Libertarianism and Inheritance

[WildCat]

The wealthy will always, through estate planning, find a way to pass down the great majority of their estate through heirs tax-free. It's the middle class who's often too busy or ignorant or who simply doesn't have enough $$ to pay the lawyers to properly protect the estate.

A big force behind the effort to get rid of inheritance taxes was family farms and small businesses. They just don't produce the income to pay off the enormous tax burden the estate tax can put on them.

For those of you who think that all estates should escheat to the gov't, do you feel the same way about the deceased person's debts? Since the debts get paid off by the estate, and the estate now belongs to the gov't then so will the debts. What a great incentive for the terminally ill and elderly to run up enormous debts in the last years of their lives! Their heirs can't get it anyway, might as well live beyond your means.

 

[BillyTK]

Nowhere is there a better case study for this type of tax than in the UK - the dissolution of the aristocracy was accomplished using this tax.
A good thing? Well that's debatable.
Yes, because it rids us of the class system.
[...]

I must've been napping when that happened. So how come Tara Palmer-Tompkinson and Lady Victoria Hervey's less-famous sister are still on tv?

 

[Oleron]

Hi Graham,

I was referring to the fact that the noble families employed large numbers of people on tenant farms, estate upkeep, sporting pursuits etc. For a long time they were the 'managers' of the rural economies.
Of course it could be argued that they were very poor 'managers' who didn't really give a stuff and things are much better now. Tenant farmers became owner farmers (eventually, in some cases). The old form of sporting pursuits (hunting/shooting) are much less widespread and so employ far fewer people. Estate upkeep is managed by the National Trust.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Hi Graham,

I was referring to the fact that the noble families employed large numbers of people on tenant farms, estate upkeep, sporting pursuits etc. For a long time they were the 'managers' of the rural economies.
Of course it could be argued that they were very poor 'managers' who didn't really give a stuff and things are much better now. Tenant farmers became owner farmers (eventually, in some cases). The old form of sporting pursuits (hunting/shooting) are much less widespread and so employ far fewer people. Estate upkeep is managed by the National Trust.

I don't know if I've understood your argument correctly, but it seems that you're saying that inheritience tax is responsible for lower employment on farms. I hope not, because this is bollocks. Automation is the biggest cause of unemployment on farms.

 

[Oleron]

My main point was not about rural economy but that one the best case studies of inheritance tax was/is the British aristocracy.
Perhaps my first post put too much emphasis on the rural effects.

 

[Reager]

My question in bringing up the "rights of dead persons" issue was not to say that a dead person has no rights therefore everything they owned should go to the government. I am trying to understand the basis for the idea that the dead have any "right" that should be honored at all, save those that the living choose to grant.

And I should point out that taking the position that the dead have no "rights" is not incompatable with *no* estate tax, or laws against necrophelia, etc... But if those laws are justified, they should be justified because of how they affect the living, not the dead (even if the laws are simply intended to show "respect" for the dead...as far as we know, the dead don't care...).

As for the estate tax being "double" taxation because it is taxed to the person passing it on as income and to the person receiving it as an estate, well...again, that is a confusing way of looking at it. Money received from your boss and money received from your dead father are both income, they are just different forms of income. The money received from your boss was still subject to tax at some point in the past. So why is the later "multiple taxation" yet the former is not?


Mike

Edited to remove a redundant "Mike."

 

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritan

True, but when I decide to pay someone to 'mow my lawn', I'm exercising a choice in how to spend my money and purchasing a new good/service. Thus, that's where the dividing line comes which separates taxation from 'double taxation'.

However, in the case of inheritance, there is no such 'choice' or dividing line. When i inherit money, there's no real exchange of goods and services for cash, therefore, there's no 'dividing line'.

I'm sorry this makes no sense to me. What is the justification for this "dividing line" you speak of? Why should "earned" income be treated any differently than "unearned" income.

And the idea that taxation is ok when paying someone to perform a service because a "choice" has been made seems specious at best. Yeah people have a "choice" to hire someone or be hired themselves, but they don't have a "choice" whether or not to pay taxes in the first place. It's similar to discussion about the draft. The most important issue is not whether you'd be given a "choice" as to which battlefield you'd be sent to, but that you are serving at all.

Mike

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritanc

I would like to see a reference where Libertarians have indicated that they oppose the temporary seizure of assets if its in the course of a criminal investigation.

I agree with some aspects of libertarianism, and disagree with others, but I have never heard any claim that they think property rights trumps criminal justice. Perhaps you have seen different.

It's a matter of applying our core premise -- the non-initiation of force. I do not doubt that most libertarians, without giving it much thought, believe that a criminal investigation takes precedence over property rights, but I charge this is inconsistent with a natural rights philosophy.

The Last Libertarian has the following dialog with a Sympathetic Detective.

LL: You may not seize the body to conduct an investigation because I will not allow it. My father's wishes on this point were unmistakably clear.

SD: But sir, if your father was murdered then we want to bring his killer to justice. You're preventing the state from accomplishing one of its proper (limited) aims.

LL: I already told you; my father at this stage cares only about his next life. It's kind and noble of you to want to bring his (possible) destroyer to justice, but he has other values and interests, ridiculous as they may seem, which supercede this aim. Surely you can respect this exercise of liberty. Besides, what manner of "Justice" results from this obvious injustice -- the subversion of my will, an unquestionable extension of the deceased. You appear paternalistic...

SD: But sir, a potential criminal at large may strike again...

LL: So? Those consequences are indeed undesirable, and I will pray that no harm comes to another, but the fact remains you cannot take my property without my consent.

SD: But it's only temporary, Sir. You will get...

LL: After you've buthchered him.

SD: Nevertheless...

LL: Ah, so it's okay for you steal things for a limited amount of time, to trample my rights temporarily, all in the "common good" of course ("the killer may strike again!"). *dramatically extends wrists* Why don't you handcuff me and make me your slave for a short while? Would that be okay?

SD: Sir, I respect your natural righ....

LL: Do you? Then why do I appeal to consent, the heart of liberty and natural rights, while you seemingly emphasize consequences, a utilitarian construction that treats people as objects in order to achieve the "greatest good"? I am under no obligation to assist you. I have harmed no one.

And so on. A consistent, dedicated libertarian will hear nothing to the contrary. "Natural rights" always win out.

RE: police playing basketball

And what exactly is the point of your argument?

It goes to the idea of a "temporary" subversion of property rights. You see, in the case of a criminal investigation, where a conflict of interests arises, the police implicitly appeal to negative consequences (the killer may strike again!). A natural rights libertarian may not want to see anyone murdered, however, he maintains that the police cannot use his property as a resource without consent.

Even though I'm not a libertarian, I would also find that a violation.

If the government seizes assets, even if they pay everything back at a later date, who decides what a fair amount of interest is? While the government has assets stuck in some low-interest bank account, a wise money manager may have lost out on some great investment because the cash was not available.

(Note: that is not the same as the seizure of assets for the purposes of a criminal investigation. In such a case, the seizure is only temporary, and is necessitated in order to ensure criminal justice. The example you gave above has no time limits.)

The so-called "temporary" seizure of assets by the police has no strict time limits either. Of course the example above can be modified while maintaining its essential features: fine, create a time limit. As for the interest paid, well, that's precisely the definition of just compensation. Of course the problem is that something has been taken without consent.

It depends on how you measure fairness and 'effort and sacrifice'.

An inheritance tax is a form of double taxation. Many people consider that to be 'unfair'. Obviously, someone who does not think that anyone has the 'right' to be rich will consider a 100% margin on any income earned over the 'poverty line' to be 'fair'.

As for rewarding effort and sacrifice, if I receive pleasure from the idea that my hard work will mean I can leave more money to my children, then you are taking away that particular reward.

This "double-tax" stuff people talk about is nonsense. Besides, it's not essential to our examination of libertarianism. Assume we live in the night watchman state and the government seeks to impose this one and only tax (all other "taxes" are voluntary).
________________________________

Uh-huh, I, a prominent Libertarian in my home state (candidate, delegate to the national convention, and Presidential elector), have no understanding of liberarianism, and you, a proven LIAR and BIGOT against anyone who disagrees with you, understands it perfectly even though your understanding is at odds with practically everything Libertarians have written.

Go the f*ck away. You are worthless.

Shanek- I see no purpose replying to you. You've demonstrated a remarkable inability to think rationally, imaginatively or (dare I say) honestly, jumping from one assertion to another while calling me a liar and bigot; dwelling on paragraphs that I've addressed, sometimes on many occasions, while ignoring all the central issues (as evidenced in the latest contentless, response).

You cannot distinguish consequentialism from natural rights*, nor libertarianism from Libertarianism. You've shown no familiarity with any of the major thinkers. If you want to cite your awesome credentials as a political candidate for an insiginficant party, one who managed third place for county water board, fine.

*This is particularly important and I suggest, if only for your own benefit, that you seriously reconsider. Prominent libertarians -- those worth listening to instead of empty-headed forum whores -- conduct symposiums on the topic and debate the views fiercely (as mutually exclusive). According to you, however, practically everyone engaged in political philosophy, including just about all major libertarian thinkers, are wrong. And, of course, as usual, you have no argument.

http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/73symposium.html#yeager

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inher

I'm sorry this makes no sense to me. What is the justification for this "dividing line" you speak of? Why should "earned" income be treated any differently than "unearned" income.

Because money does not exist simply for the sake of existing, it exists as a medium of exchange. (It eliminates the need for a 'barter' system.) However, the 'end goal' of obtaining money is to be able to use it to purchace material goods and services to improve your life.

That's why the 'dividing line' is when the purchase is made... its the logical 'end of the road' because that's the main purpose of money.

The money that gets 'inherited' never reached its final destination (to be used to buy something). Therefore, if the government applies additonal taxes to it, it is double taxation.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Cain
Well, the problem -- and this cuts to the heart of liberty -- is that they are in effect arguing for a social-economic system that allows a person's place in life to be determined by uncontrollable circumstances rather than free choices -- the anti-thesis of libertarianism's stated ideals.

No, they are not. They would be arguing for allowing a person's place in life to be defined by his free choices. Such choices are not accompanied by a claim on anyone else's resources for their financing.

Out of curiosity, and to test the accuracy of your own assumptions, could you cite exactly what you consider to be "libertarianism's stated ideals"? And to save time, I'm not asking you to quote some author, I'm asking what you think they are.

One of the initial appeals of libertarianism, I think, is that person supposedly gets what she deserves. This is implicitly seen in appeals to "natural rights" and "natural law," perfect justice meted out by nature. Humans just need to stop interfering. But they're not really defending free choices or meritocracy; worse, they confuse liberty with property. I suggest "propertarianism" is a more befitting term for their ideology.

Sounds like you are the one who is confused. The word "libertarianism" is quite suited to describe the views of libertarians - you know, the ones with a strong respect for individual sovereignty, personal liberty, stuff like that. Do some of them lose points because their views also include respect for property as well?

Second, the wealth bestowed to the recipient is unearned.

That it was not specifically earned by whoever is inheriting it does not mean that it was not earned by someone.

Incidentally, if I give something of mine to someone else, they didn't necessarily earn it either. How does that equate to anyone else having a claim on any part of that transaction?

it's difficult to take a libertarian's accusations of "selfishness" seriously

I suspect you think you really have a point here, but if you spelled it out more clearly, I'm fairly confident it's not one that would bear much scrutiny.

First let me chide you for failing to distinguish between Libertarianism and libertarianism. There's a difference you've never quite fully grasped. There are actually several libertarian views, all based on different premises. Again, you've never understood this (as evidenced by the link posted earlier).

There are natural-rights libertarians (Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand). Utilitiarian libertarians (Hayek, David and Milton Friedman). Though comparatively smaller and less influential, there are social contract libertarians (Jan Naverson).

There are also just plain libertarians, with a wide variety of approaches to different issues that reflect a strong respect for the right of peaceful individuals to run their own lives. Something you don't seem to fully grasp is that not all (or even most) libertarians necessarily fall neatly into any of your little boxes.

Originally posted by Shanek
Saying "it's none of the government's business" is NOT an appeal to authority. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Originally posted by Cain
It requires what people commonly call an "argument".

Um ... wouldn't an argument be necessary to establish why something is the government's business?

but First we have to overcome simplistic, unthinking, knee-jerk reactions like "it's mine!"

Actually, the "it's mine" thing is probably used by libertarian critics more often than libertarians themselves. But even when used by the latter, it has a lot in common with the abbreviated pro-choice mantra "my body my choice". Would you call that a "simplistic, unthinking, knee-jerk" reaction?

Originally posted by shanek
So you think it's perfectly all right to pick someone's pocket as long as you give the money to the needy.

Originally posted by Cain
Yes, that's what I believe. That's exactly what I believe. Well, perhaps a slight modification is in order: so long as the person getting his wallet stolen is rich.

Illuminating.

Robert Nozick, the most brilliant and influential libertarian, finally agreed that an estate tax is justifiable.

And later ...

It's not intended as an appeal to authority. Nozick, who near the end could no longer consider himself a libertarian, found the idea unearned inheritences enough to abandon the monicker.

If he no longer considered himself a libertarian, then why did you simply identify him earlier as "the most brilliant and influential libertarian", without pointing this out? You might as well have been saying Joe Schmo agreed that an estate tax is justifiable. So if it wasn't an appeal to authority, what the hell was your point?

Shanek, you're a funny guy, and you're understanding of libertarianism's philosophical underpinnings is about as deep as a puddle.

Like when Victor distinguishes consequentialist-utilitarian libertarianism from unempirical natural rights libertarianism.

Uh-huh. Then put your own cards on the table. Without relying on quotes from anyone else (who may or may not know as much about what they're talking about as you think they do), how about summarizing your own understanding of the primary tenets of libertarianism for us? Then we can see who's funnier, you or Shane.

You've shown no familiarity with any of the major thinkers.

Need help from "the major thinkers" to form your opinions, do you?

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritanc

It's a matter of applying our core premise -- the non-initiation of force. I do not doubt that most libertarians, without giving it much thought, believe that a criminal investigation takes precedence over property rights, but I charge this is inconsistent with a natural rights philosophy.

So in other words, its not actually a libertarian policy, its just your understanding of what their beliefs should be. The problem with pursuing that line of reasoning is that it leaves you open to creating a whole mess of strawmen.

The so-called "temporary" seizure of assets by the police has no strict time limits either.

Well, there are some limits. For example, there is the right to a 'speedy trial'.

As for the interest paid, well, that's precisely the definition of just compensation.

When exactly did that become the 'definition' of just compensation? I know that that is usually the standard applied when the government owes money, but most people probably would not find the rate of returns 'just' if they could earn more elsewhere.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Darat
So people are made unemployed, they can get another job, they shouldn't have been so dependent on the goodwill of someone else. Isn't that part of the ethos of a libertarian?

No.

Seriously I don't understand how if one of the core guiding principles of libertarism is "it's mine I can do what I like with it" there is any objection to a 100% inheritance tax.

First, to correct the attempt to attribute selfishness to a viewpoint where there is none, a quote that would more accurately reflect the stance of most libertarians would be "it's my neighbor's, and he can (or should be allowed to) do what he wants with it". Then, to address your point, it's a simple matter of adding the words "and that includes giving it to whoever he wants, whenever he wants, even after his death". Does this clear up your confusion?

Surely that contravenes my right to do what I like with my property?

Actually, that's what the inheritance tax does.

1) How I can own anything once I am dead.

You don't. That's what wills are for.

2) If "what is mine is mine" I don't understand how my heirs have any "rights" on what was my property.

If what is yours is yours, that would certainly include the ability to give it to others. In any case, if you don't see how the heirs have any rights to it, how the hell can you see how anyone else has any rights to it?

But why should it pass to their heirs?

Because that's what the deceased wanted.

The (adult) heirs can have no rights to someone else's property.

If it's left to them in a will, it's no longer "someone else's".

If the parent had wanted to they could have given everything to the child before they died.

Perhaps they didn't want to do so then. They wanted it to occur at the time of their death. You do understand the concept of planning, right?

Since they didn't the property now belongs to no one

No, again, it belongs to the children, in accordance with the wishes of the parent.

so what is wrong with the state getting the property and using it to offset government expenses?

What is wrong with it is that it would be violating the wishes of the parent, as stated prior to their death, and the state certainly has no more rightful claim to it than anyone else.

What I am getting at here is what I consider an apparent inconsistency here with libertarianism stated principles.

Then please clearly identify which of these "stated principles" you're talking about.

If I own my property and I die there no one now owns what was my property.

They do if you left a will.

Why should someone else now have rights over it?

Um ... because that's what you wanted? Any of this gettin' through yet?

The only way I can see that allows it to automatically pass to my heirs is by saying they have rights over my property, which seems to be saying that in fact they had at least a form of joint-ownership of my property before I died.

Uh, no. They assume ownership at the time of your death, in accordance with your wishes. This isn't that complicated.

So once I have heirs "what is mine is longer totally mine".

As long as you're alive, it's still yours, and you can still do with it whatever you want, including making changes to your will. Are you really having that much trouble with this?

Personally I don't disagree with your points but I don't see how they can be supported under a system that has at its heart "what is mine is mine and you can't take it from me".

What "system" are you talking about?

Therefore I'd have to say to be true to these principles a libertarian would have to say that since there should be no inheritance.

It would be refreshing if you could manage to identify a principle in conflict with inheritance that is actually supported by most libertarians. Good luck.

If everything is personally owned by someone how does someone who doesn't exist say what is to be done with some property?

By saying so before they don't exist. You're really making this too easy. You're also helping to illustrate some of the absurd lengths people will often go to in order to try and spin libertarianism as something unreasonable. Thanks for the help.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I thought that was what Libertarianism was all about, self reliance.

You've been misinformed. Most libertarians probably view self reliance as a good thing. For that matter, so do most people generally. It is hardly what Libertarianism is "all about".

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Ah, now I remember why I don't argue with you... I forgot about your monomanical loon complex. I'm getting that pain in my forehead again:

Can you explain how your response is justified by the comments you seemed to be responding to?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Let's see ...

The system already in place is __________. You are proposing a change to this system. You are the one who has to back up your claims, not those who support the status quo.

Now, would you care to go on record supporting this statement, no matter how that blank gets filled in?

Yes I would. If a system is already in place, and I want to see it changed, it is reasonable for me to provide evidence to justify the changing of that system. Shane's position is to say, "prove the system should stay in place". That's not up to Cain- it's up to Shane to back his own claim.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by UserGoogle
Inheritance is not a guaranteed right.

So what? Neither is taxation.

Isn't it one of those positive rights that Libertarians never seem too keen on?

With regard to this topic, all that matters to most libertarians is respect for the right of people to dispose of their own property and earnings as they see fit. And some of us see no reason whatsoever to exclude the ability to arrange for such things beyond their own death, nor any right of anyone else to interfere with those wishes once they have died.

The right to recieve the money of dead people is in no way a natural right,

Now if only you could convince the government of that.

and the right to posthumously give money doesn't make sense, because dead people need no rights.

Then why are there laws against murder?

Incidentally, if, while I am still alive, I make arrangements for my own funeral and burial, would it be acceptable for any business involved in the arrangement to ignore my wishes once I'm dead, because I then "need no rights"?

Since the more-or-less official collaborative voice of "The Public" is the government, (at least in democracies) it seems fine for the government to take money from dead people if they see fit.

To borrow an approach from an earlier post ...

Since the more-or-less official collaborative voice of "The Public" is the government, (at least in democracies) it seems fine for the government to ____________________ if they see fit.

Would you support this statement, no matter how the blank gets filled in?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by mfeldman
1. I do not understand how the rights (any rights) of an individual can naturally extend beyond that individuals death. What is the justification for claiming that the dead have any innate, natural rights that must be recognized? Or, put another way, why do the "natural rights" of the living extend beyond the grave? And if they do, how far beyond the grave? 10 years? 1000? 10,000? It seems to me absurd that the dead can have any "rights" at all, save those that are granted by the living.

If you have this much trouble understanding how someone has a right to determine where their property goes after their death, trying to figure out how the government has a "right" to take it must be a real bitch too, huh?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Ah, now I remember why I don't argue with you... I forgot about your monomanical loon complex. I'm getting that pain in my forehead again:

Can you explain how your response is justified by the comments you seemed to be responding to?

 

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and I

Because money does not exist simply for the sake of existing, it exists as a medium of exchange. (It eliminates the need for a 'barter' system.)

That is not a justification for anything, it is simply a statement of fact (as far as it goes).

However, the 'end goal' of obtaining money is to be able to use it to purchace material goods and services to improve your life.

There is no difference between what you can purchase with earned income vs what you can urchase with unearned income.

That's why the 'dividing line' is when the purchase is made... its the logical 'end of the road' because that's the main purpose of money. The money that gets 'inherited' never reached its final destination (to be used to buy something). Therefore, if the government applies additonal taxes to it, it is double taxation.

I'm sorry but that explanation still makes not sense to me. What does the "main purpose" of money or its "final destination" (an arbitrary purchasing transaction) have to do with double taxation?And the placement of the "dividing line" is not the issue, and was not my question. Why should there be a "dividing line" at all?

If we agree that individuals are the entities that are being taxed, then taxing a $20 bill earned by a father and the same $20 beqathed to a son CANNOT be "double taxation." The term bears no relation to the reality of what's happening. Only if we take the view that the $20 *itself* is being taxed once, then being taxed again, does the term "double taxation" make any sense. And if that's the case, then why is it ok to tax the SAME $20 when it is earned by two subseuent people, but not ok to tax the SAME $20 when it is earned by the first person but not by the second?

Mike

 

[Reager]

If you have this much trouble understanding how someone has a right to determine where their property goes after their death, trying to figure out how the government has a "right" to take it must be a real bitch too, huh?

And snide comments are much easier to post than explanations and arguments justifying your position...

Mike