Estate Taxes on the Super Wealthy

Originally posted by Palynka
Since the "right to property" tends to be formulated in absolute terms by conservatives then it still undermines it. Of course, this is obviously not a problem for you and me who are happy to make it conditional on being post-taxation on the terms you just mentioned.

Hmm yeah, but the only way this consistently can happen is in anarchy, in which case there is definitely no protection of your property. But then again, neoliberals and consistency...

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Hmm yeah, but the only way this consistently can happen is in anarchy, in which case there is definitely no protection of your property. But then again, neoliberals and consistency...

and the "libertarian utopia" of near-anarchy in turns breeds warlords and dictators -- where anyone who engages in any debate about "rights" and "freedoms" can expect a knock on the door in the middle of the night.

Originally posted by Palynka
So you agree that attacks on tax increases by using a "right to property" argument are ridiculous?

Not necessarily; Taxes are necessary; but excessive taxation is not. For example, to take an absurd case, it the government taxes every person's income at 90% and gave out enormous handouts to make sure that everyone made essentially the same income, I'd call that grounds for armed revolution. But is some level of taxation necessary? Of course it is.

Originally posted by sh76
Not necessarily; Taxes are necessary; but excessive taxation is not. For example, to take an absurd case, it the government taxes every person's income at 90% and gave out enormous handouts to make sure that everyone made essentially the same income, I'd call that grounds for armed revolution. But is some level of taxation necessary? Of course it is.

How does the "right to property" help in determining what taxation is necessary and what is not?

Originally posted by Palynka
How does the "right to property" help in determining what taxation is necessary and what is not?

Like every other right, it's a balancing test. There's a right to free speech, but not the right to conspire to murder or shout fire in a crowded theater. All rights have some limitations, but those limitations have to be reasonably necessary.

Originally posted by sh76
Like every other right, it's a balancing test. There's a right to free speech, but not the right to conspire to murder or shout fire in a crowded theater. All rights have some limitations, but those limitations have to be reasonably necessary.

And as usual the discussion ends in what is "reasonable" and therefore the principle is pointless as "reasonability" is a subjective concept.

Originally posted by sh76
Like every other right, it's a balancing test. There's a right to free speech, but not the right to conspire to murder or shout fire in a crowded theater. All rights have some limitations, but those limitations have to be reasonably necessary.

What criteria should one use to determine when it is necessary?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What criteria should one use to determine when it is necessary?

The same criteria one uses in performing any balancing test.

Law is not an exact science. There are few white lines. Ultimately, in most cases, elected officials make the judgment and that's that.

Originally posted by Palynka
And as usual the discussion ends in what is "reasonable" and therefore the principle is pointless as "reasonability" is a subjective concept.

By definition, reasonability is an objective concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Originally posted by Palynka
And as usual the discussion ends in what is "reasonable" and therefore the principle is pointless as "reasonability" is a subjective concept.

When the principle is that "government has no right to levy any taxes at all" - then yes, it IS pointless.

Originally posted by sh76
By definition, reasonability is an objective concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Spoken like a true lawyer, failing to understand what assumptions underpin such legal criteria.

Originally posted by Palynka
Spoken like a true lawyer, .

thank you



failing to understand what assumptions underpin such legal criteria

With all due respect, I'm not particularly impressed by one line lectures on underlying legal theory from a non-lawyer.

Originally posted by sh76
thank you



[b]failing to understand what assumptions underpin such legal criteria

With all due respect, I'm not particularly impressed by one line lectures on underlying legal theory from a non-lawyer.[/b]

It was not a lecture, it was a dismissal.

Originally posted by sh76
The same criteria one uses in performing any balancing test.

Law is not an exact science. There are few white lines. Ultimately, in most cases, elected officials make the judgment and that's that.

So the "right" taxation, in your view, is the one which is the outcome of a democratic process?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So the "right" taxation, in your view, is the one which is the outcome of a democratic process?

The one objectively determined by appealing to the reasonable person standard. 😵