All Hank, all the time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, socialism takes as its premise that it is labor that creates value, not property, and that therefore the laborers should, through the mechanism of the state, control the means of production, of which property is only a part, in order to ensure that workerss are compensated accrding to their work, or, in other words, according to the extent they create value.

That's marxism, not socialism. Based on Marx's theory, a socialist system would best implement the proper outcome. But one can get to socialism without marx's labor theory of value (which derives from Smith, so hardly uniquely supports socialism).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What's the moral basis? Are you - as a parent - honestly suggesting that the federal government should get their mitts on your hard earned cash before your own heirs?

Isn't the concept of the "American Dream" based on the premises that one will work hard his children won't have to?

Yes, I am, as a parent, honestly suggesting that the government should, on the off chance that my estate has a value in excess of a couple million, take a slice of that excess. That's the one thing you guys keep forgetting -- the slim chance that you will die with taxable estates, even without a slick lawyer doing any planning for you.

And the Americabn Dream is supposed to be that one worls hard so that his kids will have more chances to succeed than he did. It is most certainly not that his children shouldn't have to work hard to be successful, too.

As Andrew Carnegie said, the man who dies rich dies disgraced. But then, I suppose somebody's going to suggest that the old robber baron must have been a socialist.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's marxism, not socialism. Based on Marx's theory, a socialist system would best implement the proper outcome. But one can get to socialism without marx's labor theory of value (which derives from Smith, so hardly uniquely supports socialism).

Marx was a socialist. And I never suggested that a labor theory of value is uniquely socialist. In fact, I'm the one who has been consistently arguing that the assertion that an estate tax, whether as an excise on the transfer of wealth or as a means of wealth redistribution, isn't socialist.

Up until now, I've been fairly polite about it. But, since people want to keep pushing the issue and using it as a straw man, let me sugggest that anybosy who truly thinks that the estate tax is socialism is a buffoon and completely ignorant of the principles underlying tax policy as well as socialism.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
1. We've had this argument on the board before. The right to property is not organic. It derives from the state, and the state has always exacted an excise on its transfer to the next generation. There's nothig socialist about my position. It finds its roots in the English common law as well as the Roman civil law. You can't take it with you when you go, and without the sanction of the state, you can't exercise dominion over it from thee grave either. I gave both a moral and a logical basis for an estate tax. You gave neither in support of its repeal.

2. I guess we just disagree.

3. What about it is hyperbole? You have suggested that there should be no estate tax and that the basis stepup at death should be retained. What that means is that any property a person holds at death can pass tax-free to another person, and that heir can sell the property the same day without paying a tax on the built-in gain. Do you really think that would not create a huge reduction in tax revenues? Where would the government look to make up that shortfall if they can't tax estates and they can't tax the built-in gain on inherited property? They wouldn't make it up by taxing capital gains. Nobody would ever realize a capital gain if they could hold assets until their death and allow the gain pass tax-free. There is no source other than earned income from which to recoup the lost revenue.

4. Your statement here belies your whole prior argument. If consumption creates jobs and growth in the same way as investment, then there is no defensible reason to favor investment in making tax policy. The only motivavtion left is the fact that you believe you will inherit wealth some day or you believe you will accumulate wealth to pass on to your heirs and you don't care who gets taxed, or how much of a burden it is on them, as long as you can escape the burden. At least here, I have to give you credit for your candor, even if it may have been uninitentional.

5. Our tax system is progressive and always has been. We designed it that way from the start. Calling someone a socialist because they believe that the system should remain progressive only proves that you understand neither tax policy nor socialism.

1. You couched this in terms of moral imperatives, then use English common law as the supporting authority? God Save the Queen, indeed. English common law ain't the fount of all morality. My logical basis is simple - its your family's money. Families have rights to keep property within them. Its a ludicrous liberal's fantasy that we all live as one unified family, and Mother Government beneficially oversees property rights for us.

2. Agreed.

3. That argument presumes that the money being transferred to the heir has not yet been taxed. It has. I think you should be able to transfer whatever you like between family members tax free. The law should allow that, so families can take care of themselves. If you allow families to keep swaths of money in their coffers, those are families who won't be hitting up the govt for benefits. But we can't try leaving money in private hands, can we? No, that cheats Mother Govt out of her bridge toll, and all the people who demand wealth redistribution out of their handouts.

4. Nonsense. If you get a big lump of change, you can buy all sorts of kooky consumer goods - helping the economy - while not even touching principal. The govt, OTOH, squanders all of it, and quickly. You can't make any coherent economic argument for giving money that would be spent in the private sector to the govt.

5. You're "institutionalized." You've been reading too many books on tax for too long and are beginning to think that the tax system (which has not always been as progressive as it is today) is carved in stone, handed to us by God himself. Nonsense. That a thing's been done wrong and badly for a while doesn't mean changing it is heresy or an inherently unsound proposition. You're wearing blinders on this issue because you're too close to it too often. You sound like me when I cross examine my wife. I rip her points to ribbons when we argue, and then she just looks at me and says "Stop fucking lawyering me. In the real world, you know I'm right."

Its ok. Most lawyers are fucking deluded. We're so twisted up in the belief that what we're involved in is the perfect logical system, and that its RIGHT, that we don't even realize how fucking blind we are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's quite elemenary, and I'm baffled you can't comprehend the other side's morally and logically justified position.

Say your parent works hard his or her whole life, hard enough to be lucky enough to amass a fortune of, say $6mil. That $6mil has been taxed, at one rate or another, along the way, as that person made it. Now, despite those taxes, that person has saved that money, which is a damned hard thing to do (don't give me some shit about how 'its all gravy once you get the first million; it's just as easy to lose the first million as it is to compound it). Now, to add to all the hurdles that person faced his or her whole life to amass that fortune, hurdles he or she wants his kids never to have to endure, the govt - our goddamned useless fucking govt - is going to step in and demand a fat slice of everything over $3mil? That's fair? That "fairness" you champion is exactly why this country is so fucked up. Its exactly why this shithole "entitlement" cesspool I work in can't keep any business within its borders. "Gimme gimme gimme." That's all you fucking here in these parts. As long as pathetic democrats keep pandering to that degenerate base, this country's just going to keep spinning its wheels and hand-wringing about "what to do with the people who can't care for themselves." Maybe, ya think just maybe, if ya stopped taxing and regulating the piss out of everything, people might be a little more entrereneurial? Maybe people could start businesses of consequence without having to grab gobs of VC to pay the ridiculous costs of workers comp, insurance out the ass to keep trial lawyers from taking their homes, and shakedown money for local govt shysters who enforce their little bridge tolls every time you try to make a buck? Ya think maybe that'd work? Maybe the poor you care so much about might have better jobs?

I agree with you that its gross to see people like Paris Hilton get massive chunks of change, but people with between 5-10 million dollars shouldn't have to hire armies of fucking lawyers to structure their estates. And they certainly shouldn't suffer the insult of having their money retaxed and given to the worst run organization in the nation, which would waste it in the most offensive ways imaginable. The cutoff, if we must have one, should be high, very fucking high.

I'd burn my money before I'd see it given to the govt.

Nobody likes paying taxes. Most adults understand that everyone feels this way. If you object to paying taxes, move to Somalia, or find people to vote for who will spend less government money.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Socialism takes as its premise that all wealth is created by, and therefore is subject to the control of, the state.

Where did you get this idea?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk

Up until now, I've been fairly polite about it. But, since people want to keep pushing the issue and using it as a straw man, let me sugggest that anybosy who truly thinks that the estate tax is socialism is a buffoon and completely ignorant of the principles underlying tax policy as well as socialism.

No, I'm calling your justification socialist. Your justification is, unless I misunderstand you is:

1) The state creates and enforces property rights. Without the state there would be no property rights.
2) Because the state creates property rights, the state may claim from a person whatever property is wishes.
3) The estate tax claims a reasonable amount of property from a decedent. Because it is less than everything, an amount the state could reasonably take, it is perforce reasonable.

Step 2 is socialism, if not something more than that.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, I'm calling your justification socialist. Your justification is, unless I misunderstand you is:

1) The state creates and enforces property rights. Without the state there would be no property rights.
2) Because the state creates property rights, the state may claim from a person whatever property is wishes.
3) The estate tax claims a reasonable amount of property from a decedent. Because it is less than everything, an amount the state could reasonably take, it is perforce reasonable.

Step 2 is socialism, if not something more than that.

I don't think there is enough liquor in the world to keep me at a cocktail party where this conversation is happening.*


*(Unless, of course, it degenerates into fisticuffs.)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. You couched this in terms of moral imperatives, then use English common law as the supporting authority? God Save the Queen, indeed. English common law ain't the fount of all morality. My logical basis is simple - its your family's money. Families have rights to keep property within them. Its a ludicrous liberal's fantasy that we all live as one unified family, and Mother Government beneficially oversees property rights for us.

Actually, it was you who originally couched it in terms of moral imperatives.

5. You're "institutionalized." You've been reading too many books on tax for too long and are beginning to think that the tax system (which has not always been as progressive as it is today) is carved in stone, handed to us by God himself. Nonsense. That a thing's been done wrong and badly for a while doesn't mean changing it is heresy or an inherently unsound proposition. You're wearing blinders on this issue because you're too close to it too often. You sound like me when I cross examine my wife. I rip her points to ribbons when we argue, and then she just looks at me and says "Stop fucking lawyering me. In the real world, you know I'm right."

Its ok. Most lawyers are fucking deluded. We're so twisted up in the belief that what we're involved in is the perfect logical system, and that its RIGHT, that we don't even realize how fucking blind we are.

If by institutionalized, you mean that I agree that the tax system should be progressive, you're right. To the extent that the system is done badly, it's because of too many people trying to avoid their obligations and seeking special breaks for themselves.

We all derive benefits from the government and we all need to pay for them. Beyond that, we're the richest nation on the planet. I believe it's simply unacceptable that there are people in America who go to bed each night hungry. I believe that people who have more than enough should be expected to pony up a bit so that they don't have to go to bed hungry. Holmes called it the price of civilzation.

And at this point, I've come full circle yet again. We recycle this whole debate every few months and every few months I say the same things. You say the same things. Club says the same things. And Hank just sits in the corner of the cage and throws shit at the rest of us. I'm pretty sure I've played my part.

So, until next time....

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I don't think there is enough liquor in the world to keep me at a cocktail party where this conversation is happening.*


*(Unless, of course, it degenerates into fisticuffs.)

2. And I'm done with having my name associated with it. Ty- please change the thread title to

"Arguing Tax Policy in An attempt to bridge the Yawning divide."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, it was you who originally couched it in terms of moral imperatives.



If by institutionalized, you mean that I agree that the tax system should be progressive, you're right. To the extent that the system is done badly, it's because of too many people trying to avoid their obligations and seeking special breaks for themselves.

We all derive benefits from the government and we all need to pay for them. Beyond that, we're the richest nation on the planet. I believe it's simply unacceptable that there are people in America who go to bed each night hungry. I believe that people who have more than enough should be expected to pony up a bit so that they don't have to go to bed hungry. Holmes called it the price of civilzation.

And at this point, I've come full circle yet again. We recycle this whole debate every few months and every few months I say the same things. You say the same things. Club says the same things. And Hank just sits in the corner of the cage and throws shit at the rest of us. I'm pretty sure I've played my part.

So, until next time....

And I'm on moratorium because of little Max- update Peanut had grade 1 cancer in one tumor but they think they got it all.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I don't think there is enough liquor in the world to keep me at a cocktail party where this conversation is happening.*

How did you make it through law school?

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How did you make it through law school?

There was more liquor then.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, I'm calling your justification socialist. Your justification is, unless I misunderstand you is:

1) The state creates and enforces property rights. Without the state there would be no property rights.
2) Because the state creates property rights, the state may claim from a person whatever property is wishes.
3) The estate tax claims a reasonable amount of property from a decedent. Because it is less than everything, an amount the state could reasonably take, it is perforce reasonable.

Step 2 is socialism, if not something more than that.

No. My argument is this (and this is really going to be the end of it for me.

1. Government requires a certain amount of revenue to function.

2. Since it requires a given amount of revenue, it is more sensible and equitable to take a portion of that revenue from dead people with very large amounts of wealth, since that means the government can then take less from living people who need to use the money they earn to live.

3. Those who claim that the estate tax is socialism and unjust are ignoring the fact that it has been around for as long as property rights, or they are dissembling because to argue socialism isounds better than saying "we're rich, fuck you."

4. All I'm doing is calling bullshit on the people who say that the estate tax is socialism. That, and saying to them as well "fuck me, buddy? Fuck you."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And I'm on moratorium because of little Max- update Peanut had grade 1 cancer in one tumor but they think they got it all.

I'm happy for you and Peanut. I'll keep him in my prayers.