Even Prominent Conservatives Have Socialism Hiding Inside Their Heads

[Smokin Joe]

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.

Farms have been rendered economically unviable out here by having to sell off too much land for the remainder to be a profitable venture. That is one of the biggest contributors to the demise of the "family farm". Now, if someone has any sense, they make a corporation and divvy it up among the kids, or divide their assets on paper beforehand.

Let my folks fully enjoy that which they have built and been taxed on every step of the way. As it is theirs, and has already been taxed, who they give it to after their death is their business, and the government should only step in to settle disputes of probate or title, not to get a cut.

[ABX]

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.

I agree and did see where you were going with that. If we start to have socialist, authoritian, or worse tendencies, big solutions like an Article V convention could bite us. We have to have our foundation regrounded first.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree and did see where you were going with that. If we start to have socialist, authoritian, or worse tendencies, big solutions like an Article V convention could bite us. We have to have our foundation regrounded first.

Yep. @INVAR and I have been saying that (at some length) on that other thread.

[geronl]

The argument is that all wealth belongs to the government and it was generous to let us "borrow" some in our lifetimes.

What a sad world.

[truth_seeker]

The argument is that all wealth belongs to the government and it was generous to let us "borrow" some in our lifetimes.

What a sad world.

If it was just that, it would be one thing. But the true communist approach is to use envy of wealth to foment violent revolution, and take it all into state control.

Kill off a few million middle class and above, along the way.

My hair stands on end, when a supposedly "conservative" person starts in on the misdeeds and unfairness, of those that "have."

Government makes worse decisions than private owners of wealth. Government would squander wealth on current consumption, by the permanent classes of the perpetually poor, and the perpetual government employee class. With plenty of graft and corruption along the way.

[roamer_1]

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.

That's right.