Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, May 19. 2015

Death Tax

I am completely opposed to any death taxes. The income has already been taxed.


Why tax the dead?  Well, it was because the turn of the century (last century) Progressives hated the wealthy families. Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, etc. appeared to hate the wealthy because their influence, like that of churches and large businesses, competed with government - as they should wish to compete. Government is not God. Over the years, many families have fallen victims to that tax other than those who are slick enough to dodge it.


My view is that I want all families to be free to be as wealthy and independent as they chose to be, and to be free to accumulate whatever they want to for their futures. Farm, flower shops, whatever. It means a lot to people. In America, wealth is never the most important thing in life but everybody cares about their family and their families' futures. You can call it love, not greed.


Greg Mankiw said this in 2003, and it is still right.

Posted by The Barrister in Politics at 14:12 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I think breaking the power of any nongovernmental forces is indeed part of th equation. All organisms seek to get resources and cut out competitors.

But mostly, I think the government just wants the money.
#1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2015-05-19 14:48 (Reply)
If we grant that governments can serve a useful purpose and that they need resources to do such good (I am a classical liberal, and assume both are true), then they need to have a means to collect the resources. One way to do so is to collect taxes.

There are pros and cons to any tax, as they can cause distortion so in the market and influence incentives. One way to collect taxes is an income tax, another a fuel tax, a corporate tax, and so on. Inheritance taxes are another mechanism. I fail to see how inheritance taxes are intrinsically worse than alternatives.

I certainly agree that the government does too much, and that higher taxes in general is a bad idea, but I don't think a tax on inheritance over X million is a bad idea, compared to other taxes.
#2 Roger on 2015-05-19 15:18 (Reply)
How are inheritance taxes worse than other taxes? In the first place, the money that is inherited has already been taxed. Then, I think that a tax should be the result of a taxable event. For me, a taxable event would be either a fee for a service or a fee for the maintenance of a service such as police force. None of those pertain to an inheritance.

There's also an edge condition where a parent wants to provide for a child who might have difficulty after he's gone such as a handicapped child or a child who is running a family business. It makes no sense to tax the efforts of a parent to keep their child from being a drain on public resources or to force a person to sell a going concern just to pay taxes.

Governments' natural tendency is to expand. Feeding the beast will only give it reason to take more. Death is just an excuse for the government to take somebody's money.
#2.1 mudbug on 2015-05-19 20:49 (Reply)
@mudbug

Thanks for the reasoned reply. I like your emphasis on paying for services where practical (park use for example). However I don't agree it is practical in many or even most cases.

Agin to clarify two points... I agree taxes are too high. My argument is the trade off of inheritance taxes vs other alternatives. I see taxes on death as less destructive than taxes on investment, employment or income. Second, I would set a high exemption in the order of millions, so this would not apply to small businesses or the care of family members.

As Zachriel clarifies, lots of things are taxed multiple times. This attack on death taxes seems like more of an emotional rationalization than an argument.

In summary, I see a lot of knee jerk, group think "taxes bad" denial on the death tax issue. I think we can rise above it.
#2.1.1 Roger on 2015-05-20 13:49 (Reply)
I agree 100% on the death taxes.

I do think that both the living and the dead should pay income taxes and not be allowed to write off "charitable" contributions. Bill Gates may well "contribute" $80 billion or so without ever paying income taxes on that money. Everyone should pay their taxes then they are welcome to contribute/give it away as they see fit.
#3 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-05-19 15:36 (Reply)
I'm opposed to most taxation because politicians simply use it (and look for more) to buy votes and set up corporate cronyism. Most never benefits the citizens, but disappears into The Cloud. This happens at so many levels (local, township, state, regional, federal and international) to grease the palms of every politician, many of whom are not elected but appointed by a higher-up (who probably gets a cut).

Who said "If it moves, tax it. If it dies, tax it again." Six billion bucks here, six billion bucks there. It's a mere pittance to them and we honestly have NO IDEA how they spend. We should cut the government in half at every level, especially those guys we didn't vote for, but seem to turn out "regulations" a mile long every few days that cost us more and more to simply do business or take care of our families.

Someone made a list of all the taxes most people pay, and it went on and on and on with many that are hidden or called something else but still a "fee" above and beyond the cost of the whatever. It was sickening.
#4 jma on 2015-05-19 19:36 (Reply)
It is good to start and continue focusing more on governing policies than politics. A flat rate federal income tax of 15% cures most of what ailes us. Watch for more solutions coming soon.
#5 John Norton on 2015-05-19 22:13 (Reply)
And watch for Politicians not to make any substantive changes unless they are looking at the business end of a firearm. Our money is their lifeblood.
#5.1 ron snyder on 2015-05-20 12:18 (Reply)
I can see where an entrenched plutocracy could be a threat to the freedom of non-plutocrats like myself.

But that threat usually would operate through control of government, or as a substitute for it as with private armies.

That said, current inheritance tax is structured to raise revenue and hobble the middle class. It does little to restrain elite power.
#6 Whitehall on 2015-05-19 22:23 (Reply)
The Barrister: Farm, flower shops, whatever.

Very few flower shops are worth as much as the exemption. Farms have special provisions.

mudbug: In the first place, the money that is inherited has already been taxed.

That's not unusual with taxes. Corporations pay taxes out of their revenues, pay employees with those revenues who are taxed, who buy gas which is taxed, the gas station owner then paying corporate tax, etc. Not to mention local taxes.

mudbug: There's also an edge condition where a parent wants to provide for a child who might have difficulty after he's gone such as a handicapped child ...

There is usually an exemption of several million dollars, so that wouldn't be an issue for most people. For most people, Medicaid provides the backstop.

In any case, a consumption tax might be something to consider as an alternative to the income tax. Keep in mind that all taxes have downsides, but government has important functions that require taxes.
#7 Zachriel on 2015-05-20 09:20 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.