Republicans (okay, and Libertarians) are full of shit, part 2: the "Death Tax"
Curses upon you, Frank Luntz, and all your word-twisting ilk. "Death Tax"? What is that? A tax on death? Who pays it, the dead? And how much is assessed: is it based on the age of the deceased, the manner of death? The answer on all of these being "no", it is obvious that the name does not fit and is not, therefore, useful (much like the moronic "Homocide Bomber", which masked the fundamental nature of suicide bombing that sets it apart from, say, arson, or folks who use remote, timed, or other event-activated controls -- and I notice that Fox News still uses that asinine term). The tax is on property, not death. It is paid by the living -- who themselves do not own it -- not the dead. And it is assessed on the value of the property. It's most useful designation, therefore, is "estate tax", as "estate" is understood as that property pertaining to an individual who has died. It is paid only on estates valuing more than $1 million, and estates valuing more than that are calculated by the IRS to be only 2%. And for the sake of our liberties, it must be preserved.
Yes, it is immoral to use force, threat thereof, or fraud to deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. At the same time, however, property (if not wealth) is finite, and the logic of capitalism being the concentration of property and wealth into the hands of a minority of the population, it inevitably results in the creation of a property-less class of sufficient size to disrupt and even destroy the capitalist system -- even through "legal" means, like . . . oh, "Directive 10-289". Remember why the citizens gave the U.S. government the authority to tax individuals directly (in the 16th Amendment): because in the early twentieth century, the majority saw the extreme wealth and conspicuous consumpmtion of a minority of citizens, and felt that such citizens should be taxed more. The only way to prevent this, while preserving capitalism, is to systematically and periodically redistribute wealth, thereby, presumably, liquidating property. Given the first sentence of this paragraph, the only just time to take someone's wealth for redistribution is when that individual no longer owns it -- that is, when that individual is dead. Nobody else at that time has the right to the property, because heirs have no more right to property they do not own than any other person.
Bear in mind, however, that the "Gift Tax" is completely immoral, turning on its head the meaning of the saying, "you can't take it with you." The old, facing a much shorter horizon for their lives, are in a position to begin to give away the money they have saved over their lifetimes. Tax laws should favor, or at least not penalize, distribution of that wealth, to family and other institutions -- and certainly not penalize the survivors. The addition of lifetime gifts to the value of the estate must be ended immediately.
I would propose that estate taxes be primarily against real property, wealth not necessarily being finite. Real property existing in a state, that property should be taxed at the state level, not the federal level (so the federal estate tax should be abolished: I'm supporting the concept, not the implementation). This would force land and other such assets to return to the market periodically, and keep it from being concentrated too much. Even if a real estate mogul bought every piece of useful property in a state, at his death, his descendants would have to buy almost all of it all over again. I say almost, because I would argue for a threshold, below which property is safe from taxation. The other solutions to avoid the tax would be insurance, and companies in such an environment would undoubtedly offer estate insurance or somesuch thing to enable heirs to preserve property intact.
There are some implications of this, however. For a time, the owner of the property above the threshold would be the state, which is troubling. There must be some provision for insuring that the property is put on the market and sold quickly, with safeguards against purchase by an agent of the state, or certain individuals. There's no way to systematically prevent individuals from murdering other individuals over land, but remember that children murder their parents, and spouses their spouses, over the assets that the latter hold in life. The key here is to investigate every death to isolate the agent, and prevent such individuals from benefiting from their crimes.
Something that would help satisfy the spirit of this proposal would be a requirement that only individuals, and even citizens of a given state, could own land or real property in that state. The implications would be that any non-real entity -- a corporation, for example -- would have to lease property. That might impose a certain cost and uncertainty on business, but stability would arise: it's not inconceivable that an individual would have a long-term lease with a corporation, and that lease would continue under, and even be a selling-point for, a new owner of the property. Insurance companies might step forward with policies to cover relocation costs in the event of a fickle landlord. But remember that companies would have to sign leases, and their agents would negotiate a deal to mitigate their risk. Similarly, landowners would be responsible for any pollution of their property, and could hold the leasing agent legally culpable under the terms of the lease for any toxic emissions or other contamination. Of course, states neighboring any state that implemented such a policy might take advantage of the situation by not following suit, and long-term detriment in the form of property monopolization would be insufficient to offset that advantage. So this whole paragraph is kind of a mental exercise.
But as far as this silly campaign against the "Death Tax", it misses the real point. We must eliminate the gift calculation on the estate. We should repeal the 16th Amendment entirely. But until we take away the government's ability to tax citizens directly, the least offensive tax is one against the property left ownerless by the death of the owner. Concentrate our efforts in the personal income tax, which affects living individuals.
Yes, it is immoral to use force, threat thereof, or fraud to deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property. At the same time, however, property (if not wealth) is finite, and the logic of capitalism being the concentration of property and wealth into the hands of a minority of the population, it inevitably results in the creation of a property-less class of sufficient size to disrupt and even destroy the capitalist system -- even through "legal" means, like . . . oh, "Directive 10-289". Remember why the citizens gave the U.S. government the authority to tax individuals directly (in the 16th Amendment): because in the early twentieth century, the majority saw the extreme wealth and conspicuous consumpmtion of a minority of citizens, and felt that such citizens should be taxed more. The only way to prevent this, while preserving capitalism, is to systematically and periodically redistribute wealth, thereby, presumably, liquidating property. Given the first sentence of this paragraph, the only just time to take someone's wealth for redistribution is when that individual no longer owns it -- that is, when that individual is dead. Nobody else at that time has the right to the property, because heirs have no more right to property they do not own than any other person.
Bear in mind, however, that the "Gift Tax" is completely immoral, turning on its head the meaning of the saying, "you can't take it with you." The old, facing a much shorter horizon for their lives, are in a position to begin to give away the money they have saved over their lifetimes. Tax laws should favor, or at least not penalize, distribution of that wealth, to family and other institutions -- and certainly not penalize the survivors. The addition of lifetime gifts to the value of the estate must be ended immediately.
I would propose that estate taxes be primarily against real property, wealth not necessarily being finite. Real property existing in a state, that property should be taxed at the state level, not the federal level (so the federal estate tax should be abolished: I'm supporting the concept, not the implementation). This would force land and other such assets to return to the market periodically, and keep it from being concentrated too much. Even if a real estate mogul bought every piece of useful property in a state, at his death, his descendants would have to buy almost all of it all over again. I say almost, because I would argue for a threshold, below which property is safe from taxation. The other solutions to avoid the tax would be insurance, and companies in such an environment would undoubtedly offer estate insurance or somesuch thing to enable heirs to preserve property intact.
There are some implications of this, however. For a time, the owner of the property above the threshold would be the state, which is troubling. There must be some provision for insuring that the property is put on the market and sold quickly, with safeguards against purchase by an agent of the state, or certain individuals. There's no way to systematically prevent individuals from murdering other individuals over land, but remember that children murder their parents, and spouses their spouses, over the assets that the latter hold in life. The key here is to investigate every death to isolate the agent, and prevent such individuals from benefiting from their crimes.
Something that would help satisfy the spirit of this proposal would be a requirement that only individuals, and even citizens of a given state, could own land or real property in that state. The implications would be that any non-real entity -- a corporation, for example -- would have to lease property. That might impose a certain cost and uncertainty on business, but stability would arise: it's not inconceivable that an individual would have a long-term lease with a corporation, and that lease would continue under, and even be a selling-point for, a new owner of the property. Insurance companies might step forward with policies to cover relocation costs in the event of a fickle landlord. But remember that companies would have to sign leases, and their agents would negotiate a deal to mitigate their risk. Similarly, landowners would be responsible for any pollution of their property, and could hold the leasing agent legally culpable under the terms of the lease for any toxic emissions or other contamination. Of course, states neighboring any state that implemented such a policy might take advantage of the situation by not following suit, and long-term detriment in the form of property monopolization would be insufficient to offset that advantage. So this whole paragraph is kind of a mental exercise.
But as far as this silly campaign against the "Death Tax", it misses the real point. We must eliminate the gift calculation on the estate. We should repeal the 16th Amendment entirely. But until we take away the government's ability to tax citizens directly, the least offensive tax is one against the property left ownerless by the death of the owner. Concentrate our efforts in the personal income tax, which affects living individuals.
posted by heavynettle at 00:48
1 Comments:
My young son was accidentally profound the other day when he tried to repeat an old adage to me:
"Daddy," he says, "there are two bad things in the world we can't get away from: death and Texas." I could not agree with him more. Support Texan independence now!
As for your points about wealth redistribution at death, they are also well reasoned. However, given the sufferin they put us through, I'd say special exceptions should be made in the case of celebutants to strip them of their wealth at the onset of any reality show in which they attempt to "star." It's all about the public good really.
Post a Comment
<< Home