Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The owner is dead. That was my bilmore point.

And we were talking about the recipients' "rights" because you invoked property rights. The government's right to the money derives from the consent of the governed and the legitimacy of the legislation and process under which the money is taxed. Being adults, we understand that in order to have a government, we have to pay taxes.

Then I guess we should eliminate wills?

The consent of the governed is not a moral justification.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're talking about a GOP plan to make it easier for really rich people to give lots of money to people who've done nothing to earn it, and the worst thing you can say about it is that it's disingenuous? I don't disagree, but please. And the money involved could solve the Social Secuity budget issues that Republicans pretend to care about when they see a chance to take benefits away from the poor and middle class.

Sorry, Ty. I thought you were kidding.

Yes. I'm a Rawlsian, and think that some degree of progressive taxation is the right model. Certainly there's room to quibble over the amount of the exemptions that are appropriate, but I think that permanently abolishing the estate tax is both profoundly fiscally irresponsible and unjustifiable even if posited in terms of incentivizing achievement.

I also disagree with club that it's "my" money just because it was Dad's. I suppose I can respect the benefits of strict constructionism in a general sense, but to my mind this doesn't dictate slavish adherence to the medieval rules of primogeniture. Perhaps the historical the artwork hanging in the fortified villa has an impact on Club's thinking in this regard.

No, instead I resisted the temptation to engage with Club on this point largely because the last time we did this, no progress was made on the "moral" aspect of it (though IIRC, the fiscal responsibility aspect of this debate did lead us to an amusing attempt to find "fat" in the federal budget that would compensate for the massive drain on the federal treasury.)

Given the interim moves by the GOP to blow gaping holes in the budget, and the additional $290B price tag for this little measure, the argument for GOP apologists becomes even more laughable, but I'm willing to give it a try if they are.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You mean progressive double taxation. The money has already been taxed.

Not necessarily. E.g., capital gains, liability for which are wiped away when the estate is passed.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

linky

Forgive me, but the following two quotes cast doubt on the objectivity:

• "[The Center's] statistical work is absolutely impeccable; there is nothing at all like it on the right, or anywhere else. . . . If you care about [fiscal issues], check CBPP's site regularly for updates."
  
  Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist,
  in a May 28, 2003 column on his website listing
  websites that are "must reading for anyone interested in government policy."

• No conservative group can match the Center’s productivity."
  
  National Journal,
  December 8, 2001

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That "study" ignores the other co-equal branch of government.

That little trick of using "scarequotes" to impugn something that you don't like very much is pretty clever.

We could "compare" economic performance under a GOP Congress and both Republican and Democratic presidents. You're not going to like those results.

In any event, a study -- oops, I mean a "study" -- that looks to history is not going to reflect that all of the Southern politicians who love pork and don't have time for fiscal responsibility are now in the GOP, and that the Northeastern moderates who used to champion fiscal responsibility no longer have much pull in the party. Another generation, and they'll be gone.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not necessarily. E.g., capital gains, liability for which are wiped away when the estate is passed.

Really? New basis on transfer?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Then I guess we should eliminate wills?

No, but we should eliminate whining about the estate tax.

The consent of the governed is not a moral justification.

See, I live in a democracy. So do you, but you don't like it, and apparently would prefer to live under some form of anarchic or oligarchic regime in which property rights govern all.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That little trick of using "scarequotes" to impugn something that you don't like very much is pretty clever.

I have no horse in this race. If the effects are bigger than I would expect, so be it. But I'm not going to accept as objective a site with those quotes, without more time to review.

We could "compare" economic performance under a GOP Congress and both Republican and Democratic presidents. You're not going to like those results.

In any event, a study -- oops, I mean a "study" -- that looks to history is not going to reflect that all of the Southern politicians who love pork and don't have time for fiscal responsibility are now in the GOP, and that the Northeastern moderates who used to champion fiscal responsibility no longer have much pull in the party. Another generation, and they'll be gone.

Nice bait and switch. We are talking about fiscal responsibility, not economic performance. And I no longer have a horse in this race either. I hate both parties.

eft

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Forgive me, but the following two quotes cast doubt on the objectivity:

• "[The Center's] statistical work is absolutely impeccable; there is nothing at all like it on the right, or anywhere else. . . . If you care about [fiscal issues], check CBPP's site regularly for updates."
  
  Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist,
  in a May 28, 2003 column on his website listing
  websites that are "must reading for anyone interested in government policy."

• No conservative group can match the Center’s productivity."
  
  National Journal,
  December 8, 2001

Well, if Krugman says their statistical work is impeccable, it must be full of holes. You got me there. And if the National Journal says no conservative group can match their productivity, I don't even need to know the context in which that statement was made -- it's clear that their work is worthless. I'm sure it's just riddled with errors.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The owner is dead. That was my bilmore point.

And we were talking about the recipients' "rights" because you invoked property rights. The government's right to the money derives from the consent of the governed and the legitimacy of the legislation and process under which the money is taxed. Being adults, we understand that in order to have a government, we have to pay taxes.

To play devil's advocate here, I've worked my butt off on a family enterprise in part because it was family but also because it's clear that one day it will be a quarter mine. Yes, there's been some estate planning in order to preserve as much of it as possible, but estate taxes could kill the inheritance. I'd like to think that we, having had a good part of our lives dedicated to it beyond simple return on investment, will do a better job running it than anyone else should we have to sell it in order to pay inheritance taxes.

I can't be alone on this.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, but we should eliminate whining about the estate tax.

So, which is it? Do dead people have rights or don't they? This question seems to be central to your argument, so I'd like to see how you parse it.

See, I live in a democracy. So do you, but you don't like it, and apparently would prefer to live under some form of anarchic or oligarchic regime in which property rights govern all.

What does this have to do with anything? You said I couldn't come up with a moral justification and I challenged you to do the same.

eft

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Nice bait and switch. We are talking about fiscal responsibility, not economic performance.

So was I. Please recall that we ran surpluses under Clinton, which have now been replaced by massive Bush debt. And per that study, "Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt."

Look, it's pretty simple. Reagan and Bush both discovered that a great way to win elections is to raise spending and cut taxes. Bask in the popularity, and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
To play devil's advocate here, I've worked my butt off on a family enterprise in part because it was family but also because it's clear that one day it will be a quarter mine. Yes, there's been some estate planning in order to preserve as much of it as possible, but estate taxes could kill the inheritance. I'd like to think that we, having had a good part of our lives dedicated to it beyond simple return on investment, will do a better job running it than anyone else should we have to sell it in order to pay inheritance taxes.

I can't be alone on this.

Unless there are no other assets, you could sell other assets, or just a piece of it.

If y'all are getting any federal subsidies whatsoever, I kinda have less sympathy because, honestly, if all that money is going into producing what is produced on smaller farms etc., why don't we just shred the dollar bills and use them as fertilizer?

I do have some sympathy for people who inherit tangible that is not worth nearly as much at the time the estate is being settled as it was at the time of the decedent's death. This happened to a friend of mine w/r/t oil wells or something, and we had a unit on it in estate and gift tax.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Well, if Krugman says their statistical work is impeccable, it must be full of holes. You got me there. And if the National Journal says no conservative group can match their productivity, I don't even need to know the context in which that statement was made -- it's clear that their work is worthless. I'm sure it's just riddled with errors.

Why would those statements be made by those persons if it was not a left leaning outfit?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What does this have to do with anything? You said I couldn't come up with a moral justification and I challenged you to do the same.

You made a ludicrous statement about property rights. I challenged you for a basis. You declined to try to offer one. You then asked me to give a moral basis for the government's moral claim to the money. But I never said the government has a moral claim in the sense that you did -- i.e., as a "property right." The government taxes the money because we have to pay taxes to have a government, and because our elected representative chose that tax over others.