[jacobolus]

I send "you" a check every time I do any work, in the form of an income tax, paid to the government. I can both believe that you have a partial stake in the portion I send to the government, and also not see the social benefit in sending you personally a check.

What's your point?

> every other person sane person out there that says, I earned it, I keep it?

These naive and self-important “sane” people have not thought very hard about the problems of running a society, or at least don’t have much experience with its practical constraints (and I would guess also have little close experience with non-functional governments/societies such as those in most of the developing world).

> Your argument is invalid because [inheritance tax] is double taxation.

There is no "law of the universe" which prevents our duly elected representative government from deciding to tax both income and inheritance. My "argument" is that we make these essentially arbitrary decisions about how to organize ourselves (our economies, our property systems, our governments) via a process which involves agreement and compromise (and a fair amount of disagreement and controversy too, of course; no one ever said governing ourselves would be easy).

Since you haven't addressed "my argument" at all (as far as I can tell from your response you didn’t even read/comprehend it), I do not understand the basis by which you have decided that it is invalid.

[TGJ]

people have not thought very hard about the problems of running a society

It depends on what type of society you are trying to run. Are you trying to run a society full of social benefits (handouts) or a society of individual accomplishments?

My "argument" is

What is your argument? The following sentence is simply a description of how we arrive at where we are and not why.

[jacobolus]

> Are you trying to run a society full of social benefits (handouts) or a society of individual accomplishments?

Neither is a good characterization (both are shrill bullshit buzzwords intended in this context to limit discussion).

Trying to run a society with reasonable physical infrastructure (transportation, public utilities, public health, etc.), a functioning economy, a low unemployment rate, a decent standard of living, a lack of structural violence, a support for individual freedoms, protections against fraud and abuse of information asymmetries, a legal framework under which to peacefully resolve disputes, an ability to respond to disasters and foreign invasions, a government which is responsive to the changing needs and circumstances of its citizens and responsive at a local level to local differences, etc.

* * *

The why is in my opinion best described in Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy, Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws, Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, and Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson’s Federalist Papers (and you might look at Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, etc. too if you’re feeling extra ambitious). The complexities are somewhat longer and more involved than is appropriate for this venue.

If you haven’t read it, Tocqueville’s book is truly fantastic, highly recommended to anyone interested in democracy or American government, and just about as relevant today as anything written since.

[TGJ]

Of course it's to limit the discussion. That's the reason to ask. If you believe in individual accomplishment then a death tax is abhorrent to that cause. If you believe in social benefits and wealth redistribution based on society having a part in the deceased's property then it's legit. I'm simply asking where you stand, and from how you respond, you don't stand for anything and it's impossible to carry on in such a case. Don't give me some list of books to read as if I'm some peasant trying to talk to some magnate. You have a definite flourish but there is no point to your jab.

[jacobolus]

> If you believe in individual accomplishment then a death tax is abhorrent to that cause.

You keep repeating that like a mantra (which would be unsurprising for a Republican political candidate given that it is part of the official party platform and talking points for the last couple decades, and is pushed endlessly by the Heritage Foundation, Club for Growth, and similar organizations), but you haven’t (and they never do either) actually explained the logical connection between the two parts of that statement (and you keep dodging every other question and ignoring every other answer).

I believe in individual accomplishment, and I believe that estate taxes are quite reasonable and well justified by essentially all of the commonly accepted moral principles of mainstream philosophical liberalism on which the society and legal system of this country (i.e. the US) are based.

Basically, you are attempting to establish your logical claim with no logic, and no explanation of any kind, simply through inane repetition. That's not a discussion. That's a religious crusade.

By the way, “abhorrent” is usually reserved for things like torture and mass killing. Its use in relation to changes in the marginal tax rate are absurd.

[TGJ]

Then you don't really believe in individual accomplishment. I've stated that the wealth that is created is taxed as it is made. Taxing wealth more after a person dies just to transfer it to the inheritor is a slap in the face to the person that created the wealth in the first place. Society has no claim on a dead mans property as the property has been paid for by the income taxes each year, sales tax of the state, property taxes, SS, and all the other little taxes out there. By taxing property/wealth after death and ignoring the taxation that already occurred on that wealth you simply support redistribution and do not support individual accomplishment. I have to repeat because you don't seem to acknowledge this.