Even Prominent Conservatives Have Socialism Hiding Inside Their Heads

[corbe]

Even Prominent Conservatives Have Socialism Hiding Inside Their Heads

It turns out the problem isn't the socialism in our economics. It's the unexamined collectivist assumptions inside our heads.
 
By Robert Tracinski
May 10, 2017
 
So many bad political ideas, so many novel and ingenious expansions of government power, seem to originate with people who are on the political right and supposed to favor small government.

Take Charles Murray, who I used to hear cited all the time—this was years ago, before the “Bell Curve” controversy—as a critic of the pathologies of the welfare state. These days, I hear about him most frequently (that is, when he isn’t being shouted down by campus fascists) when he is cited by people on the Left as an advocate of the universal basic income, a scheme for giving everyone a monthly check to maintain a lower-middle-class lifestyle without having to do anything at all. In other words, welfare writ large.

I know the so-called “libertarian” argument Murray made for the basic income. Giving money only under specific programs targeted for specific needs under carefully tailored rules—public housing, food stamps, etc.—creates a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of loopholes to be exploited by the unscrupulous, and a lot of perverse incentives of the kind Murray has previously documented. Wouldn’t it be simpler, cheaper, and more effective just to hand everyone money and let them decide for themselves how best to spend it?

I’ve critiqued that idea elsewhere, but what I find interesting about it is that for all these years, Murray wasn’t really an opponent of big government or the welfare state. He was just looking for a more effective way to administer it. So his legacy as a critic of welfare is in danger of being eclipsed by his advocacy for universal welfare.

You could make similar observations about how it was the Heritage Foundation that cooked up the “individual mandate” at the center of Obamacare, how “cap-and-trade” global warming regulations were dreamed up under the Reagan administration and pushed as a “free-market” solution, and how it was Milton Friedman who helped develop income-tax withholding.

It raises the question: how did we get so many statist ideas from people who were otherwise advocates of smaller government?

This Brings Me to Megan McArdle

A recent example from Megan McArdle sheds some light on what’s happening. It turns out the problem isn’t the socialism in our economics. It’s the socialism inside our heads—the unexamined collectivist assumptions that keep pushing us toward a giant, overbearing government in spite of ourselves.

I am a fan of McArdle, who often makes interesting and trenchant observations, such as the one she starts with in this article: that the debate over the estate tax is intensified out of all proportion to its importance in the federal budget and the national economy. Few people pay it, and it doesn’t contribute much to federal tax revenues. She’s right that there are deeper moral and emotional factors that actually drive the debate.

But then she produces this analysis of the moral issues involved:

In fact, there are reasons to keep the estate tax around. Let’s start with some basic moral observations: Once you are dead, you no longer have a voting interest in what goes on in society. Thus, your interest in how your assets get disposed of after you’re no longer using them is minimal. While you’re alive, I’ll defend your property rights vigorously. Once you have died, however, you lose my support.

Now I’ll add another proposition: Society does not have an interest in your desire to ensure that your children are better off than other children. I understand that you have a great interest in this matter. I applaud the tireless work you put in to this end. But society’s job is all children, not specific children who are lucky enough to have hit the genetic lottery. And its aim should be for a society of equal opportunity to succeed and get rich. So once you’ve died, and no longer have property rights society needs to protect, there’s no particular moral precept that points toward helping your children inherit. On a moral level, I’d be perfectly comfortable with a 100 percent tax on anything you haven’t passed on before your death.

What started out as a moderate call for common ground on this issue turns into a complete capitulation to the principles and outlook of the Left. The assumption here is that “society,” not the individual, is the ultimate standard of moral value. The interests of society are supreme and everything the individual has—including the products of a lifetime of effort, and all the hopes you have for your children—can be sacrificed to it.

To make that clear, let’s try looking at this from a purely individualist perspective, in which there is no such thing as the collective interests of society, just an individual who has worked his whole life to create wealth on the assumption that he will get to decide what happens to it, and looks to government to protect that right.

Looking at this from the perspective of the individual is the only thing that actually makes sense, because there is no such collective entity as “society.” There are only individuals. Government can only protect our persons and property individually, one at a time, and if it takes money from one person, the benefits don’t go to “society” as a collective entity. They go to other individuals. Those individuals are usually located within the environs of Washington DC—quite often on K Street—which is one of the reasons the federal government collects and spends more money now than ever before, yet doesn’t seem to be making any progress on all of that lofty rhetoric about the greater good of “society.”

<..snip..>

http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/10/even-prominent-conservatives-socialism-hiding-inside-heads/

[jmyrlefuller]

OK, then let's look at this individually.

If a person dies... what use is money to him or her? The person is dead. They cannot use it.

Now, let's consider: we have a government. It consumes money. If we agree taking money from the living causes harm to the living (as they must spend money to survive), but taking money from the dead causes no harm to the dead (as they are no longer surviving), then why would we not use the estate tax, first and foremost?

Of all taxes, even from a libertarian perspective, the estate tax is the most ethical.

[EC]

Let's look at this from a tax point of view.

I earn money. I pay tax on my money. I die. The money that has already had tax paid on it goes to ...

a/ whoever I wish it to go to,
b/ the government, who have already had their cut.

Government can piss off.

[geronl]

OK, then let's look at this individually.

Someone dying does not make their money and wealth magically becomes the governments money and wealth.

[goatprairie]

OK, then let's look at this individually.

If a person dies... what use is money to him or her? The person is dead. They cannot use it.

Now, let's consider: we have a government. It consumes money. If we agree taking money from the living causes harm to the living (as they must spend money to survive), but taking money from the dead causes no harm to the dead (as they are no longer surviving), then why would we not use the estate tax, first and foremost?

Of all taxes, even from a libertarian perspective, the estate tax is the most ethical.

If you grant the government some sort of moral right to the wealth of dead people, where does it stop? Why should the gov. have power over wealth that has already been taxed? 
Wouldn't you say the wealth should go to whomever or whatever was stipulated in the dead person's will?

[skeeter]

OK, then let's look at this individually.

If a person dies... what use is money to him or her? The person is dead. They cannot use it.

Now, let's consider: we have a government. It consumes money. If we agree taking money from the living causes harm to the living (as they must spend money to survive), but taking money from the dead causes no harm to the dead (as they are no longer surviving), then why would we not use the estate tax, first and foremost?

Of all taxes, even from a libertarian perspective, the estate tax is the most ethical.

My progeny will continue to need to eat, clothe and shelter themselves after I'm gone. My first obligation is to them, not the welfare state.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

OK, then let's look at this individually.

If a person dies... what use is money to him or her? The person is dead. They cannot use it.

Now, let's consider: we have a government. It consumes money. If we agree taking money from the living causes harm to the living (as they must spend money to survive), but taking money from the dead causes no harm to the dead (as they are no longer surviving), then why would we not use the estate tax, first and foremost?

Of all taxes, even from a libertarian perspective, the estate tax is the most ethical.

I pretty much agree, though I would put pay-as-you-go taxes (toll roads, etc) as the most ethical.

Having the estate tax as the primary (or secondary) source of government funding (and not just an ADDITIONAL source) is about the fairest method of taxation.  It's also wholy unworkable in practice, IMO, and intices waste.  It's just too easy to get around.

[Frank Cannon]

Of all taxes, even from a libertarian perspective, the estate tax is the most ethical.

So it is ethical for the govt' to take/shut down a family business/farm/money making enterprise because one of the primaries die? Really effing ethical.

Why don't they take the deceased clothes, food, gold fillings as well for the benefit of the living OR they could stop spending more GD money than they take in.

[EasyAce]

Of all taxes, even from a libertarian perspective, the estate tax is the most ethical.

Since when is it ethical for the government to decide, in effect, that you have no right to decide where your
money should go upon your death? You earned it, it's yours, it should be your first choice who gets it
after you die.

[geronl]

My progeny will continue to need to eat, clothe and shelter themselves after I'm gone. My first obligation is to them, not the welfare state.

 

[geronl]

Having the estate tax as the primary (or secondary) source of government funding (and not just an ADDITIONAL source) is about the fairest method of taxation.  It's also wholy unworkable in practice, IMO, and intices waste.  It's just too easy to get around.

It raises such a small amount of revenue that it's pointless anyway.

[Night Hides Not]

OK, then let's look at this individually.

If a person dies... what use is money to him or her? The person is dead. They cannot use it.

Now, let's consider: we have a government. It consumes money. If we agree taking money from the living causes harm to the living (as they must spend money to survive), but taking money from the dead causes no harm to the dead (as they are no longer surviving), then why would we not use the estate tax, first and foremost?

Of all taxes, even from a libertarian perspective, the estate tax is the most ethical.

Sounds good, but as a former quasi-expert on taxation, methinks there's a gaping hole in that argument: whatever assets remain, they have already been taxed at least once. The government should not have a claim beyond the first bite of the apple. Estate taxes are a second bite of the apple, from wealth that has already been taxed.

OTOH, eliminate the estate tax, and you'll be putting thousands of tax attorneys and CPAs out of business. After doing taxes for over 30 years (from the time I graduated from college), I was simply worn out, and lost my desire for stealing scraps from Longshanks' table (lol - Braveheart reference). I was pretty good at it, made a good living, and helped out a lot of people.

I appreciate your post, and am merely offering my $.02...not looking for a fight.

[roamer_1]

Of all taxes, even from a libertarian perspective, the estate tax is the most ethical.

It is the most heinous. Wealth is largely built upon inheritance. Death taxes remove all hope of inheritance.
What do you do with the farmer, whose wealth is in his land? Take it away and damn his kids?

[Cripplecreek]

It is the most heinous. Wealth is largely built upon inheritance. Death taxes remove all hope of inheritance.
What do you do with the farmer, whose wealth is in his land? Take it away and damn his kids?

Support for the inheritance tax was another plank in Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party platform.

Inheritance taxes are just opportunistic vulture government seeking one last bite of the pie they've been feeding on for years.

[jmyrlefuller]

If you grant the government some sort of moral right to the wealth of dead people, where does it stop?

The line between life and death is pretty clear.

Why should the gov. have power over wealth that has already been taxed? 

Because wealth is already taxed any time it changes hands.

If someone earns a paycheck, taxes are paid from it (FICA, income tax, unemployment insurance). If that person spends that paycheck at a store, it's taxed (sales tax), and again taxed (income tax for the owner), and yet again taxed (payroll tax for the cashier). Just because money is taxed once somewhere down the line doesn't make it exempt from all other taxes. The most heinous of all forms of income outside criminal activity, unearned income derived from death and steeped in nepotism, should not be exempt. At the very least, it should be subject to income tax.

Wouldn't you say the wealth should go to whomever or whatever was stipulated in the dead person's will?

No. Certain types of wealth (copyrights) can be shared by all (by putting that work into the public domain) without government confiscation.

[roamer_1]

Support for the inheritance tax was another plank in Teddy Roosevelt's progressive party platform.

Inheritance taxes are just opportunistic vulture government seeking one last bite of the pie they've been feeding on for years.

When my mother goes, the taxes on the family home make it impossible for us four kids to keep it. It will, predictably, force the sale of the land we grew up on... That our sons and daughters grew up on.... That our grandchildren are growing up on. Were it not for that, I dare say my brother, or my eldest son would take it over, with all our blessings...

Bad enough to have thanksgiving, christmas or the fourth without her... not to mention the table she laid the feast upon, the dining room where we have always gathered, and the very roof above it. It breaks my heart. But there is nothing for it.

[jmyrlefuller]

It is the most heinous. Wealth is largely built upon inheritance. Death taxes remove all hope of inheritance.

So, in that notion, the son of a poor family has no hope of becoming wealthy, and you wonder why wealth inequality is skyrocketing.

Wealth should be built on EARNINGS, not inheritance.

What do you do with the farmer, whose wealth is in his land? Take it away and damn his kids?

What did his kids do to deserve that land any more than anyone else? By granting those kids a free farm (valued in the millions of dollars) you damn everyone else around them!

[ABX]

Addressing the statement that estate taxes are 'the most ethical'- No! They are the least ethical for two reasons.

1.  First, the 'estate' is built on income already taxed, be it income or capital gains. This is a second or third tax on that capital.

2. It undermines the foundation of what earnings and even currency is. If you are not free to dispose of your accumulated wealth, then it is not your property but just borrowed from the government.  It makes the government  the ultimate owner of all property, not the individual. (many will say we are long past that point).

No, if any tax is even close to ethical, it is some sort of direct consumption tax. This is because you are freely choosing whether to pay that tax based on what you buy. If you do not feel taxes are going to where you want the to go or to what you believe, you can reduce your spending so as to not give your own wealth to the government. It is the closest tax that offers you a choice and control.

[EasyAce]

Wealth should be built on EARNINGS, not inheritance. What did his kids do to deserve that land any more than anyone else?

I'm not sure how much you know directly about farming, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that the children of
farmers grow up working on those farms with their parents. The idea that they inherit said farms without having
earned them is only slightly less preposterous than your idea, when all is said and done, that a man or woman
has or should have no implicit right to decide where their money and property go after their deaths no matter
to whom they choose to give it.

By granting those kids a free farm (valued in the millions of dollars) you damn everyone else around them!

Damn them to what---the prevention of appropriation by theft so that they might maybe get a small sliver of the
appropriation in one or another government benefit?

Keeping a family farm in the family---or anything else a man or woman decides should be kept in the family,
including their monetary wealth, in whatever volume---damns no one. The State should not have the first right to
what men and women earn even after their deaths. They should, I repeat, have the right to decide who gets it and
how much of it. The inheritance tax robs them of that right just as surely as the income tax robs them of the right
to make the first call on how they should or shouldn't spend the money they earn.

We could kick around all day how many people abuse their inheritances or at least fail to build upon them, but
that doesn't mean the State ought to have the right to decide for them what their inheritances shall or shall not
do. It's a variation on the argument Albert Jay Nock translated from what he saw (properly) as the metastasis
of State power and the contraction of individual and proper social power, the State saying, in effect, You have
not used your social power in the manner I see fit so I shall take it from you and exercise it as I believe fit.

[roamer_1]

So, in that notion, the son of a poor family has no hope of becoming wealthy, and you wonder why wealth inequality is skyrocketing.

The father of that poor family worked his whole life, sacrificed himself, to buy a piece of land to pass on to his sons. How does it help the poor son to take that land away from him?

Wealth should be built on EARNINGS, not inheritance. What did his kids do to deserve that land any more than anyone else? By granting those kids a free farm (valued in the millions of dollars) you damn everyone else around them!

Well, for starters, I put every single fence post in the ground on that place for the last thirty years. That chicken coop is partly my handiwork. The roof on the barn, that is all me and my brother. Every single head of stock on that place was green broke and gentled out by either me or my son. The bridge, I put there, by hand, twenty years ago. The garden and all that's in it, grows in compost I put there.

I helped to build the shop, and helped my dad every day within it, and after he died, it was me that ran it.
I was the one who contoured the land, who laid in the irrigation, who reseeded it.
I was the one who built those rock walls, retaining the side yards, who laid in the flowerbeds for my mother, who put on the back decks, who resided the barn and painted the place religiously.
It was me who put in the plumbing and upgraded the wiring, and set the cell and network repeaters.
All of those watering troughs were set by my hand. all of the clearing down along the creek was done by me.

Don't even try to tell me I have no working interest, and don't deserve it you SOB. And don't you think for one damn minute that it's free.

In your way, whose getting the blood sweat, tears, joys, sorrows, and love for that land for free is the government.

[ABX]

So, in that notion, the son of a poor family has no hope of becoming wealthy, and you wonder why wealth inequality is skyrocketing.

Wealth should be built on EARNINGS, not inheritance. What did his kids do to deserve that land any more than anyone else? By granting those kids a free farm (valued in the millions of dollars) you damn everyone else around them!

Did someone hack your account?  Addressing the second paragraph, specifically, it gets down to this (and I'm saying it as politely as I can): it is not your money and it is none of your business. The owner of the asset should have free choice how to dispose of that asset. It in no way belongs to his neighbor, the government, or the SJW who cries it is unfair. He can choose to burn the entire place down, he can blow it all in Vegas, he can spend it all on hookers or give it all to his church, or he can leave it to his children and grandchildren. It is his property, his choice.

Now, to discuss the farm issue in particular, because the estate tax has been especially distructive to family farms.
If you wonder why the family farm is disappearing and giant corporate farms are taking their place, look no further than the estate tax.

Imagine for a moment, a cotton farm outside of Lubbock, Texas, with 1500 acres, owned by the same family for over a hundred years.  Most likely, as a standard of living, those cotton farmers live a meager life, often boom and bust similar to most lower middle class families in this country. To the government however, those 1500 acres, on paper, are worth millions of dollars.

Suddenly, grandpa dies. All of the farm was in his name. He wants to leave the farm to his children to keep on the tradition. There may only be a few thousand dollars in the bank with it going away as soon as they need to buy the next planting of seeds or fix a tractor. The government comes in though and says, your farm is worth $5 Million dollars, you owe us $2 Million in estate taxes. What are they to do? They don't have $2 Million or even $20 Thousand. The only choice this farm, like thousands of farms before them,  is to sell out. So out of despiration, they sell to another corporate farm- one more family farm lost with, after the estate tax, property tax, and other debts are cleard, leaving them very little.

How exactly is that in any way remotely ethical or fair?

[Cripplecreek]

When my mother goes, the taxes on the family home make it impossible for us four kids to keep it. It will, predictably, force the sale of the land we grew up on... That our sons and daughters grew up on.... That our grandchildren are growing up on. Were it not for that, I dare say my brother, or my eldest son would take it over, with all our blessings...

Bad enough to have thanksgiving, christmas or the fourth without her... not to mention the table she laid the feast upon, the dining room where we have always gathered, and the very roof above it. It breaks my heart. But there is nothing for it.

I know exactly what you're dealing with. We lost both my grandmother and mother last year. We were fortunate that they were both "poor" land owners who didn't have any real assets beyond the houses and the plot of land they sit on so the tax hits weren't spectacular.

My grandmother's house was virtually unsalable due to the fact that its almost 200 years old (built in the 1830s) Its in good shape but a realtor who looked at it said 6 figures would be required to bring it up to code. Fortunately my cousin was willing to take the house for the $50,000 cost of closing the estate and whatever the tax hit was. We sold my mom's house for the closing costs and taxes to my other cousin.

Its nice to keep them in the family.

[Restored]

The government has the ability to kill you to get your money. Let that sink in.

[roamer_1]

Its nice to keep them in the family.

I don't think we'll have the choice/ the estate tax is estimated at around a quarter million, and the only reason the township hasn't taken the five acres where the house sits into the town is that it is grandfathered. The minute the title changes hands, that five acres is zoned residential, subject to city taxes, and tripled in value... Even though it is mostly bottom where a house will never go.

If they'd leave it be, it pays for itself nicely.

[truth_seeker]

So, in that notion, the son of a poor family has no hope of becoming wealthy, and you wonder why wealth inequality is skyrocketing.

Wealth should be built on EARNINGS, not inheritance. What did his kids do to deserve that land any more than anyone else? By granting those kids a free farm (valued in the millions of dollars) you damn everyone else around them!

Gobs and gobs of wealth envy in case you don't realize it. Why is another man's wealth any of your business?

There is nothing conservative, about wealth envy or about concern for how others obtain what they have.

If my grandfather worked well beyond normal retirement, lived below his means, in order to pass something on for his spouse and children, that is his private business.

If my mother inherited that, and together with my father lived below their means, saved and invested some more, that is their business and should be free to spend it all at once, or pass it to their children.

I am amazed at the level of misunderstanding by many who call themselves "conservatives," but really are not.

Wealth envy is most of the basis for communism. Marx used wealth envy to inspire violent revolution, to take from some, for others.