Libertarianism and Inheritance

[Darat]

No. Libertarians are all about goodwill. That's why we do so much charity work. But taking someone's money at gunpoint, no matter how rich they are, to give to someone, no matter how needy they are, is not goodwill.

So under your understanding/form of Libertarism there is some obligation on an owner of a company to not make people unemployed? Surely that contravenes my right to do what I like with my property?

 

[Darat]

I agree with mfeldman and UserGoogol about "rights" here under a form of L.

1) How I can own anything once I am dead.
2) If "what is mine is mine" I don't understand how my heirs have any "rights" on what was my property.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Think is, we don't know what the motives were for a recently deceased person... However, some people want to work harder, not to improve their own life, but to pass on wealth to their kids. Who are we to say that that's wrong?

As for how 'long' rights extend beyond the grave, that's a red herring... once a person is deceased, their wealth passes to their heirs, but its a one time thing. There is no real 'ongoing' rights past the initial tranfer.

2. Several people have criticized the estate tax because it is "double taxation." It seems that this view assumes that the "money" itself is being taxed. However, the government does not tax "money" or "property," it taxes people. So of COURSE there will be multiple taxation. Otherwise, any form of meaningful taxation becomes unworkable. (For example, X pays income tax on his $10,000 salary. He then passes on that 10k to others by purchasing items or giving it away, and those others pass their portion of that money to others. If there was no "multiple taxation" then that $10,000 could never be subject to taxation again, as income to another person or otherwise). Am I missing something?

Yes, "people" are taxed, but the tax is based on income.

Now, when you look at the problem of double taxation, you have to view things from the point of view of the immediate person and the heirs. (Yes, money that I earn gets taxed and if I spend it and the person who receives payment for stuff I buy gets taxed. However, that's not the defintion of double taxation. The definition of double taxation applies only to a single individual getting taxed twice on the same income. Once the earner decides to use the money for goods or services, the money no longer is considered to be 'double taxed'.)

 

[Darat]

Think is, we don't know what the motives were for a recently deceased person... However, some people want to work harder, not to improve their own life, but to pass on wealth to their kids. Who are we to say that that's wrong?

As for how 'long' rights extend beyond the grave, that's a red herring... once a person is deceased, their wealth passes to their heirs, but its a one time thing. There is no real 'ongoing' rights past the initial tranfer.

...snip..

But why should it pass to their heirs? The (adult) heirs can have no rights to someone else's property.

If the parent had wanted to they could have given everything to the child before they died. Since they didn't the property now belongs to no one so what is wrong with the state getting the property and using it to offset government expenses?

I really must be misunderstanding this point; I thought some of the principles of libertarianism were ownership of property and a right to be free of coercion to give up that property?

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Then you're misunderstanding natural-rights based libertarianism. The duration should make no difference because property is still seized without consent.

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.

Suppose you live next to the police station and you have a basketaball court in your backyard. Can the police waltz on to your property (with their own ball) and begin shooting hoops in their spare time? Since you're away during the day they're not even depriving you of access to your court. Most people, non-libertarians included, would say "no" because recreation is not a compelling enough reason to over-ride private property.

And what exactly is the point of your argument?

Which person are you talking about? Are you suggesting the heir may have murdered for profit?

That is one of the suggestions. (Its not an issue in all cases; that's why I said its a secondary reason for seizing assets. The primary reason is still the requirements of a criminal investigation.)

I am suggesting that the government seizes a person's cash, their gold bars, liquid assets, and promises to pay back the heirs (with interest). A natural rights libertarian would find this a violation of liberty as she never consented to such an exchange.

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.)

Which person's right to life? The prospects that a killer at large may strike again? Okay, since we have the scales out already it's possible to weigh unearned inheritence and aristocratic society against one that values fairness, equal opportunity, meritocracy, and rewards effort and sacrifice. Right?

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.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

...snip...

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'.

....snippp

How is it a double tax? The person receiving the property (income) didn't pay tax on it.

I don't see any logical reason why inheritance "income" should be treated differently from other forms of income.

 

[Segnosaur]

But why should it pass to their heirs? The (adult) heirs can have no rights to someone else's property.

But that's the point of a will... If I die, the people named in my will automatically become the new owners of the property. I, as the original owner, can decide who I want to leave my stuff to.

Are you suggesting the government can take everything? What about objects of sentimental value?

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

Because its impractical. People can die at any time. (Its not just old people that die.) For example, I need to keep my house in my name because I have to live here. When I die, I want my house to go to people in my family. But until that happens, I need to handle the finances of it myself.

Same with bank accounts and other 'cash' assets... even though we may want to have people inherit it on our death, we can't give it away now because we need it to live off of.

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

So what you're saying is that you don't believe in wills at all? For anyone?

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

Because, it takes away my right to decide what I want to do with my stuff after I die. I want to leave some stuff to my family, some stuff to the JREF, etc. I may put extra effort in at my job to make sure I have enough money to accomplish that. My will is expressing my wishes. Do you want to take away my ability to make such decisions?

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

How is it a double tax? The person receiving the property (income) didn't pay tax on it.

I don't see any logical reason why inheritance "income" should be treated differently from other forms of income.

Its taxed when I earn it, and its taxed when it gets transferred to the other person.

(The 'double taxation' ends when the money is used to purchase a good or service and the money gets transferred to someone outside of the original earner or inheritor.)

 

[Darat]

But that's the point of a will... If I die, the people named in my will automatically become the new owners of the property. I, as the original owner, can decide who I want to leave my stuff to.

Are you suggesting the government can take everything? What about objects of sentimental value?

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

(I understand your point about wills but that is just a legality that I believe under libertarianism principles is not supportable.)

If I own my property and I die there no one now owns what was my property. Why should someone else now have rights over it?

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

Because its impractical. People can die at any time. (Its not just old people that die.) For example, I need to keep my house in my name because I have to live here. When I die, I want my house to go to people in my family. But until that happens, I need to handle the finances of it myself.



...snip...

Do you want to take away my ability to make such decisions?

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". 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.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Its taxed when I earn it, and its taxed when it gets transferred to the other person.

(The 'double taxation' ends when the money is used to purchase a good or service and the money gets transferred to someone outside of the original earner or inheritor.)

Depends on how you look at it.

I earn 1,000 dollars - I pay income tax of 10 dollars ( )
I now have 990 dollars
I pay you 100 dollars to mow my lawn
You earn 100 dollars - you pay income tax of 1 dollar

I don't consider that double taxation, yet the 100 dollars you gave me had already been “taxed”.

That is how I look at inheritance - just another form of income. Doesn't matter if some part of it or all of it has been taxed previously it's still income to me. And since I pay income tax I pay tax on my new income.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarianism and Inheritance

Depends on how you look at it.

I earn 1,000 dollars - I pay income tax of 10 dollars ( )
I now have 990 dollars
I pay you 100 dollars to mow my lawn
You earn 100 dollars - you pay income tax of 1 dollar

I don't consider that double taxation, yet the 100 dollars you gave me had already been “taxed”.

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'.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But why should it pass to their heirs? The (adult) heirs can have no rights to someone else's property.

If the parent had wanted to they could have given everything to the child before they died. Since they didn't the property now belongs to no one so what is wrong with the state getting the property and using it to offset government expenses?

I really must be misunderstanding this point; I thought some of the principles of libertarianism were ownership of property and a right to be free of coercion to give up that property?

Why do they have to give it away before they die? If they make a will specifying who it should go to whern they die, that is a clear indication of what they want to do with what they own - why is that insufficient?

I think your misunderstanding is that you don't see the government taking your assets on death as coercion to give up that property.

Could any of those arguing in favour of the estate tax explain why there should be a limit below which it does not apply? It seems suspiciously like the normal answer when people are asked if they support higher taxes to pay for better public services - a high proportion say yes, but only if it means other people paying higher taxes, not them.

 

[Darat]

Why do they have to give it away before they die? If they make a will specifying who it should go to whern they die, that is a clear indication of what they want to do with what they own - why is that insufficient?

Because once I'm dead I don't own anything so who is saying what is to be done with the stuff I used to own?

I think your misunderstanding is that you don't see the government taking your assets on death as coercion to give up that property.

...snip...

Well I consider death a rather big coercion to give up my property, but I don't think that is the state coercing me.

So what coercion is being applied since I'm dead and I don't own anything?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Because once I'm dead I don't own anything so who is saying what is to be done with the stuff I used to own?

Ehmmm... you are. That's why you make a will.

If you have no problem with deathbed transfers, how are you going to prove that the deceased did not agree to transfer all assets just before they died? Surely the government must prove that the assets they wish to seize belonged to the deceased when he died?

 

[Darat]

Ehmmm... you are. That's why you make a will.

If you have no problem with deathbed transfers, how are you going to prove that the deceased did not agree to transfer all assets just before they died? Surely the government must prove that the assets they wish to seize belonged to the deceased when he died?

But I don't see how libertarianism principles are compatible with wills. If everything is personally owned by someone how does someone who doesn't exist say what is to be done with some property?

 

[Oleron]

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.
No, because rural economies were destroyed along with the families that supported them.

I am against these taxes. For the simple reason that it is a tax on wealth that has already been taxed (many times). IMO this is theft.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But I don't see how libertarianism principles are compatible with wills. If everything is personally owned by someone how does someone who doesn't exist say what is to be done with some property?

Its my money. I write down what I want done with it. Whats the problem?

 

[Graham]

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.
No, because rural economies were destroyed along with the families that supported them.

I am against these taxes. For the simple reason that it is a tax on wealth that has already been taxed (many times). IMO this is theft.

I would like to hear more information on the bolded statement, if you can.

Graham

 

[BillyTK]

I'm talking about lawlessness, anarchy, which is what we have now in Washington. The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land. Congress is actively disobeying it without penalty. Therefore, we have political lawlessness and anarchy in this country. Further, my home state also has such restrictions, so there is lawlessness and anarchy in Raleigh as well.

My point is, let's restore the rule of law first. Then we can debate which parts of the Constitution (like Income Tax) are morally reprehensible and which (like the Bill of Rights) should be exalted. But there's no point at all if Congress can ignore the Constitution at a whim.

Well, that's not anarchy by any definition of the word; it reads more like an oligarchy (or oleagarchy if you like a good pun!). But anyway, this doesn't address what I was asking.

As for other countries, the same thing applies. If they are issuing the tax in full accordance with their operating charter, then by all means lets discuss the immorality of inheritance taxes.

Yes let's, as that was my initial question, which seems germane to the debate.

If not, they have political anarchy and the same consideration applies.

II don't really understand your objection here; you appear to consider inheritance tax immoral regardless of whether it's incorporated into a country's charter/constitution/whatever, so the latter is irrelevant. Anyhow, you appear to have answered my question elsewhere; something to with people having in perpetuity–is that correct?

I haven't really stated one. I've been trying to get Cain to support his.

He has done; it's all there in his original post. The main contention that I can see is the premise that entrenched wealth (i.e. through inheritance) leads to economic stratification; if not, then his conclusion (that (L)ibertarians aren't commited to meritocracy) is incorrect, but if it is the case, well that's where the fun is.

I don't really see how it's "dispassionate," but either way, NO skeptic should accept an unsupported claim.

It's dispassionate because of the tone; lack of SHOUTING and exclamation marks!!!, name-calling, that kind of thing. But he's supported his claim; the question for skeptics is whether they accept the manner and/or content of his supporting evidence.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
I would like to hear more information on the bolded statement, if you can.

Graham

Well I know from my own family background and local history that the gentry were harder hit by the Russian revolution and Wall Street Crash than any punitive estate tax (my family worked for the gentry, in case anyone is wondering). That being said the more astute of them managed to stay afloat, the less smart among them went under. Anyone bemoaning the iniquity of vast inheritance needn't worry, because nothing part's company as fast as an undeserving idiot and an inheritance.