Even Prominent Conservatives Have Socialism Hiding Inside Their Heads

[Cripplecreek]

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.

My grandmother's (cousin's) place sits on 3 and a half acres at the edge of a tiny town. Its got 3 outbuildings. 1 building is a 3 story carriage house.

[INVAR]

So the title of the OP is being made manifest right here on this thread.

"A good person leaves an inheritance for their children's children, but a sinner's wealth is stored up for the righteous". - Proverbs 13:22

[roamer_1]

My grandmother's (cousin's) place sits on 3 and a half acres at the edge of a tiny town. Its got 3 outbuildings. 1 building is a 3 story carriage house.

I am sure glad y'all got it squared up and kept it in the family.
If we have a chance at all,  it's to split the the house and buildings from the rest, sell that much to my brother or my son for the cost of the estate tax, and hope like hell we can settle it outside of the city proper. The rest is sure to go into a trust at that point, to protect it. We're trying to get the whole works into a trust, but I think it is too late, because of the city... if we could work that out ahead of time, to keep it away from the city, we'll hope to roll the whole thing into a trust. Then it doesn't change hands anymore.l

[roamer_1]

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

Nicely served.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

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  , 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.

1.  Yes, taxing both income and the estate is double taxation.  But that doesn't automatically make the second tax unethical.  The double taxation itself is unethical.  The fact that one comes first doesn't make it less unethical.  One could argue with the same logic that income tax is the most unethical because the money is GOING TO BE taxed at death.

2.  Taxing a person's estate after they pass INSTEAD OF (and yes, we're now in purely theorhetical territory here) taxing their income/consumption/etc during their life give the individual the most control of what they do with their assets.  Having the government take money right out of my paycheck before I even get to touch it makes the government  the ultimate owner of all property.

A direct consumption tax is certainly not anything close to ethical.  I don't consume much.  I buy a new truck and keep it for twenty years or so before getting a new one.  A guy I know can't go more than about three years without buying a new car.  The "value" (I should say utility, but using value I get to put quotes around it) we both get from the government is the same, so why should I pay less?

The truly ethical system of taxation, which no one agrees with, would be usage (usage of government services, such as a toll road -- with the money to be used ONLY to build and maintain said road) based taxes first, then we split up the rest of the budget among all adults and everybody kicks in the same.

[endicom]

...there is no such collective entity as “society.”

Thank you, Mr. Tracinski. 'Society' works only as a term of convenience.

McArdle may write from a libertarian perspective but I don't think she's ever taken the philosophy whole.

Political reality causes many (most?) people to run on two tracks, philosophical and pragmatic, and that may describe Murray and Friedman. They may push for something to be called libertarian while knowing they will have to make the most of what exists. So, I think Tracinski is probably misunderstanding Friedman and Murray.

[DB]

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!

So in your view all wealth is on loan from the government and when you die it should return to its ultimate owner...

You are way off the rails here.

[truth_seeker]

Thank you, Mr. Tracinski. 'Society' works only as a term of convenience.

McArdle may write from a libertarian perspective but I don't think she's ever taken the philosophy whole.

Political reality causes many (most?) people to run on two tracks, philosophical and pragmatic, and that may describe Murray and Friedman. They may push for something to be called libertarian while knowing they will have to make the most of what exists. So, I think Tracinski is probably misunderstanding Friedman and Murray.

I would be fascinated to learn how many here, know who Friedman and Murray are? And what their basic positions are?

[endicom]

I would be fascinated to learn how many here, know who Friedman and Murray are? And what their basic positions are?

It's been years since I've read anything by either so I'm left with that they had and have a libertarian, not anarchocapitalist, perspective.

[EasyAce]

I would be fascinated to learn how many here, know who Friedman and Murray are? And what their basic positions are?

Friedman came out for school vouchers in the 1950s; he called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve; he opposed
the draft as anathematic to a free society; he argued that most public services could be performed better by the
private sector; he argued that a negative income tax would serve the poor better than the welfare state; he opposed
the War on Drugs; and, he argued on behalf of gay rights but opposed gay marriage. Among other positions.

I read Capitalism and Freedom a long time ago. I think Ronald Reagan awarded him the Presidential Medal of
Freedom but I could be wrong.

[EasyAce]

It's been years since I've read anything by either so I'm left with that they had and have a libertarian, not anarchocapitalist, perspective.

Friedman once called himself a libertarian with a small "l" and a Republican with a large R, the latter "on grounds of expediency, not
principle."

[endicom]

Friedman once called himself a libertarian with a small "l" and a Republican with a large R, the latter "on grounds of expediency, not
principle."

That looks right. We are where we are and where we are is the only place from where we can build something better. Demanding some notion of ideological purity from politicians is folly as they can only start from where we are.

[EasyAce]

That looks right. We are where we are and where we are is the only place from where we can build something better. Demanding some notion of ideological purity from politicians is folly as they can only start from where we are.

You don't need ideological purity to suggest that starting without principles is like turning the key in your
car's ignition when the engine was removed.

[EC]

Wait a second ... free farm? No such thing as property taxes where you are? That "free farm" is gonna be taxed for everything the mark will bear, no matter who owns it.

The whole idea of death taxes being the most ethical is silly. Firstly, to be ethical there has to be a voluntary component. Last I looked, death wasn't something that people could opt out of. Secondly, what happened to the idea of paying your way? You are using (or being charged for regardless) government services now. Paying in 40 or 60 or 80 years isn't really an ethical option.

If you know that on death everything is going to the government - where's the incentive to do more than the bare minimum? Where's the incentive to risk, to innovate, to expand?

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Wait a second ... free farm? No such thing as property taxes where you are? That "free farm" is gonna be taxed for everything the mark will bear, no matter who owns it.

The whole idea of death taxes being the most ethical is silly. Firstly, to be ethical there has to be a voluntary component. Last I looked, death wasn't something that people could opt out of. Secondly, what happened to the idea of paying your way? You are using (or being charged for regardless) government services now. Paying in 40 or 60 or 80 years isn't really an ethical option.

If you know that on death everything is going to the government - where's the incentive to do more than the bare minimum? Where's the incentive to risk, to innovate, to expand?

Note, huge difference between "most ethical" and "ethical".  See our two main choices last November for an example. 

Awhile back I was considering a society with a 100% death tax, and no other taxes (usage fees, perhaps).  The idea was that the resources on this planet belong to the people who are alive.  While you are alive, be as productive as you want, live how you want.  And then, when you are gone, the resources revert back to the commons (which, realistically though not ideally probably means they go to the government).  No one "owns" anything once they are gone.

The incentive to risk, innovate, and expand comes from the fact (well, theory) that you get to keep more of your stuff while you're alive than a system based on income or consupmtion taxes.  In theory, this would maximize production and we'd all be better off.  Well, until you consider that there is little incentive to build wealth if you don't get to dictate where most of it goes in the end, so you might as well consume it all -- and this is where my little thought experiment falls on its face, it just wouldn't work.

[Hondo69]

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

The language and terminology used by so-called conservatives is alarming.  If you listen carefully to how they use words such as cost, revenue, and income it becomes clear they have the big government mindset.  In other words, the money you make is not yours, it is the government's and they'll let you know sooner or later how much they'll let you keep.

[Hondo69]

I know the so-called “libertarian” argument Murray made for the basic income.

His book is called In Our Hands.  It's a tough read but if you're willing to slog through pages of dry facts and figures the ideas become clear. 

His basic points are these:  For one, we are a very socialist society and if you don't believe him just examine the federal budget.  We are very, very socialist.  For another, if we're going to spend billions each year on socialism anyway, let's do it in a more logical fashion.

Everyone gets a check each month, deposited into your checking account.  You may then spend that money on drugs, hookers, health insurance or food.  Your choice.

Besides the monthly check, there is another part to Murray's equation.  We eliminate all government agencies related to welfare/socialism.  In short, we cut out the middleman.  By doing so we save zillions of taxpayer dollars.  And we add a big dose of personal responsibility to boot.

For example, let's say Bob chooses to spend his monthly check in strip clubs.  He may not eat or have a dime for clothes, but he's made his own choices.  On the other hand, Larry and his cousin decide to use that money to start a small business.  They may get a loan from the bank and dedicate those monthly checks towards paying down the loan.  And then there is Suzie, who just puts her checks into a savings account.  At the end of the day it is your choice.

Of course, that's where liberals go nuts - your choice.  They demand government make these choices for you as individuals are too stupid to spend the money wisely.

[Oceander]

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.

The estate tax is no more ethical or unethical than any other tax.  It's a compulsory taking. 

In fact, because it bears no correlation to the availability of liquid assets it is actually more unethical, if we're going by to go that way, than is an income tax because it is imposed on a wholly arbitrary basis and without much warning: fair market value of illiquid assets on the date of death, and often requires that family businesses be disrupted - taking away the livelihood of the living - in order to satisfy the socialist envies of the left. 

Taxes imposed on the basis of estimated fair market value, as opposed to on some type of liquidity event, are far more disruptive and economically inefficient than are taxed that arise at a liquidity event, in which I include getting paid for services rendered. 

So, if disruption and economic efficiency have any bearing on the matter, the estate tax is an unethical tax. 

[Doug Loss]

Y'all need to do as my father (92 years old) is doing.  He's gifting his estate (as much as possible without triggering federal laws--something like $14,000 per child per year) to his four children before he dies.  So long as he can meet the costs of his assisted living facility, he's giving the rest away.  My sister is a financial adviser and is overseeing all this.  I suppose it might be possible (I'm no expert) to set up a trust and donate all his estate to that, then have the trust cover his costs of living and disburse the remainder to the surviving trust members (his progeny) upon his death.  Anyway, the estate tax is deeply statist and should be opposed in every way possible.

[INVAR]

The language and terminology used by so-called conservatives is alarming.  If you listen carefully to how they use words such as cost, revenue, and income it becomes clear they have the big government mindset.  In other words, the money you make is not yours, it is the government's and they'll let you know sooner or later how much they'll let you keep.

Which is also why I am laughing at those who are insisting an Article V Convention is going to stop Fedzilla overreach and return us to Constitutionalism.

They are not even bothering to consider the fact that the disease that makes big government socialism a permanent fixture in America is rooted in the minds of most Americans.

[ABX]

Y'all need to do as my father (92 years old) is doing.  He's gifting his estate (as much as possible without triggering federal laws--something like $14,000 per child per year) to his four children before he dies.  So long as he can meet the costs of his assisted living facility, he's giving the rest away.  My sister is a financial adviser and is overseeing all this.  I suppose it might be possible (I'm no expert) to set up a trust and donate all his estate to that, then have the trust cover his costs of living and disburse the remainder to the surviving trust members (his progeny) upon his death.  Anyway, the estate tax is deeply statist and should be opposed in every way possible.

My grandfather who is 99 (just turned it last month) a good while back set up an estate in all the family name to avoid the huge hit he'll receive. I don't know all the ins and outs, but he spent a lot on lawyers to make sure it was rock solid with as few taxes as possible.

[Doug Loss]

Which is also why I am laughing at those who are insisting an Article V Convention is going to stop Fedzilla overreach and return us to Constitutionalism.

They are not even bothering to consider the fact that the disease that makes big government socialism a permanent fixture in America is rooted in the minds of most Americans.

Don't try to hijack the topic.  If you want to complain about an Article V convention, take it back to the appropriate discussion.

[INVAR]

Don't try to hijack the topic.  If you want to complain about an Article V convention, take it back to the appropriate discussion.

There is no hijacking.  The topic is Conservatives Having Socialism Hiding Inside Their Heads.   Since that fact is being demonstrated on this thread - then this concern applies to every single effort "Conservatives" want to undertake, including efforts to Amend the Constitution.

If you insist there is no correlation between topics, then that explains a great many things.

[Smokin Joe]

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?

It stops when they dig up the body, strip away any jewelry, and pry out the gold teeth. After all dead people don't need teeth. And for that matter, about that real estate they are taking up...

[Smokin Joe]

There is no hijacking.  The topic is Conservatives Having Socialism Hiding Inside Their Heads.   Since that fact is being demonstrated on this thread - then this concern applies to every single effort "Conservatives" want to undertake, including efforts to Amend the Constitution.

If you insist there is no correlation between topics, then that explains a great many things.

It explains what I tried to say on that, too. The problems are ones of principle. Either people embrace those principles and enforce them or there will be something else. No piece of paper or feelgood rule is going to change that we have the government the people have demanded, for the most part, and changing that requires changing the way people think.