights...

You can't just shill this out without an explanation.

[hubcap]

your notion of a link between liberty and property is confounding to say the least. Especially considering that liberty must be forsaken in order to secure property rights...

Yes, this statement definitely requires an explanation.





hubcap added to this post, 9 minutes and 27 seconds later...

This is liberty - The right of individuals to live as they choose, to speak and worship freely, to own property, to engage in commerce, to come and go without permission and without having to answer for their actions providing they do not violate the right of other individuals to do the same. The right to utilize and dispose of their legally gained private property as they choose, and without coercion.

In other words - You can do anything you want to do as long as you don't interfere with or coerce other individuals.

As a side note - fraudulent behavior violates the liberty of others. If you and I make a contact but I misrepresent my position and you end up with less than you had bargained for I would be guilty of defrauding you of your private property.

[undfined]

Life isn't fair. Philanthropy offsets. It's a very rewarding duty.

Most inheritances go unnoticed and donations are a lot smaller than I thought in college - but $165 is a semester of school for a kid in Mexico so a grand goes further.

I'm a member of a non-profit that is basically a venture capital fund for non-profits. It's just as fun and rewarding as the "real" thing.

On a side note, my experience is entrepreneurs are either individuals that broke the chain of mediocrity or are sons & daughters of those people. And the kids are better at it. More balanced and struggle with the guilt of inheritance - which drives the social duty.

The best ones are highly intellectual and lift their fingers in an entrepreneurial way.

[paleoeco]

No problem.

There are only 3 possible means of ownership of individuals.

1. You own yourself.
2. Someone else owns you.......ie the King
3. Everyone owns everyone........ie socialism or communism

Self-ownership is the correct answer for citizens of this nation as the Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear that LIBERTY was an inalienable right when they wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence.

Ownership of property is a necessary implication of self-ownership because all human action involves property of one form or another. Property is not limited to land or goods but is anything that people can use, control or dispose of. Intellectual property is recognized as property just the same as capital, or land.

Individuals must have the right to acquire and exchange property in order to fulfill their needs and desires. In order for individuals to save and invest they need to be assured that their property rights are secure............In other words that the government isn't going to come seize them because the majority of voters feel it isn't fair.

Freedom of speech is in fact a property right. Where does a man possess the right to free speech? Only when he is on his own property or the property of someone who has agreed to let him be present.

Without unalienable property rights, no other rights are unalienable.

First of all, I think your notion of "owning" yourself is a crock of bull. Individual liberty isn't based on some philosophical notion that we "own" our bodies - in fact, individual liberty is based on the premise that we ARE ourselves.

This is a case of semantics for you. In order to support your belief that property rights are paramount, you stretch common use of the word "own".

I would also argue that this notion of "self-ownership" was not the driving force of our Founding Fathers' understanding of LIBERTY. If in fact it were, they would have consciously placed "property" or "self-ownership" as one of the inalienable rights. It makes no sense for someone to consciously be aware that he considers X to be a prerequesite of Y, and yet only claim Y to be necessary.

[hubcap]

First of all, I think your notion of "owning" yourself is a crock of bull. Individual liberty isn't based on some philosophical notion that we "own" our bodies - in fact, individual liberty is based on the premise that we ARE ourselves.
I don't disagree with this statement except that self-ownership was not assumed during the time of the Founding Fathers. In fact the King or other members of royalty did claim ownership over the people. At that time it was not self-evident that an individual had rights simple because he WAS himself.

This is a case of semantics for you. In order to support your belief that property rights are paramount, you stretch common use of the word "own".
It is not semantics, but a logical extension of the concept of ownership.

I would also argue that this notion of "self-ownership" was not the driving force of our Founding Fathers' understanding of LIBERTY. If in fact it were, they would have consciously placed "property" or "self-ownership" as one of the inalienable rights. It makes no sense for someone to consciously be aware that he considers X to be a prerequesite of Y, and yet only claim Y to be necessary.
I do not argue that "self-ownership" was the driving force, rather a logical extension of the liberty pursued by the Founding Fathers.

The larger question regarding personal property is simply this: Who owns the fruit produced by my labor? My position is that I own the fruits of my labor. Being the owner, I am the only person with the authority to determine how I want to dispose of that property.

Here is a simple example:

My employer and I agree that I will be paid $x for a weeks' worth of work. During the week I produce 100 widgets. At the end of the week my employer pays me $x per our agreement. I have no claim on the widgets that I have produced because they are the property of my employer. However, I OWN the $x that I was paid. I determine how I want to use that personal property. Let's say that I die in my sleep on Friday night before spending any of my $x.

Some of you argue that the government is entitled to confiscate my money upon my death because life isn't fair. I simply argue that the government is not entitled to my private property that was legally gained through my work for my employer. BECAUSE - who is the government? It is simply the "people" of the United States. Why do the rest of the citizens of the United States lay claim to MY private property?

Inheritance taxation is simply a tool used by politicians to create "class envy" for the purpose of gaining votes from those who do not possess the same level of wealth.

The "people" of the United States have no legitimate claim to the fruits of my labor.

[ArtistTyrant]

I'm against the death tax.

[paleoeco]

Some of you argue that the government is entitled to confiscate my money upon my death because life isn't fair. I simply argue that the government is not entitled to my private property that was legally gained through my work for my employer. BECAUSE - who is the government? It is simply the "people" of the United States. Why do the rest of the citizens of the United States lay claim to MY private property?

Inheritance taxation is simply a tool used by politicians to create "class envy" for the purpose of gaining votes from those who do not possess the same level of wealth.

The "people" of the United States have no legitimate claim to the fruits of my labor.

Quite simply, taxes ought to be thought of as membership fees. You are a citizen of the US. There are certain perks that are associated with that membership: protection from our military, the social structure of our country, the infrastructure, etc. Now, while you claim the "people" of the US or even the government of the US has no inherent claim to the fruits of your labor (your wage), you earn that wage in a country which has provided certain things for you: protection, roads to get to work, etc. It's a point of reciprocity.

Now, there's a whole world of debate about the progressive or regressive nature of taxation to provide those things; a world of debate about what are legitimate things that state ought to provide, etc. This isn't the point of that debate.

You claim that people and the government have no claim to your labor, when in fact, your labor is possibly only because of the environment provided by the government (regulations or lack thereof that allow the business to be located here, roads to get back and forth to work, protection from foriegn enemies such that there's a here to have a business and therefore for you to work at).

Claims that taxation are unwarrented is like your walking into a swanky country club, using the pool, playing golf, eating at the clubhouse, and then balking when your asked to pay your monthly membership.

As for inheritance taxes: a significant point about the US is that it's "idealized" to be a meritocracy. We fought a revolution to change the social order away from a landed aristocracy. That's the point of the inheritance tax - to prevent this notion that generation after generation can maintain a position of privilege by no other virture than being luckily born to a specific parent. Keep in mind that in 2007, less than .06% of all estates had this tax levied against them.

I find it immensely ironic that people who claim that's it's "class warfare" are in fact the ones who are attempting to maintain the class inequities. If Warren Buffet's children never do anything other than live off their father's wealth, by what measure of "labor" or "merit" have they earned it?

[hubcap]

Quite simply, taxes ought to be thought of as membership fees. You are a citizen of the US. There are certain perks that are associated with that membership: protection from our military, the social structure of our country, the infrastructure, etc. Now, while you claim the "people" of the US or even the government of the US has no inherent claim to the fruits of your labor (your wage), you earn that wage in a country which has provided certain things for you: protection, roads to get to work, etc. It's a point of reciprocity.
Your view is not uncommon, it is however illogical. The government is "the people". You treat the government as if it were some autonomous third party, when it fact it is simply an extension of "the people". A second point is that - I already paid my "membership fees" as you call them. I pay them every week as the government confiscates my money through income taxes, personal property taxes, excise taxes, use taxes, sales taxes etc etc.


You claim that people and the government have no claim to your labor, when in fact, your labor is possibly only because of the environment provided by the government (regulations or lack thereof that allow the business to be located here, roads to get back and forth to work, protection from foriegn enemies such that there's a here to have a business and therefore for you to work at).
Once again you seem to overlook the fact that the government is "the people" and all of us who work or own property are already paying taxes for the roads, the military etc etc.

Claims that taxation are unwarrented is like your walking into a swanky country club, using the pool, playing golf, eating at the clubhouse, and then balking when your asked to pay your monthly membership.
Again - I've already paid the taxes.

As for inheritance taxes: a significant point about the US is that it's "idealized" to be a meritocracy. We fought a revolution to change the social order away from a landed aristocracy. That's the point of the inheritance tax - to prevent this notion that generation after generation can maintain a position of privilege by no other virture than being luckily born to a specific parent. Keep in mind that in 2007, less than .06% of all estates had this tax levied against them.
On this point you couldn't be more wrong. The revolution was fought to change the social order away from a monarchy in which the "subjects" had no liberty; into a republic in which the "citizens" were guaranteed liberty. The fact that .06% of the estates had inheritance taxes is irrelevant. What if I told you that only .06% of citizens were robbed by armed robbers last year, would that make it OK? It's the same thing - confiscation of private property through force.

I find it immensely ironic that people who claim that's it's "class warfare" are in fact the ones who are attempting to maintain the class inequities. If Warren Buffet's children never do anything other than live off their father's wealth, by what measure of "labor" or "merit" have they earned it?
What does "earned" have to do with anything? I find it immensely ironic that those who want to confiscate the wealth of others do it under the guise of "fairness", and it simply smacks of petty jealousy.

[Lucid]

I'm against the death tax.

You should explain why you're against it.

[Tyrant Soup]

If I give you a gift that you did nothing to earn do you think the government should tax the gift? The fact that the person who inherits the property didn't "earn" the property is irrelevant.

You presented no argument whatsoever to support your position. Simply asserting it is not enough. You are not a recognized arbitrator of values. Your preferences carry no weight.

You actually try to assert that fairness is irrelevant. Not only is this point contentious, but it's downright silly. If you expect anyone to take your views seriously, you need to present support.

How do you propose we settle disagreements between individuals if the concept of fairness was rejected?


If property rights aren't absolute then neither are any other rights.

Exactly. There are no absolute rights.


You do know what "unalienable Rights" are don't you?


Declarations are worth less than the paper they're written on unless they can be enforced.

Go to Afghanistan and smugly announce to the Taliban that your rights to religion and free speech are inalienable. See what happens.

[ArtistTyrant]

You should explain why you're against it.

Because it doesn't make sense to tax someone at a rate of over 30% for their whole life to subsidize people that are lazier and have less education, and then when that person dies, with stuff to give their family, the government goes in and takes some of it.

[hubcap]

You presented no argument whatsoever to support your position. Simply asserting it is not enough. You are not a recognized arbitrator of values. Your preferences carry no weight.
Neither do yours. The government can only enforce through coercion. So are you going to suggest the "Might makes right" theory?

You actually try to assert that fairness is irrelevant. Not only is this point contentious, but it's downright silly. If you expect anyone to take your views seriously, you need to present support.
I'll tell you what. You explain to me your definition of fairness and convince me that fairness is relevant.

How do you propose we settle disagreements between individuals if the concept of fairness was rejected?
Pistols at 20 paces.


Exactly. There are no absolute rights.
Sure there are, you just have to be willing to defend them. You know like the all those dead guys.

Declarations are worth less than the paper they're written on unless they can be enforced.
Right. That's why the government was instituted, to secure the unalienable rights of individuals.

Go to Afghanistan and smugly announce to the Taliban that your rights to religion and free speech are inalienable. See what happens.Have you been there? If not I'd suggest using a different example.

[Hamburglar]

Pistols at 20 paces.
Sure there are, you just have to be willing to defend them. You know like the all those dead guys.



Pistol justice...now there is a 21st century common sense idea to settle our grievances.
Maybe we could just throw dice???? Rock-paper-scissors???? Conversations like these demonstrate a fully incomplete world view, understanding of the nature of violence, etc. Nothing happens as spontaneously as many would like to believe. If you found yourself in a dual, you likely caused someone harm. Do you really deserve a chance to shoot the person you harmed to get away with your behavior? Our system allows you to shoot some people along the way to make a fortune but it expects to take some of the loot when you die.

[Lucid]

Because it doesn't make sense to tax someone at a rate of over 30% for their whole life to subsidize people that are lazier and have less education, and then when that person dies, with stuff to give their family, the government goes in and takes some of it.

Actually, a very small amount of your taxes goes to improving things for poor people. Most of your taxes go to take care of the elderly and to fund wars. But can you tell me why it doesn't make sense?

[thod]

Because it doesn't make sense to tax someone at a rate of over 30% for their whole life to subsidize people that are lazier and have less education, and then when that person dies, with stuff to give their family, the government goes in and takes some of it.

When you earn some money the government takes its percentage. You then take that money and pay the plumber for fixing your pipes, and he too pays the government. The plumber cannot argue that since you have already paid tax on that money he should be exempt. Every transaction is taxed.

There have been cases of employers giving gifts to their employees instead of wages. The IRS is not fooled, they treat the gifts as benefit in kind and they are taxed at market values. Should you give a gift to someone else they will be taxed on that as income (small sums are exempt to allow for Christmas presents).

Thus all that is being asked is for a regularization of the procedure, a removal of the blood exemption. That offspring receiving the gift be treated in the same way as if the millionaire had chosen a non blood relative to give it to.

The problem is clear. Two men are born, one receives a free house, the other must work and hand over most of his income for 30 years to achieve the same. Thus one is born a free man the other is born a slave. Both require shelter and cannot opt out. The issue is very close to that of slavery where your fate is determined by an accident of birth.

[hubcap]

When you earn some money the government takes its percentage. You then take that money and pay the plumber for fixing your pipes, and he too pays the government. The plumber cannot argue that since you have already paid tax on that money he should be exempt. Every transaction is taxed.

There have been cases of employers giving gifts to their employees instead of wages. The IRS is not fooled, they treat the gifts as benefit in kind and they are taxed at market values. Should you give a gift to someone else they will be taxed on that as income (small sums are exempt to allow for Christmas presents).
You assume the government is entitled to a percentage of someone's earnings. I do not.

Thus all that is being asked is for a regularization of the procedure, a removal of the blood exemption. That offspring receiving the gift be treated in the same way as if the millionaire had chosen a non blood relative to give it to.

The problem is clear. Two men are born, one receives a free house, the other must work and hand over most of his income for 30 years to achieve the same. Thus one is born a free man the other is born a slave. Both require shelter and cannot opt out. The issue is very close to that of slavery where your fate is determined by an accident of birth.
One is not born a slave simply because he doesn't inherit a house. Someone at one time paid for the house that someone else inherits. Just because you don't think its fair because your buddy inherited a house and you didn't means nothing.

Besides, who gets to decide what exactly fair is? You?

[Tyrant Soup]

I'll tell you what. You explain to me your definition of fairness and convince me that fairness is relevant.

What is fairness? It is the idea that each person should have equal opportunities to reap the benefits of their labor. Why is it important? Because the need for fairness is so ingrained into our psyche that we would not voluntarily contribute to a cooperative that consistently fails to meet this need. It is also irrational to accept bad deals if better ones were available.

What is social cooperation is desirable? Because of the competitive advantage of larger groups over the individual.

If you try to set up unfair cooperatives, you would only attract idiots. The ones attracting the best people would easily smite your gang out of existence.

[hubcap]

What is fairness? It is the idea that each person should have equal opportunities to reap the benefits of their labor. Why is it important? Because the need for fairness is so ingrained into our psyche that we would not voluntarily contribute to a cooperative that consistently fails to meet this need. It is also irrational to accept bad deals if better ones were available.
So you are saying that each person should have equal opportunities to reap the benefits of their labor and that we would not voluntarily contribute to a cooperative that consistently fails to meet this need? Then why do you advocate that the government plunder the estates of those who had greater benefits from their labor than others?

What is social cooperation is desirable? Because of the competitive advantage of larger groups over the individual.
I have never argued against social cooperation.

If you try to set up unfair cooperatives, you would only attract idiots. The ones attracting the best people would easily smite your gang out of existence.
Who is advocating unfair cooperatives?

[Hamburglar]

So you are saying that each person should have equal opportunities to reap the benefits of their labor and that we would not voluntarily contribute to a cooperative that consistently fails to meet this need? Then why do you advocate that the government plunder the estates of those who had greater benefits from their labor than others?


He's saying that it is fair, and the proof is in the pudding.

[Ool]

So who gets to decide what's equitable? You?

How about letting people determine what they want to do with the legally gained fruits of their labor?


Who gets to decide what was legally gained? You?





Ool added to this post, 15 minutes and 49 seconds later...

There are only 3 possible means of ownership of individuals.

1. You own yourself.
2. Someone else owns you.......ie the King
3. Everyone owns everyone........ie socialism or communism


Let’s not forget slave masters in option #2, which very prominently featured throughout much of US history.

I don’t think anyone would vote against option #1 these days, unless we open the can of worms of unborn life.

But that still doesn’t settle the issue of who owns all the stuff around us. Who owns the land and the natural resources? The one who got there first? Or the one who can make the most out of it? And how can you decide ahead of time who can and who gets to decide what the most would be?

[hubcap]

He's saying that it is fair, and the proof is in the pudding.
Fair? By who's definition? Yours?

Using something to prove itself .................seems that is a logical fallacy if I'm not mistaken.

[Ool]

I would also argue that this notion of "self-ownership" was not the driving force of our Founding Fathers' understanding of LIBERTY. If in fact it were, they would have consciously placed "property" or "self-ownership" as one of the inalienable rights. It makes no sense for someone to consciously be aware that he considers X to be a prerequesite of Y, and yet only claim Y to be necessary.

It was basically a sales pitch to attract more people to a continent that was woefully understaffed for its potential at a time.

Poor?
Oppressed?
Stuck in a Rut in Your Old Job in the Old World?

Well, come to Sunny America, where you can
LIVE, BE FREE,* AND AS HAPPY AS YOU CAN BE!

*Limitations and restrictions may apply. Not valid in all states if you are African or Chinese. Ask your Ellis Island official for details!

It was a reasonable deal at the time. They were going to include property rather than happiness in the pitch originally, but I think they realized that at some point they wouldn’t need just land-owners but city-dwellers and laborers, too, and that farming on one’s own wasn’t for everyone…

[hubcap]

Who gets to decide what was legally gained? You?
Do you really want to debate what is legal?

Wouldn't it be more productive if we were to simply agree that if my employer and I agree that I will work for $x per week to perform a given set of tasks that at the end of the week when my employer pays me the $x that it was legally gained?


But that still doesn’t settle the issue of who owns all the stuff around us. Who owns the land and the natural resources? The one who got there first? Or the one who can make the most out of it? And how can you decide ahead of time who can and who gets to decide what the most would be?
If you want to argue that we should give the land back to the Indians because they were here "first" please do so, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. If on the other hand you would like to advance a plausible idea, please do.

[Ool]

Fair? By who's definition? Yours?

No, I think by the definition of the person who gets to taste the pudding. Actually the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The point is, if the pudding turns out to be edible then it was fair. If it turns out to be unpalatable then something went wrong in the fairness department.

Using something to prove itself .................seems that is a logical fallacy if I'm not mistaken.

Depends on whether you’re talking about real life results. If something reproducibly happens as a result of your actions then by empirical standards it is proven, no matter whether you can logically explain why it’s happening or not.

And the fact is that in real life a society that doesn’t introduce some measure of social safety nets financed by forcible redistribution of a part of people’s wealth tend’s to stratify, ossify, dessicate in places, and break down and with it most of the liberties of its individuals and their ability to pursue happiness or even live. It doesn’t matter how much it is lowly thievery in your book and how by your ideology no one’s property should be touched even the least bit. It’s a fact.

[hubcap]

No, I think by the definition of the person who gets to taste the pudding. Actually the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The point is, if the pudding turns out to be edible then it was fair. If it turns out to be unpalatable then something went wrong in the fairness department.
Fair is a matter of perspective. Two guys grow up next door to one another. One ends up the wealthy CEO of a fortune 500 company the other ends up working as the school janitor barely making ends meet................Is it fair?



Depends on whether you’re talking about real life results. If something reproducibly happens as a result of your actions then by empirical standards it is proven, no matter whether you can logically explain why it’s happening or not.

And the fact is that in real life a society that doesn’t introduce some measure of social safety nets financed by forcible redistribution of a part of people’s wealth tend’s to stratify, ossify, dessicate in places, and break down and with it most of the liberties of its individuals and their ability to pursue happiness or even live. It doesn’t matter how much it is lowly thievery in your book and how by your ideology no one’s property should be touched even the least bit. It’s a fact.
As with all things in this discussion - it is a matter of degree. The question is how big should the net be? Should the net provide a standard of living that gives everyone a widescreen TV, two cars, and a house in the suburbs? It's a zero sum game my friend. Taking from me in order to raise my neighbor's standard of living will automatically lower my standard of living.

One of my colleagues from the Netherlands rationalized it by telling me the government should pay everyone enough so they don't have to steal. He confessed the reason he felt this way was he didn't want anyone to steal from him. Needless to say I wasn't any more convinced by his argument than I have been so far by yours.

[Ool]

Do you really want to debate what is legal?

No, but you seem to want to, when you dispute the legality of taxes in other threads. Legal is whatever is the law of the land. But you seem to be accepting of some of the laws but not of others.

Wouldn't it be more productive if we were to simply agree that if my employer and I agree that I will work for $x per week to perform a given set of tasks that at the end of the week when my employer pays me the $x that it was legally gained?

Well, those are easy examples that there isn’t much disagreement on.

Where the disagreement comes in is in all the affairs that we didn’t officially contractually sign on to, such as property rights that we were born into. When I was born I didn’t ask to have a right to my parents’ house one day but not to my neighbor’s. I never signed any piece of paper that said I’d agree to that. So why should I? Why shouldn’t I declare the whole city my possession?

The so-called “social contract” is such a misnomer. I can’t recall signing one. Can you…? Obviously not, because you are challenging the concept…

Claiming the city as my property is, of course, ridiculous, but then there are circumstances in which people are born into such deprivation that the only way they can attain anything would be illegally by the law of the land, because somebody else already laid claim to whatever they can get their hands on.

Those are the real social problems. Who got to decide who owns what before formal contracts were introduced? Maybe I shouldn’t be employed but rather own the factory myself. So I didn’t build it, but who’s to say that I wouldn’t have if I had had the chance back in the time where property prices were low, competition was low, and demand was high…?

In a country as rich in resources and as underpopulated as America for most of its history it didn’t matter too much because there was still enough unclaimed property around. But it gets harder and harder to decide whether the already apportioned property is distributed fairly as fewer and fewer alternatives are available for those coming in late. That’s the situation many people found themselves in in Europe, where basically the pie had been divided up centuries ago and those left with mere scraps didn’t see much chance of getting ahead. It was simply time and diminishing resources that brought social mobility to a halt there.

If you want to argue that we should give the land back to the Indians because they were here "first" please do so, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. If on the other hand you would like to advance a plausible idea, please do.

I guess my point was, sometimes stealing can make things better, if the thief knows how to make more out of the property they stole than the original owner, and if even the original owner eventually gets to profit because the thief allows them to build casinos…

[hubcap]

No, but you seem to want to, when you dispute the legality of taxes in other threads. Legal is whatever is the law of the land. But you seem to be accepting of some of the laws but not of others.
I accept that it is legal. I don't accept that it is moral.

Those are the real social problems. Who got to decide who owns what before formal contracts were introduced? Maybe I shouldn’t be employed but rather own the factory myself. So I didn’t build it, but who’s to say that I wouldn’t have if I had had the chance back in the time where property prices were low, competition was low, and demand was high…?
It is easy to suggest that those who came before had it easier when there was less competition, and resources were plentiful..etc

I would counter that argument by using one of a number of examples. For the sake of this discussion let's use Bill Gates. He was born to a middle class family with no claim to great wealth. He was educated in the public school system before going to college at Harvard. Now he is one of the richest men on the planet.

Anyone can achieve whatever they can achieve in a capitalistic system. Bill Gates was a smart guy. He capitalized on his intelligence and willingness to work hard and now he's wealthy. Bill Gates' classmates in public school probably went on to do any number of things including being the door greeter at Wal-mart, supervisor down at the factory, or prison inmate.

So Gates has billions while some of his childhood peers die penniless. Why should anyone have a greater claim to Gates' billions than whoever Gates wants to give it to when he croaks?

[Hamburglar]

Hubcap...debating you is difficult-especially considering how much I hate Sam Neill- because you seem inept at considering all of the variables at hand. You are morally opposed to redistributing wealth forcefully, but nowhere in this country is there a redistribution of wealth. Some of your wealth is combined with some of other peoples wealth to give the least among us a certain standard of living. This is not wealth-it is subsistence. This is a value-added measure because these 'people' are less likely to try and rob you and yours of the wealth you were fortunate enough to amass. It also does lots of good like fund our military which allows you to safely trade products in the international markets. Among many many other, mostly well thought out, programs. The world is dynamic, and our constitution, legal code, and taxation system has been fortunate in being elastic enough to cope.

[hubcap]

Hubcap...debating you is difficult-especially considering how much I hate Sam Neill- because you seem inept at considering all of the variables at hand. You are morally opposed to redistributing wealth forcefully, but nowhere in this country is there a redistribution of wealth. Some of your wealth is combined with some of other peoples wealth to give the least among us a certain standard of living. This is not wealth-it is subsistence. This is a value-added measure because these 'people' are less likely to try and rob you and yours of the wealth you were fortunate enough to amass.

Just because I do not accept some of the variables as "valid" does not mean I do not consider them.

You say there is no redistribution of wealth in this country, then proceed to tell me how my wealth is combined with some of ther people's wealth to give the least among us a "certain standard of living." How is that NOT redistributing wealth?

One of the points that I have been attempting to make is "who gets to decide" the important questions. You know like - How much of hubcap's wealth do we take away? How much do we give to Hamburglar? How much do we spend on administration? What "certain standard of living" is acceptable?

If someone, anyone would answer those questions to my satisfaction then perhaps the entire issue would become palatable to me.

[Hamburglar]

If we are having a REAL discussion about REALITY then your questions are easy to answer.

Who gets to decide? The Constitutionally defined Government which is elected by its constituents. This is self-explanatory.

How do they decide? From the parts comes the whole. Every politician votes one of two ways- with her judgment or the judgment of his constituents. Sometimes politicians do know better, sometimes they don't. Voters will decide if they like the decisions that are being made on their behalf.

Unfortunately/fortunately, our system was designed to be dynamic. So, whomever is currently alive gets to decide what is fair or unfair based upon the circumstances on the ground. As TJ once said, "Every generation must create its own revolution". That was his challenge to the future Americans to not rest on their laurels and take for granted what worked in the past. Colonialism worked for well over a hundred years in America before it didn't.

[hubcap]

If we are having a REAL discussion about REALITY then your questions are easy to answer.
Let's assume for the moment that you and I must agree on "who" gets to decide as it hasn't been determined yet. Your argument should be rational, logical, moral, and convincing.

While your at it - explain how your previous comments weren't "redistribution of wealth".

[Hamburglar]

Let's assume for the moment that you and I must agree on "who" gets to decide as it hasn't been determined yet. Your argument should be rational, logical, moral, and convincing.



Who gets to decide? The Constitutionally defined Government which is elected by its constituents. This is self-explanatory.


While your at it - explain how your previous comments weren't "redistribution of wealth".

It's not a redistribution-it is paying for a service. You are taxed so that the government can provide for the poorest among us. This is so that they do not riot in the streets. Welfare is not a way of life, it is a means of survival. Do some people take advantage? To be sure they do, but the wealthy also take advantage in plenty of demonstrated circumstances-Madoff being the first that jumps into my mind. When you pay taxes you are reimbursing the government for services rendered. You might not agree that you are seeing the benefit of those services and therefore should not pay taxes but in one way or another you are and it is a package deal. I'd prefer to not have to pay any taxes towards the war on terror-but we are fighting it so I am compelled. I see your point that you don't want your money going for certain things, but if everybody got their way, nobody would. Freedom is as equally oppressive as equality.

[hubcap]

The government is "us".

So we pay people money so they won't riot in the streets? Surely you don't mean that literally. Actually welfare is a way of life for some people..............survival for others.

Do you have any idea how much fraud is in the Medicare system alone?

[Tyrant Soup]

Then why do you advocate that the government plunder the estates of those who had greater benefits from their labor than others?


You challenged me to define fairness and to prove that is relevant. I have done so. Are you changing the subject because you now see the light, or are you trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have no rebuttal?

[hubcap]

You challenged me to define fairness and to prove that is relevant. I have done so. Are you changing the subject because you now see the light, or are you trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have no rebuttal?
Actually, I responded to your post regarding fairness:

So you are saying that each person should have equal opportunities to reap the benefits of their labor and that we would not voluntarily contribute to a cooperative that consistently fails to meet this need? Then why do you advocate that the government plunder the estates of those who had greater benefits from their labor than others?

I do not disagree that each person should have equal access to the fruits of their labor. In fact I am strongly for that very concept. My rebuttal to you was a question intended to get a response from you on the concept of "fairness" in taxation. If the fruits of your labor get you $50,000 and the fruits of my labor get me $2,500,000 why should I be taxed at a higher rate than you?

How is that fair?

BTW - I dispute that you have "proven" that fairness is relevant.

[LaoTzu]

-- Only 1/5 of 1% of Americans will ever pay even a penny of estate tax. In other words, 99.8% of Americans will never pay any estate tax.

-- Less than 80 small businesses in the entire country will owe any estate tax in 2009
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

The "death tax" is a Right wing red-herring that in reality, doesn't have any effect on anyone but the ultra-wealthy.
Time would be better spent arguing about something that really matters....

[hubcap]

-- Only 1/5 of 1% of Americans will ever pay even a penny of estate tax. In other words, 99.8% of Americans will never pay any estate tax.

-- Less than 80 small businesses in the entire country will owe any estate tax in 2009 (147 - More Lies Than Ever Before: The Right-Wing Renews Its Assault On The Estate Tax)


The "death tax" is a Right wing red-herring that in reality, doesn't have any effect on anyone but the ultra-wealthy.
Time would be better spent arguing about something that really matters....
Very untrue.

I know of a number of family farms and ranches that have had to be sold in order to pay the estate taxes simply because of the value of the property. These were simply hard working farmers and ranchers. Not ultra-wealthy people.

[LaoTzu]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.=16


Is the estate tax breaking up family farms?
Rarely, if ever. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Foundation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. There are special estate tax breaks for farms, including the ability to value farmland at less than market value. Many “farms” that owe estate taxes are actually vacation ranches owned by wealthy city dwellers. In any case, the estate tax can be modified to protect farms. Repeal is unnecessary. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


Food for thought.

[hubcap]

I'm sure that will comfort those who have had to sell their farms or ranches.

Only 600 estates with farm or business assets will owe
more than $100,000 in estate tax. The 90 largest estates—those with more than $5 million in
estate tax liability—will pay nearly 80 percent of the tax assessed on estates with farm or
business assets.
From your source - If you were making $75k / year off the family farm how would you like to have to come up with $100k to pay in estate taxes?

Under current law, EGTRRA will sunset at the end of 2010 and the estate tax will return to its
pre-EGTRRA level in 2011 with a $1 million exemption and a 55 percent top tax rate, along with
the state death tax credit and the 5 percent surtax. We project that, if Congress does not act, 124,600 estates will have to file returns for 2011 (table 12). Almost half of these—61,000—will be taxable with estate tax liability totaling $41.4 billion. Because the effective exemption amount is not indexed for inflation and because real wealth will grow, the number of estates required to file returns will grow rapidly over the next decade. By 2018, almost 190,000 estates will have to file returns and about 91,000 estates will owe some tax. Total estate tax liability that year will total $74 billion.
The current exemption rates will revert back to the old rates at the end of 2010 if not changed by law. What then?

[Hamburglar]

Further from the source....

The average value of these farm assets was $440,000, only about a third of the amount that any married couple could leave untaxed to heirs. What is more, a farm couple can pass $4.1 million untaxed, so long as the heirs continue farming for 10 years.

[Tyrant Soup]

I do not disagree that each person should have equal access to the fruits of their labor.

Then how can you support unlimited inheritance? A spawn who slid out of the right uterus is given a free pass to life. He is exempt from having to lift a finger to produce anything, yet he is allowed to consume the best of what others have labored to produce. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the parasite's parents got rich from suing McDonald's for spilling coffee from them.

Why should everyone else have to work harder to produce stuff for him to consume?


If the fruits of your labor get you $50,000 and the fruits of my labor get me $2,500,000 why should I be taxed at a higher rate than you?

If you want me to risk my life to defend your "right" to consume what you produced, then you need to make it worth my while. If you give me too little, then I won't be happy and it would be more rational for me to join the mob who wants to gut you and take your goodies.


BTW - I dispute that you have "proven" that fairness is relevant.
Really? If fairness is irrelevant, then what basis is there for individuals to come to a cooperation agreement? I asked this before, but you were unable to answer.

Why don't we both contribute $40K to by a Lexus. You will get to drive it for 1 week, then it becomes mine. If you truly believe that fairness is irrelevant, then you have no reason to turn down the deal. Or do you only believe it's irrelevant when it's not you who got screwed?

[lurk]

I would think that anyone with enough savvy to accumulate a million dollar estate could spend $1k on a lawyer *washes mouth out with soap* to set up a trust of some sort.

[hubcap]

Then how can you support unlimited inheritance? A spawn who slid out of the right uterus is given a free pass to life. He is exempt from having to lift a finger to produce anything, yet he is allowed to consume the best of what others have labored to produce. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the parasite's parents got rich from suing McDonald's for spilling coffee from them.

Why should everyone else have to work harder to produce stuff for him to consume?
By not allowing me to pass my wealth to whomever I choose, you are denying ME equal access to the fruits of my labor. I should be allowed to determine what I want to do with my wealth.

BTW - Your perjoritive use of terms regarding children is absurd and serves in no way to strengthen the merits of your argument.

If you want me to risk my life to defend your "right" to consume what you produced, then you need to make it worth my while. If you give me too little, then I won't be happy and it would be more rational for me to join the mob who wants to gut you and take your goodies.
Who is asking you to risk your life to defend my right to consume? Do you suggest that the "mob" as you call it is going to "gut" me and take my goodies? Another emotional plea?


Really? If fairness is irrelevant, then what basis is there for individuals to come to a cooperation agreement? I asked this before, but you were unable to answer.

Why don't we both contribute $40K to by a Lexus. You will get to drive it for 1 week, then it becomes mine. If you truly believe that fairness is irrelevant, then you have no reason to turn down the deal. Or do you only believe it's irrelevant when it's not you who got screwed?
Individuals can agree to non-interference in some matters and cooperation on other matters. You choose to be a doctor I choose to be an assembly-line worker. That's non-interference. We both agree to pay some taxes for roads, educating our children and paying the military to keep us safe from invasion. That's cooperation.

Your arguments advocate coercion, not cooperation or non-interference.

Your arguments are not convincing me that your position is valid.

[yoginimama]

Hi, HC. You seem to be arguing that cooperation is on a continuum with coercion, and whereas "pay[ing] some taxes for roads, educating our children and paying the military" is "cooperation," anything more than that is "coercion." Am I understanding you more or less correctly?

Somewhere up there, I think you argued that resources are a zero-sum game, and 'helping anyone else automatically lowers my standard of living.' I completely disagree. I think federal redistribution of wealth *raises my standard of living. Here's why:

1) I get cleaner water. More streetlights. More stable neighbors. Shorter waiting lists for respite care for my sick dad. More teachers, aides and programs at my neighborhood school. I like those things! I want those things! I count those things as "wealth." By chipping in a relatively small amount of my personal income, I get back way more than I could have afforded on my own.

2) My more stable neighbors, who have slightly greater income now (via income supports and public works), buy more stuff.

3) Businesses make more money.

4) And hire more people.

5) Who buy more stuff.

6) Which pays for greater income supports, more public works, eliminating waiting lists for rehab centers, putting more police on the streets...all of which employs more people who have become better educated and thus qualified for these new, better jobs.

7) And they buy more stuff!

8) And businesses make more money!

9) So do investors.

See how that works? You give a little to get a little. If you're smart, you decide to give even more so you can get even more. I think this is what we liberal/lefties have been trying to communicate to you--we've been trying to say "No, see, what you want is over *here. You get it *this way, not that way."

[hubcap]

Hi, HC. You seem to be arguing that cooperation is on a continuum with coercion, and whereas "pay[ing] some taxes for roads, educating our children and paying the military" is "cooperation," anything more than that is "coercion." Am I understanding you more or less correctly?
Using my tax dollars for something I don't agree with would be coercion. I am in favor of roads to drive on, education for my children, and I can live with my local municipality providing me clean drinking water and sewage services. I have no problem paying for these types of services with tax dollars as they are NOT redistributing wealth.

Somewhere up there, I think you argued that resources are a zero-sum game, and 'helping anyone else automatically lowers my standard of living.' I completely disagree. I think federal redistribution of wealth *raises my standard of living. Here's why:
I don't believe I argued that resources are a zero-sum game.

You are using a different definition of "redistribution of wealth" than I am. Re-distribution of wealth by my definition would be "transfer payments" to individuals. For instance: The federal government takes revenue in via taxation and then sends a check to an individual for a housing subsidy or a farm subsidy or other business subsidy.

Again, I would point out that I believe the local and state governments should be collecting the revenue and spending on all local projects such as public schools, water treatment plants etc etc

1) I get cleaner water. More streetlights. More stable neighbors. Shorter waiting lists for respite care for my sick dad. More teachers, aides and programs at my neighborhood school. I like those things! I want those things! I count those things as "wealth." By chipping in a relatively small amount of my personal income, I get back way more than I could have afforded on my own.

2) My more stable neighbors, who have slightly greater income now (via income supports and public works), buy more stuff.

3) Businesses make more money.

4) And hire more people.

5) Who buy more stuff.

6) Which pays for greater income supports, more public works, eliminating waiting lists for rehab centers, putting more police on the streets...all of which employs more people who have become better educated and thus qualified for these new, better jobs.

7) And they buy more stuff!

8) And businesses make more money!

9) So do investors.
It sounds great..............in theory. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in practice. If it worked that way in practice then we should automatically go to a 100% marginal tax rate and give everything to the government.

See how that works? You give a little to get a little. If you're smart, you decide to give even more so you can get even more. I think this is what we liberal/lefties have been trying to communicate to you--we've been trying to say "No, see, what you want is over *here. You get it *this way, not that way."
The problem with your philosophy is that you necessarily make the assumption that you know what I want and then use coercion to try and provide what you think I want.

[Causa Mortis]

By not allowing me to pass my wealth to whomever I choose, you are denying ME equal access to the fruits of my labor. I should be allowed to determine what I want to do with my wealth.

I'm tired of this self-absorbed and irrational argument.

The value of your labor in isolation is the value of what you could produce on a desert island. You only make 50k plus because you interact with the labor of others, the capital of others, and the social system. In short, 90%+ of the marginal product of your labor in society is the result of beneficial interactions and the social system at large. If you don't find participating in the social system beneficial, withdraw from it.

[hubcap]

I'm tired of this self-absorbed and irrational argument.
You have yet to demonstrate in any way how my argument is irrational. I freely admit that as an individual I put my self-interests ahead of my neighbor as does everyone else. As I have attempted to articulate on more than one occasion the entire debate hinges upon the "degree" to which a society infringes upon the individual. My preference is less, yours is more. I say if you want to give all your stuff to the government when you die go ahead. Why can't you just agree to let me give my stuff to whom I want?

The value of your labor in isolation is the value of what you could produce on a desert island. You only make 50k plus because you interact with the labor of others, the capital of others, and the social system. In short, 90%+ of the marginal product of your labor in society is the result of beneficial interactions and the social system at large.
Yes, it is done in a cooperative fashion. Not a coercive fashion.

If you don't find participating in the social system beneficial, withdraw from it.
Who said I didn't find participating beneficial? As long as it is cooperative I have no problem with it. If you want to pay higher taxes and give your stuff to the government go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. Just dont' expect me to roll over and do it just because you think its a good idea for you to do it.

[Causa Mortis]

You have yet to demonstrate in any way how my argument is irrational. I freely admit that as an individual I put my self-interests ahead of my neighbor as does everyone else. As I have attempted to articulate on more than one occasion the entire debate hinges upon the "degree" to which a society infringes upon the individual. My preference is less, yours is more. I say if you want to give all your stuff to the government when you die go ahead. Why can't you just agree to let me give my stuff to whom I want?

Because, as I've pointed out in this and other threads:
a. "Rightful owner" is a social construction. You state it as if its an absolute. Its not.
b. What you own is not all the result of your labor. "My stuff" in a market or mixed economy is the result of the marginal productivity of your labor, after taxes. The marginal productivity of your labor is only as productive as it is because your labor interacts with other factors through a social system.
c. Society hasn't infringed on the value of your labor because your labor is worth very little in isolation. If society prevents you from engaging in hunting-gathering, then you can rightly state that its infringed on your labor. Its "infringed" on some exchanges in order to create a more just society, and often a more efficient society as well, but the actual value of your labor is diminutive.

Yes, it is done in a cooperative fashion. Not a coercive fashion.

Misdirection. You respond to simplicity on that side of complexity with simplicity on this side of complexity.

Additionally, I'm always reluctant to accept the coercsion argument unless you're trying to withdraw from the social system by reverting to hunting/gathering, or wanting to engage in some economic activity along the lines of the production of speed, and the government is preventing you. You can quit. You can move. You can go to another country.

Who said I didn't find participating beneficial? As long as it is cooperative I have no problem with it. If you want to pay higher taxes and give your stuff to the government go ahead. I'm not going to stop you. Just dont' expect me to roll over and do it just because you think its a good idea for you to do it.

A restatement of your earlier argument in a more shrill tone. See points a, b, and c above.

[hubcap]

Because, as I've pointed out in this and other threads:
a. "Rightful owner" is a social construction. You state it as if its an absolute. Its not.
Actually you advocate that ownership is a "social construction". Then why does society recognize that I own it. If you come take it from me without my permission then you will be arrested, tried and given a prison term. Come try to take it away from me and we'll see how absolute it is. The concept of individual ownership is a condition recognized by every society and every person.


b. What you own is not all the result of your labor. "My stuff" in a market or mixed economy is the result of the marginal productivity of your labor, after taxes. The marginal productivity of your labor is only as productive as it is because your labor interacts with other factors through a social system.I understand your argument, however your premise is flawed which then makes your entire argument flawed. I counter your argument that by cooperating as individuals we can all get jobs and be productive and earn rewards ................. which then belong to us as INDIVIDUALS. You have no rightful claim on my possessions regardless of which abstract theory of ownership you try to advocate.


Additionally, I'm always reluctant to accept the coercsion argument unless you're trying to withdraw from the social system by reverting to hunting/gathering, or wanting to engage in some economic activity along the lines of the production of speed, and the government is preventing you. You can quit. You can move. You can go to another country.
And you can leave me the heck alone...........which is all I want in the first place. You or society have no legitimate claim to my labor or my possessions. I am an individual. I function as an individual in cooperation with other individuals. I reject your concept of this abstract "society". Why do you think the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution? It was added not to protect the rights of society, but the rights of individuals.

Quite frankly I fail to understand the entire "collectivist" mentality. I know that is what the socialists advocate, but the entire concept is as foreign to me as trying to speak Swahili. I am just not interested.

[Profit]

Actually you advocate that ownership is a "social construction". Then why does society recognize that I own it. If you come take it from me without my permission then you will be arrested, tried and given a prison term. Come try to take it away from me and we'll see how absolute it is. The concept of individual ownership is a condition recognized by every society and every person.



You should really go read up on social constructs....

"The idea of Berger and Luckmann's Social Construction of Reality was that actors interacting together form, over time, typifications or mental representations of each other's actions, and that these typifications eventually become habitualized into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other. When these reciprocal roles become routinized, the typified reciprocal interactions are said to be institutionalized. In the process of this institutionalization, meaning is embedded and institutionalized into individuals and society - knowledge and people's conception of (and therefore belief regarding) what reality 'is' becomes embedded into the institutional fabric and structure of society, and social reality is therefore said to be socially constructed."

[Tyrant Soup]

By not allowing me to pass my wealth to whomever I choose, you are denying ME equal access to the fruits of my labor.

So what? You don't believe in fairness. So if it benefits me to take your wealth, then I should just do it.


Who is asking you to risk your life to defend my right to consume? Do you suggest that the "mob" as you call it is going to "gut" me and take my goodies?

If you have something that a the mob wants, what will stop them from just gutting you and taking it? Your inalienable property rights?


You choose to be a doctor I choose to be an assembly-line worker.

Fat chance. I agree that you should be an assembly line worker, but I wannabe a billionaire. I prefer wine and women. Working is for the little people.

Fairness is irrelevant, right?

[hubcap]

So what? You don't believe in fairness. So if it benefits me to take your wealth, then I should just do it.
Nice try. You're putting words in my mouth. I do believe in fairness. I just don't accept you as the person to decide what is fair.

If you have something that a the mob wants, what will stop them from just gutting you and taking it? Your inalienable property rights?
Actually, the constitution is the first line of defense for the rights of individuals. The police would be the second line of defense. The third line of defense of my individual rights would be me. If you like those odds then lets tango.

Fat chance. I agree that you should be an assembly line worker, but I wannabe a billionaire. I prefer wine and women. Working is for the little people.
Well success is a matter of luck.............just ask any loser.

Fairness is irrelevant, right?
Are you attempting to advance that idea? I have never said fairness was irrelevant.

[Tyrant Soup]

I do believe in fairness. I just don't accept you as the person to decide what is fair.

The concept of fairness is not hard to define. When it comes right down to it, fairness is equality, as determined by shared rational perception. If a situation was set up equitably, then on average, people would not prefer one outcome over the other.

The concept of inheritance fails this test except under very limited conditions.


Actually, the constitution is the first line of defense for the rights of individuals. The police would be the second line of defense. The third line of defense of my individual rights would be me.

You're confusing prevailing law with what ought to be. The constitution is not the supreme arbitrator in ethical discussions. Keep in mind this is an international forum.


Are you attempting to advance that idea? I have never said fairness was irrelevant.

Then why did you say the following?

Life is not fair so we need to get past the whole fairness thing.

[Causa Mortis]

Actually you advocate that ownership is a "social construction". Then why does society recognize that I own it.

SOCIETY recognizes it because it is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION.

Come try to take it away from me and we'll see how absolute it is.

Yeah, lets settle the internet argument with fisticuffs.

The concept of individual ownership is a condition recognized by every society and every person.

You make these statements with so much surety, and yet they just don't have any bearing on reality.

Property rights are viewed very, very differently around the world. The US' property rights are meaningfully different from property rights in largely culturally homogeneous societies like the UK and Ireland. The gap grows wider when you examine other countries like France, Sweden, or Poland. The gap is wider still when you look at property rights in the Muslim world, Africa, and Asia. And then you go to Russia...


I understand your argument, however your premise is flawed which then makes your entire argument flawed.

Which premise is flawed? That the value of your labor in isolation is basically zero?

I counter your argument that by cooperating as individuals we can all get jobs and be productive and earn rewards ................. which then belong to us as INDIVIDUALS. You have no rightful claim on my possessions regardless of which abstract theory of ownership you try to advocate.

Except you need, at a bare minimum, roads, courts, police, property rights, schools, and national defense to be provided at a social level. And most would agree that a reasonable social safety net is vital to both justice and efficiency in a modern economy.



And you can leave me the heck alone...........which is all I want in the first place. You or society have no legitimate claim to my labor or my possessions. I am an individual. I function as an individual in cooperation with other individuals. I reject your concept of this abstract "society". Why do you think the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution? It was added not to protect the rights of society, but the rights of individuals.

Quite frankly I fail to understand the entire "collectivist" mentality. I know that is what the socialists advocate, but the entire concept is as foreign to me as trying to speak Swahili. I am just not interested.

There may be an argument in there somewhere, but I don't see much besides empty platitudes.

[yoginimama]

Yeah, I'm confused by the statement "I reject your concept of this abstract 'society.'"

As far as I understand, HC has stated that he's not an anarchist. Yet here he's saying stuff like that and "You or society have no legitimate claim to my labor or my possessions...I function as an individual in cooperation with other individuals." Sounds like anarchism to me...

Also, I'm having trouble understanding how he means "rights." He seems to think "rights" mean only "the right to keep everything I can get my hands on."

HC, it looks to me like you want to get all you can, but give back only what you personally deem fit. No society has ever worked like this. It can't.

Tribal societies exert total control over members' labor and production; 'collectivism' as you would call it is absolute. (E.g., in many Native American societies, duties are divided up by clan; you don't choose what clan you're born into and hence what you do with your life. And everything is geared towards the survival of the group. There literally is no such concept as private property, which formed the basis of the horrible tragedies between Native Americans and colonists, because Native Americans did not understand what the colonists were demanding.)

The societies with the greatest amount of personal freedom (aka choice over what to do with your own life) are the mixed economies of Western Europe, where people pay high taxes in return for social supports which allow them a high degree of flexibility as to how they live and work. It's very elegant and efficient: pay in (support the web), and you can order almost any life you want from it.

Which brings us back to the original topic of the thread, which is inheritance taxes.

Here's why we tax people's estates: Because being born into your given country is not some virtuous thing you did. It's a piece of dumb luck on your part. Your country gives you an incredible amount of opportunities and support during your life.

Take the private wealth you amass during your participation in the exchange-web described by Causa Mortis. You never would have amassed it if not for that very exchange-web. Yeah, you worked, but so did a lot of other people whose efforts indirectly contributed to your private stash.

Your country is the administrator of that system.

So when you die, your country takes a cut of your stash, because your country is and always has been your silent partner in all your endeavors. And it deserves a piece of the profits.

There is no way for this not to be the case. Americans are just lucky (or not, as the case may be, given our starved public sector) that our government asks for so little.





yoginimama added to this post, 364 minutes and 50 seconds later...

hubcap: 'Actually you advocate that ownership is a "social construction". Then why does society recognize that I own it.'

Causa Mortis: 'SOCIETY recognizes it because it is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION. '

I think there may be a paradigm issue going on here.

I think hc may be using a Sensing frame. It sounds to me like he thinks CM was trying to say property is *imaginary.* That would be why he made his otherwise puzzling response, "Then why does society recognize that I own it."

CM's reply, "Because it is a social construction," probably seems really dumb to hc if hc is interpreting 'social construction' in a Sensate way as 'imaginary/unreal thing.'

So besides the surface disagreements, I think there's an underlying difference in perspective which is further muddying the waters.

[hubcap]

The concept of fairness is not hard to define. When it comes right down to it, fairness is equality, as determined by shared rational perception. If a situation was set up equitably, then on average, people would not prefer one outcome over the other.
I was waiting for this to show up. Yes, collectivists want equality. Unfortunately they want equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Let's face facts. Not everyone is born with the same potential, not everyone makes the same choices, and not everyone is going to get the same results. Equality of outcome is an egalitarian concept which fails to recognize the fact that people don't place the same value on the school janitor that they place on their doctor. The best possible realistic scenario is one where people are provided equal opportunity.....................it is still a rather utopian concept but it seems to be working well. Some people born rich die poor and some people born poor die rich.

The concept of inheritance fails this test except under very limited conditions.
Once again I would point out that you have yet to make a legitimate claim to someone else's accumulated wealth. I reject your theory that it is a "social construct" that when people die the government should confiscate their wealth. If you really want to be "fair" you have to confiscate EVERYONE's wealth when they die, not just the rich folks, or folks who have more than you do. Your idea smacks of petty jealousy rather than egalitarianism.


You're confusing prevailing law with what ought to be. The constitution is not the supreme arbitrator in ethical discussions. Keep in mind this is an international forum.
No, you are confusing prevailing law with what YOU think ought to be.

By the way the are you suggesting the Constitution is irrelevant or unimportant?


Then why did you say the following?
I said life was unfair. If you would like to debate the inherent fairness of life please make your case and I will show you very quickly how your theory is incorrect.





hubcap added to this post, 15 minutes and 46 seconds later...

Yeah, lets settle the internet argument with fisticuffs.
I was certainly not serious, but let us just say that someone showed up on your doorstep and began helping himself to "your" stuff. Would you recognize that as a member of society he has a legitimate claim to it?

You make these statements with so much surety, and yet they just don't have any bearing on reality.
Please demonstrate to me which society would permit it's members to go around taking other people's stuff without permission.

Property rights are viewed very, very differently around the world. The US' property rights are meaningfully different from property rights in largely culturally homogeneous societies like the UK and Ireland. The gap grows wider when you examine other countries like France, Sweden, or Poland. The gap is wider still when you look at property rights in the Muslim world, Africa, and Asia. And then you go to Russia...
Yes, I understand property rights are viewed differently by capitalists than they are by socialists.

Which premise is flawed? That the value of your labor in isolation is basically zero?You assumption that everyone is working as a member of the collective for the benefit of the collective. The reality is that every INDIVIDUAL is working to satisfy his or her INDIVIDUAL wants and needs.

Except you need, at a bare minimum, roads, courts, police, property rights, schools, and national defense to be provided at a social level. And most would agree that a reasonable social safety net is vital to both justice and efficiency in a modern economy.
I'm already on record as stating that "some" level of taxation is acceptable to provide for the commone defense et al

IF you are correct that society has a legitimate claim to someone's possessions after they die, then why not before they die?





hubcap added to this post, 34 minutes and 15 seconds later...

As far as I understand, HC has stated that he's not an anarchist. Yet here he's saying stuff like that and "You or society have no legitimate claim to my labor or my possessions...I function as an individual in cooperation with other individuals." Sounds like anarchism to me...
Are you familiar with the concept of "individual liberty"? If not, I suggest you start by reading the Constitution, and then possibly look at the Founding Fathers' view of individual liberty.

Also, I'm having trouble understanding how he means "rights." He seems to think "rights" mean only "the right to keep everything I can get my hands on."
The right to non-interference and individual liberty.

HC, it looks to me like you want to get all you can, but give back only what you personally deem fit. No society has ever worked like this. It can't.
Every individual is self-serving, including you.

Tribal societies exert total control over members' labor and production; 'collectivism' as you would call it is absolute. (E.g., in many Native American societies, duties are divided up by clan; you don't choose what clan you're born into and hence what you do with your life. And everything is geared towards the survival of the group. There literally is no such concept as private property, which formed the basis of the horrible tragedies between Native Americans and colonists, because Native Americans did not understand what the colonists were demanding.)
This is ridiculous. If you were a Native American and you chose not to go hunting you would starve. The other hunters would not provide for you if you chose not to provide for yourself.

The societies with the greatest amount of personal freedom (aka choice over what to do with your own life) are the mixed economies of Western Europe, where people pay high taxes in return for social supports which allow them a high degree of flexibility as to how they live and work. It's very elegant and efficient: pay in (support the web), and you can order almost any life you want from it.
The European societies you mention don't typically restrict individual liberties EXCEPT through taxation. For instance if you want to go live in the Netherlands, you can enjoy legalized prostitution and legalized marijuana. Europeans generally allow more freedom in moral issues, but less in economic issues.

If you are so enamored with European society why not just go live there? And quit trying to change this country into something it was never intended to be............socialistic.

Which brings us back to the original topic of the thread, which is inheritance taxes.

Here's why we tax people's estates: Because being born into your given country is not some virtuous thing you did. It's a piece of dumb luck on your part. Your country gives you an incredible amount of opportunities and support during your life.

Take the private wealth you amass during your participation in the exchange-web described by Causa Mortis. You never would have amassed it if not for that very exchange-web. Yeah, you worked, but so did a lot of other people whose efforts indirectly contributed to your private stash.
Being born into this country guarantees NOTHING except opportunity, which everyone has. Why do you think all those folks want to come HERE? If you work harder than me and amass more wealth than I do, then I say good for you. On the other hand if I work harder than you and amass more wealth than you .................then you come hold your hand out and say gimme as the hearse goes by.

Your country is the administrator of that system.

So when you die, your country takes a cut of your stash, because your country is and always has been your silent partner in all your endeavors. And it deserves a piece of the profits.
Thats ridiculous. My country has never paid my bills, or my house payment or any of those things. If anything the government is working to hold me back by penalizing me.

There is no way for this not to be the case. Americans are just lucky (or not, as the case may be, given our starved public sector) that our government asks for so little.
I never cease to be amazed how you view the "government" as this benevolent big brother who is always lending me a hand and I should be thankful that he isn't asking me for more.

The fact of the matter is the government is "the people", not some nebulous entity.

And just for the record, the government was viewed by many of the Founders as a "necessary evil".

[Causa Mortis]

I was certainly not serious, but let us just say that someone showed up on your doorstep and began helping himself to "your" stuff. Would you recognize that as a member of society he has a legitimate claim to it?

Property ownership is a social definition. Tired of going over that.

Please demonstrate to me which society would permit it's members to go around taking other people's stuff without permission.

Then again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how and when taxation occurs. Taxation is a different mechanism

Yes, I understand property rights are viewed differently by capitalists than they are by socialists.

LOL! So basically, every country other than the US is socialist because they view property rights in a different way than we do? Or could it be that - gasp - property rights are a social construction?

You assumption that everyone is working as a member of the collective for the benefit of the collective. The reality is that every INDIVIDUAL is working to satisfy his or her INDIVIDUAL wants and needs.

I've not argued that individuals should be incentivized by altruism. Although this would work for many, I'm well aware that for the hoi polloi there's nothing but self and low ego, so you have to find ways to work with these things. I don't deny any of that.

My argument is that labor in isolation has almost no value. My argument is that the vast majority of the per person productivity associated with modern capitalism and mixed systems is based on social exchanges. My argument is that in order to facilitate these social exchanges, taxes and spending are necessary. My argument is that virtually every democratic society chooses to redistribute wealth in some fashion, based on, you know, that thing called the constitution.

My argument is also that it is in your benefit to participate in this overall social system. My argument is also that you have the capacity to withdraw from this system should you wish to do so.

If you are so enamored with European society why not just go live there? And quit trying to change this country into something it was never intended to be............socialistic.

There's a democratic process that's led to current views on property rights and current views on taxation. I don't think what was "intended" is in any way relevant to this discussion.

[aku chi]

I was waiting for this to show up. Yes, collectivists want equality. Unfortunately they want equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Let's face facts. Not everyone is born with the same potential, not everyone makes the same choices, and not everyone is going to get the same results. Equality of outcome is an egalitarian concept which fails to recognize the fact that people don't place the same value on the school janitor that they place on their doctor. The best possible realistic scenario is one where people are provided equal opportunity.....................it is still a rather utopian concept but it seems to be working well. Some people born rich die poor and some people born poor die rich.
This paragraph might have supported your position on any number of other threads but it hurts your position here. As thod and Tyrant Soup have repeatedly pointed out, not all individuals are born with an equal opportunity to be wealthy / successful because of inheritances. If you consider two individuals who are otherwise equally skilled, the one who inherits a small fortune from his wealthy grandparents has a greater opportunity to be wealthy in the future. The wealthier child, among other advantages, can obtain a superior private education and increase his/her human capital more than the comparitively poor child (who is forced to attend public schools). This is a legitimate problem if you believe that all children should have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Personally, I recognize this unfairness but I cannot envision any solution that doesn't result in the abolition of private property (socialism). And between socialism and capitalism, I'll take capitalism despite the unfairness in this particular area. I am, however, open to other solutions that wouldn't abolish private property rights.

Thus all that is being asked is for a regularization of the procedure, a removal of the blood exemption. That offspring receiving the gift be treated in the same way as if the millionaire had chosen a non blood relative to give it to.
I agree with this proposal. It doesn't solve the unfairness problem but it does make the law consistent. Why should families get exceptions?

[yoginimama]

"My country has never paid my bills, or my house payment or any of those things. If anything the government is working to hold me back by penalizing me."

Why should it pay your bills?

(Without charging a higher top rate of taxes to fund the program, that is.)

But seriously--why should your country do any more for you than it's already done?

Through the labor and taxes of those who came before you, it already gave you (a) a secure territory, (b) access to police and courts if fellow citizens violate your rights, (c) usable roads, (d) a clean food and water supply, (e) reliable and relatively cheap electricity, (f) schooling, (g) certain minimal supports if you lose your job or become disabled, (h) Miranda, (i) habeas corpus, (j) freedom of speech, travel and peaceable assembly, (k) protection via your embassy if you get in trouble overseas and (l) the vote.

And...you accuse it of "working to hold you back by penalizing you" because, after giving you all this, it has the temerity to charge you sales, income and estate tax?

Your idea is perhaps that it should cease taxing you beyond some bare minimum to fund what *you want--the Army and the roads and schools--and it should maybe chip in on your mortgage too? Then you'd be satisfied? As James Hetfield put it, "Well goddamn, d'you want a ham sandwich too?"

In a true capitalist system, the government--privately owned, of course--would charge *triple* sales tax for every transaction. It would also charge flat, very high fees for residency. It would do these things so it could make a profit on the service it was selling (citizenship)! Living in America would become like living at a spa.

And I bet SpaMerica would charge a *one hundred* percent estate tax, if not more. Monopolistic corporations do tend to get usurious like that...if not checked by any other power.

In our society right now, that power is the highly-imperfect but way-better-than-nothing government.

[hubcap]

Property ownership is a social definition. Tired of going over that.
Well that's one way to avoid answering the question.

Then again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how and when taxation occurs. Taxation is a different mechanism
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I am talking about private property rights, which are recognized under the constitution.



LOL! So basically, every country other than the US is socialist because they view property rights in a different way than we do? Or could it be that - gasp - property rights are a social construction?
Recognizing PRIVATE property is the distinction. Private property is a "social construct" that recognizes that something belongs to ME, and you or the government has no legitimate claim to it.

I've not argued that individuals should be incentivized by altruism. Although this would work for many, I'm well aware that for the hoi polloi there's nothing but self and low ego, so you have to find ways to work with these things. I don't deny any of that.

My argument is that labor in isolation has almost no value. My argument is that the vast majority of the per person productivity associated with modern capitalism and mixed systems is based on social exchanges. My argument is that in order to facilitate these social exchanges, taxes and spending are necessary. My argument is that virtually every democratic society chooses to redistribute wealth in some fashion, based on, you know, that thing called the constitution.

My argument is also that it is in your benefit to participate in this overall social system. My argument is also that you have the capacity to withdraw from this system should you wish to do so.
So you agree that coercion is necessary for "your" views to be implemented. BTW - If you don't like the way things are here I suggest you have the capacity to go elsewhere as well. Possibly somewhere your socialistic utopia already exists.

There's a democratic process that's led to current views on property rights and current views on taxation. I don't think what was "intended" is in any way relevant to this discussion.
What was intended has everything to do with this discussion. The last time I checked private property rights have not been abolished. The democratic process you so revere is not absolute. The Constitution was intended to PROTECT the rights of INDIVIDUALS.

If private property rights are not absolute then "society" has a right to anything anyone owns at any time.





hubcap added to this post, 5 minutes and 48 seconds later...

But seriously--why should your country do any more for you than it's already done?
I don't expect my country to do anything else for me.

Through the labor and taxes of those who came before you, it already gave you (a) a secure territory, (b) access to police and courts if fellow citizens violate your rights, (c) usable roads, (d) a clean food and water supply, (e) reliable and relatively cheap electricity, (f) schooling, (g) certain minimal supports if you lose your job or become disabled, (h) Miranda, (i) habeas corpus, (j) freedom of speech, travel and peaceable assembly, (k) protection via your embassy if you get in trouble overseas and (l) the vote.
My country did not give me these things. These things were provided by individuals working in their self-interest. The only thing the government gives is the guarantee that my rights are
as an individual are respected.

And...you accuse it of "working to hold you back by penalizing you" because, after giving you all this, it has the temerity to charge you sales, income and estate tax?
When are you going to understand the fact that there is no "it"? The government is the PEOPLE. The government is not some nebulous big brother looking out for me.

Your idea is perhaps that it should cease taxing you beyond some bare minimum to fund what *you want--the Army and the roads and schools--and it should maybe chip in on your mortgage too? Then you'd be satisfied? As James Hetfield put it, "Well goddamn, d'you want a ham sandwich too?"
Not worthy of comment.

In a true capitalist system, the government--privately owned, of course--would charge *triple* sales tax for every transaction. It would also charge flat, very high fees for residency. It would do these things so it could make a profit on the service it was selling (citizenship)! Living in America would become like living at a spa.
You obviously don't understand what the government is.

[yoginimama]

"My country did not give me these things. These things were provided by individuals working in their self-interest."

Your second of those two statements is correct--which is why I said "THROUGH THE LABOR AND TAXES OF THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE YOU, it [your country] already gave you x y z."

Again, in case it wasn't clear, I was specifically trying to say: the people, we, cooperating on a mass level brokered/administered by the apparatus of government, through our labor and taxes over the years, created the conditions under which you have lived your life.

It's been a massive undertaking, and my personal feeling is that the INDIVIDUALS who WORKED TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS to create the laws, courts, procedures, funds etc to safeguard my rights and security deserve the utmost respect. It takes taxes to keep that going. So I pay my taxes happily.

Plus...I have a question for you. The government has the legal right to draft men into the army, where they may die. Going by your avatar, you're a man. Given that your life was subject to government fiat during the years when you were of draftable age, why do you feel oppressed by TAXES of all things?

How is the ability to tax you any worse than the ability to draft you into a war you may or may not support, where you may DIE?

If you don't think "society" or "government" has a legitimate claim on your money, how do you feel about the fact that it has a claim on your life? If it's personal liberty you're concerned with, it seems to me that the draft is a way bigger issue than taxes.

More to the point--what would you say to another man who argued that the government did NOT have the right to draft him, because HE felt it violated HIS concept of what personal liberty was?

I'm asking that sincerely. What would you say to an 18-year-old man who argued that he shouldn't be subject to the draft--

on the grounds that it deprived him of liberty--

because society has no claim on his body/services because society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals working in cooperation--

and therefore it has no moral authority to compel him to serve in its army if he doesn't want to?

Would you agree with him?

Disagree with him?

If you disagreed, on what basis would you demand that he submit to the draft?

[hubcap]

It's been a massive undertaking, and my personal feeling is that the INDIVIDUALS who WORKED TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS to create the laws, courts, procedures, funds etc to safeguard my rights and security deserve the utmost respect. It takes taxes to keep that going. So I pay my taxes happily.
On this we are in agreement. I pay my taxes and I hold in the highest honor those who have over the last 200+ years ensured that my liberty was kept safe.

Plus...I have a question for you. The government has the legal right to draft men into the army, where they may die. Going by your avatar, you're a man. Given that your life was subject to government fiat during the years when you were of draftable age, why do you feel oppressed by TAXES of all things?


If you disagreed, on what basis would you demand that he submit to the draft?
The "pure" libertarian position on this would suggest that if there were an external threat to our liberty then the logical position for people to take would be to volunteer, and quite honestly that is pretty much what happens most of the time. Yes, there is some resistance to the draft when people don't feel personally threatened, such as when we were fighting in Viet Nam.

My personal view is that philosophically the government should only use coercive tactics such as the draft in the most restrained fashion. There have been concientious objectors in most every war. There is certainly a chance that a person may die if drafted and if someone wants to avoid the draft by going to Canada then they certainly can choose that option. I would never advocate that anyone violate their concience. However if one chooses to avoid being drafted then the government has the ability to throw you in jail. Is it right? Philosophically.......no. Pragmatically.........its the way it is.

You seem to be of the opinion that I am against ALL taxes. That is not true. This thread is discussing "inheritance" taxes, which are more properly labelled "estate taxes". The reality of estate taxes, is that everything was already taxed as either income or capital gains while one was alive. It certainly seems an illegitimate claim to confiscate one's wealth completely after he has died.

I favor limited government. A government which was limited would not have need for infinite resources, which are scarce. A limited government would not feel compelled to tax one over and over and over and then again after death, because the financial need wouldn't exist.

[jesse]

Many prominent people end up having not kids and/or having a great ammount of wealth.
Often the inheritances end up going to charities in the form of foundations.

I wonder of such situation affects economy in the long run as more often than not this means that money will be given away and spent, as opposed to invested to continue the production cycle.

Therefore a great fortune may end up dissapearing in a generation or less. I was thinking of this as I wondered what happened with the estate of Salvador Dalii who didn't have any kids and also remembered that a certain famous businesswoman gave all her millions to her dog. I seem to think the dog also died and now PETA is claiming stakes on the one hundred millions or so.

Plus someone told me that Bill Gates also planned to leave almost all his immense fortune to his foundation. That would be quite a lot.

Your thoughts?

It is my opinion that who holds the title for their amassed wealth decides who and what will get it when their time is up. I'd say both are needed as in giving some money to charities, foundations and ngo's while some of it would be worth having in the business cycle. Either extreme is unlikely to be overly productive.

The example of a rich businesswoman handing down her wealth to a pet is stupid in my opinion but since they held the title, it is their problem, not mine. I don't support government or society claiming a significant chunk out of the total percentage of the estate, it gets too close again to telling how to live and behave.

Fortunes don't disappear although they can certainly be flushed down the drain if they handed to incompetent and careless recipients, be it private business or a non-profit organization. Sometimes there are research projects which are of no interest to a business thus in these cases it would be a better alternative to fund scientists working for or through a foundation. Either way, I don't think there is a clear and decisive answer for these matters.

So who gets to decide what's equitable? You?

How about letting people determine what they want to do with the legally gained fruits of their labor?

Apparently a person cannot be trusted to decide upon what to do with the fruit of their own hard labor. This is a bogus claim to say otherwise. The more power and authority given to government about how you spend your resources keeps lowering the bar on outrageous claims and so-called rights to mess and interfere with its citizens. This is going off topic, but all you have to look at is the Patriot Act. Good intentions, but completely overblown and dangerous because common sense has been thrown out the door in "exchange for a feeling of security".


Tyrant Soup wrote:
If you own something I want, why shouldn't I just shoot you between the eyes and take it from you. If I get prosecuted, I'll just use the ingenious "Life ain't fair. Get over it" defense.
Do you really expect me to take this seriously?

The bottom line is that personal property rights must be recognized. As soon as those rights are relinquished you no longer own yourself, and the government can tell you how to run every aspect of your life.

I get the impression Tyrant Soup is equating utter anarchy to a capitalist free market enterprise system. This is far from the case because in theory any and all transactions are VOLUNTARY and consensual between two or more people/groups/communities because one has something the other needs or wants and vice-versa.

This does not happen in reality because there is no such thing as a functional and truly free free market which is easily replaced by threats and coercion by government institutions and other communities because that's the only way of getting what you want or need sometimes. As hubcap points out, this is a very serious affront to the concept of self-ownership and private property because it takes away the ability of the individual to do what they best see fit with their own property.

[Causa Mortis]

Recognizing PRIVATE property is the distinction. Private property is a "social construct" that recognizes that something belongs to ME, and you or the government has no legitimate claim to it.

So every other country is socialist because your property belongs to you. Wait YOU. Got it. That's closely followed by denying the subjectivity of something I've demonstrably shown to be subjective.

At some point, arguing with blind egoism becomes a pointless venture.

[hubcap]

So every other country is socialist because your property belongs to you. Wait YOU. Got it. That's closely followed by denying the subjectivity of something I've demonstrably shown to be subjective.

At some point, arguing with blind egoism becomes a pointless venture.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say that every other country is socialist. What I said was "Recognizing private property" is the distinction.

A pointless venture is attempting to discuss this issue with someone who fails to recognize the concept of "private property".

[Hamburglar]

I favor limited government. A government which was limited would not have need for infinite resources, which are scarce. A limited government would not feel compelled to tax one over and over and over and then again after death, because the financial need wouldn't exist.

This statement demonstrates that you don't know what limited government even means. HERE (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)you could learn something.

Limited simply refers to the concentration of power - as it stands we have a very diffused power base.

[hubcap]

Semantics.

[Hamburglar]

It's hard to have an intellectual debate when one party is calling apples and potatoes the same thing.





Hamburglar added to this post, 8 minutes and 11 seconds later...



You seem to be of the opinion that I am against ALL taxes. That is not true. This thread is discussing "inheritance" taxes, which are more properly labelled "estate taxes". The reality of estate taxes, is that everything was already taxed as either income or capital gains while one was alive. It certainly seems an illegitimate claim to confiscate one's wealth completely after he has died.


First of all - estate tax does not confiscate all of a persons wealth - Argument fail

Second of all - it should be noted that you could donate all your wealth to charity and the government would not tax any of it. Why? Because you are accomplishing the goal of estate tax- to reinvest old wealth back into society.

[hubcap]

First of all - estate tax does not confiscate all of a persons wealth - Argument fail
Incorrect. I never advanced the position that the estate tax confiscated all of a persons wealth.

Second of all - it should be noted that you could donate all your wealth to charity and the government would not tax any of it. Why? Because you are accomplishing the goal of estate tax- to reinvest old wealth back into society.
Incorrect again. The purpose of any tax is to raise revenue for the government.

If I pass my wealth to my legitimate heirs it is going back into society without the government skimming any off the top..............a much more efficient transfer process.

[Hamburglar]

Incorrect. I never advanced the position that the estate tax confiscated all of a persons wealth.

It seems you did:
It certainly seems an illegitimate claim to confiscate one's wealth completely after he has died.


Incorrect again. The purpose of any tax is to raise revenue for the government.
Right but that revenue is for something. That something is whatever the congress deems necessary and proper. Namely the defense of the country, but also a whole host of other things like welfare, medicare, administrative costs, etc. All constitutional by the way.

P.S. none of this matters to you, because after all, you are dead. Your kids will inherit whatever you save less the amount due to the government-if you feel that is not enough then work harder-earn more.

[hubcap]

P.S. none of this matters to you, because after all, you are dead. Your kids will inherit whatever you save less the amount due to the government-if you feel that is not enough then work harder-earn more.

None of this matters to me personally because the government will not get a dime from my estate.