We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The sort of folk who read the papers The spoof post below about how the wretched Tory leader ‘Dave’ Cameron might react to the case for abolishing inheritance tax – a thoroughly good idea – prompted some commentators to wonder about the UK media. It reminded me of an old quote attributed to the late British broadcaster, Brian Redhead, who is supposed to have said (I paraphrase):
“The Times is read by people who run the country. The Daily Telegraph is read by people who fear we are being run by the French; the Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country, while the Daily Mirror is read by people who delusionally think they run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Sun is read by people who do not care who runs the country so long as she has very large tits.”
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Something very similar but funnier was in Yes. Minister.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes,_Minister
OT but from the same source and horribly apposite for the current state of play…
Jim Hacker: [on an upcoming vote in the UN on the actions of Israeli in retaliating to a PLO attack] I gather we’re planning to vote against Israel in the UN tonight.
Foreign Secretary: Yes Prime Minister.
Jim Hacker: Why?
Foreign Secretary: They bombed the PLO.
Jim Hacker: But the PLO bombed Israel!
Foreign Secretary: Yes but the Israelis dropped more bombs then the PLO did!!
I think Nick nailed it right there.
Or the scriptwriters of Yes Minister
Peace be upon them!
From the same wikipedia page, I think the following is also particularly topical:
Sir Humphrey: Bernard, what is the purpose of our defence policy?
Bernard Woolley: To defend Britain.
Sir Humphrey: No, Bernard. It is to make people believe Britain is defended.
Bernard Woolley: The Russians?
Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it is not.
Rich
Perhaps ‘Dave’ needs to be treated to a session with HAL from 2001, be shoved out into the cold and quietly have his life support questioned.
Unfortunately, now it seems the people who read the guardian do indeed run the country…
Rich,
“Sir Humphrey: Not the Russians, the British! The Russians know it is not. ”
Yes, but this is easily surpassed by Jim Hacker’s foolish admission in a TV interview that our Trident nuclear deterrent was not to deter the Russians, but the French…
I thought Ken Livinstone ran the country.
Uh. Abolishing the death tax will just result in more Paris Hiltons, anarchists, communists, and hippies. There is something about being “set” in life that seriously screws people in the head. Perhaps it would make more sense to decrease other taxes e.g. sales or income tax instead. As taxes still need to be gathered in order to maintain a military force capable of defending a country, the death tax also seems to be the most moral manner of doing so (at least for part of the revenue, as it may not prove to be enough); the rest of the funds could be gathered through sin taxes on alcohol, recreational drugs, “modern” music, movies, rappers, and Holywood types. Thoughts?
There is nothing moral about death taxes and moreover they do not get paid by the Hiltons of this world. Moveover regarding Paris Hilton, what’s not to like about a rich and reasonably pretty slut making an ass of herself for the edification of the world?
cryptononcommie (wonderful signoff, by the way), no, I think it is silly to oppose scrapping inheritance tax because it will encourage a whole generation of Paris Hiltons. For a start, so what? It is their money, not mine, not yours. The Paris Hiltons of this world either spend that money, invest it, or save it. Either way, it goes back into the system. It is no business of anyone’s to say that certain people do not deserve to inherit wealth, any more than they do not deserve to inherit their parents’ good looks or brains.
I personally would like to see income tax and National Insurance (what a misnomer!) cut back first, but all tax cuts are good in my book.
People have a right to bequeath what they have earned to their friends, family or whatever. This money has already been taxed. To snatch it for the state is a form or grave-robbery. It is also does dumb things like break up family businesses, and therefore harms the laudable human desire to create wealth for future generations, and not just one’s self.
Inheritance taxes are of course loved by Jacobins of various hues, or by those well-meaning folk who imagine that we have to recreate an economic “level-playing field” with each new generation. On that basis, it is more meritorious for a person to gamble away his millions than to give it to his children or friends. How perverse is that?
“There is nothing moral about death taxes”
In absolute terms, perhaps not; however, as far as taxes go, what would you suggest to be a more moral tax?
Do you agree with the idea a country has to be defended from external threats from other countries and entities (e.g. jihadis)? If so, we have two options: leave the defense up to private corporations, or create an institution similar to our current military. Asuming we chose the more conservative option (a military monopoly which carries out the political foreign policy will of the electorate), such an institution would have to be funded. This funding can come from either taxes or charity. Again, selecting the more conservative option of taxes leads us to a simple question: what is the most moral method of threatening one’s own citizens with violence so as to extort money from them in order to ensure their own defence from other more menancing external threats. Once we have reached this point, I propose that a death tax is one of the more moral ways of doing so.
“they do not get paid by the Hiltons of this world”
Surely an attempt can be made to rectify the situation, no?
“Moveover regarding Paris Hilton, what’s not to like about a rich and reasonably pretty slut making an ass of herself for the edification of the world?”
For one thing, she is hardly “pretty.” For another, you seem to overestimate the intellect of the majority of the population; examining the population of my new host country, it seems as if all the young women comport themselves in accordance with the example set forth by Paris Hilton. Such a situation is not sustainable for more than one generation (at the end of which, Greco-Roman Western Civilization will finally die with their barren and STI ridden wombs).
A quotation that suggests your views on inheritance taxes are more driven by a perhaps understanderble dislike of many rich kids (I share some of that dislike) than a sense of justice. To repeat: what gives any entity the right to say that X or Y does not or does “deserve” to be born with lots of wealth? We are all players in a cosmic lottery. No one being said that Johnathan Pearce “deserved” to be born with flat feet or dashing good looks, etc. We the outcome of a long and unplanned evolutionary system. Desert is a term that only applies if it could be shown that someone deliberately chose that outcome.
It does sometimes piss me off to see some layabout inherit a fortune, but I learn to be philosophical about it. I think it is worth posing the question once posed by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia: why cannot we feel happy for another person’s good fortune, even if it is pure luck, rather than automatically snarl and hope to grab their money and drag them down?
No believer in liberty should have any truck with egalitarianism of this sort.
Consumption taxes ( or better yet, usage fees).
Yes, that is why I am a minarchist/classical liberal rather than an anarchist. However I can envisage a time where things have developed where a stateless way using protection agencies etc. is indeed possible. We just are not at that point right now.
No. It is very easy to disassociate wealth from a given person (thank goodness).
Opinions vary.
Hardly. The reason I dislike giving power to the state is that I regard most people are pretty damn stupid, and that includes those who acquire political power.
With the exception of Muslims (who really are a problem), we do a fine job of assimilating people from other cultures and ‘making them us’, so I really do not give a damn where they are born or what colour they are. So if the Paris Hiltons (and wannabes) of this world wish to be sterile sex toys, so what? If Eastern European, Asian and African women are the ones who immigrate here and have all the babies, as long as they assimilate, I am really fine with that.
“To repeat: what gives any entity the right to say that X or Y does not or does “deserve” to be born with lots of wealth?”
What gives you the right to say that my sandwich should cost x more (and the sandwich manufacturer should have their revenue reduced by y depending upon the elasticity of the demand curve)? As long as taxes have to be collected, why should they have to come from consumption when they can come from the graves of others?
“I think it is worth posing the question once posed by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia: why cannot we feel happy for another person’s good fortune, even if it is pure luck, rather than automatically snarl and hope to grab their money and drag them down?”
I don’t have a problem with other people being rich (especially if they earned it in exchange for labour of some sort). I do, however, not see why the government should rob me at gunpoint of my posessions, when it can instead rob the people in question. So, to answer your question in another manner, I only feel angry about their wealth to the extend that I have to pay taxes that I feel their dead relatives could have paid instead. If there were no taxes to be paid at all, I would not complain about their wealth in the least.
“Consumption taxes ( or better yet, usage fees).”
Care to elaborate? I still feel “grave robbing,” as someone else put it, to be a bit more moral.
“No. It is very easy to disassociate wealth from a given person (thank goodness).”
I have no problem conceding that there exist problems with death tax system (perhaps unrectifiable problems at that); however, we seem to be primarily be arguing the moral and ideological advantages and disadvantages, and on that subject matter, I am not yet convinced that I am wrong.
“Opinions vary.”
They may, but the term “pretty” denotes a certain form of physical attractiveness, distinct from “hot” or “slutty.”
“The reason I dislike giving power to the state is that I regard most people are pretty damn stupid, and that includes those who acquire political power.”
That certainly seems to be the case, doesn’t it?
“we do a fine job of assimilating people from other cultures and ‘making them us'”
That is a hypothesis; we shall see if it is proven correct or incorrect in 20-50 years. I am not impressed so far. Do not forget that the multicultural left is constantly attempting to convince people that culture is somehow linked to one’s physical characteristics. The left in my current country, as a matter of habit, when referring to the children of “visible minorities” use terms such as *their* culture. Furthermore, while I may hate to point it out, popular Western culture is complete rubbish; if I was not well acquainted with history, and so filled with self-loathing for my “own” culture, I would be hard pressed to assimilate.
“If Eastern European, Asian and African women are the ones who immigrate here and have all the babies, as long as they assimilate, I am really fine with that.”
I assure you, my complaints are not of the “stormfront” variety; however, any immigrant is constantly bombarded by propaganda about conserving one’s own culture, and multiculturalism. Combined with inherent conservative tendencies, the principle of the path of least resistance, and the obvious decadence of modern Western culture, I, at least, would be hard pressed to bother to assimilate, barring personal circumstances. Also, remember that the Goths did eventually “assimilate” after having brought down Rome, the Visigoths did eventually “assimilate” in Hispania, and so forth; however, each of those experiences was not particularly pleasant for the antescedent population, and the resultant culture was by no means the same as that which came before it. To put it otherwise, you may push on us, but so do we upon you. Your larger mass for the moment may cause you to accelerate less than we do (a=F/m), but birth rates are not in your favour, and neither is the Western cultural trend (rap, Paris Hilton, modern political “debate,” etc).
“The Paris Hiltons of this world either spend that money, invest it, or save it. Either way, it goes back into the system.”
Not all forms of consumption are equally beneficial. While a portion of the elite of yore comissioned great artistic works, carried out scientific experimentation and contributed to philosophy, the current elite seems entirely devoted to hedonistic consumption and Marxist thought. To illustrate my point: if Paris spends $5 000 000 on cokaine, the effect is completely different than if she were to spend it on computer equipment, or invest it in some worth while venture. Yes, the drug dealers can then in turn spend that money yet again, and they will yet again probably spend it on some soft of worthless venture (form an objective perspective). The cycle then continues.
“It is no business of anyone’s to say that certain people do not deserve to inherit wealth, any more than they do not deserve to inherit their parents’ good looks or brains.”
As long as taxes exist, someone is saying something about something that does not really concern them. As for genetic inheritance, the difference is extreme. Genetic Inheritance: Intelligent Parents –> Intelligent Offspring –> Intelligent Offspring –> etc
Monetary Inheritance: Intelligent, Hard Working Capitalist Parents –> Stupid, Lazy Marxist Offspring –> Even Stupider, Lazier, etc. –> etc. –> bankrupcy!
“I personally would like to see income tax and National Insurance (what a misnomer!) cut back first, but all tax cuts are good in my book.”
So we are in agreement. As long as there are taxes, perhaps death taxes should not be the first taxes to be cut.
“People have a right to bequeath what they have earned to their friends, family or whatever.”
But perhaps my right to buy a sandwich without paying tax should take precedent over the right of someone to leave a large inheritance without paying any tax. We are both arguing about the taxation of the exhange of goods. The only difference is that you support the taxation of
“This money has already been taxed.”
So don’t tax it the first time if that is your concern. 🙂
“To snatch it for the state is a form or grave-robbery.”
And what, pray tell, is wrong with grave-robbery? Is this some sort of remenant of your Judeo-Christian indoctrination? I would have no problem digging up someone’s grave and taking whatever they may have stashed down there (well, aside from the rotting flesh being a bit disgusting). As far as I am concerned, property rights end with death.
“It is also does dumb things like break up family businesses, and therefore harms the laudable human desire to create wealth for future generations, and not just one’s self.”
Fair enough. I do concede the problems that the death tax has in this regard. Perhaps it can be fixed by altering the implementation, perhaps not. Also note that I am not advocating a 100% death tax. If the death tax was 50%, for example, one could still leave their offspring enough, and if they wanted to leave them even more, they would simply be required to work harder.
“Inheritance taxes are of course loved by Jacobins of various hues, or by those well-meaning folk who imagine that we have to recreate an economic “level-playing field” with each new generation.”
You do have a point, of course. An interesting thought, however, may be a centrifuge. Left alone, different objects are not found according to their density; however, the centrifuge allows each piece to end up where it should based upon its density. Of course, in our case, instead of density, we would instead be sorting by intellect, talent, and primarily the ability to perform in the free market. Just a thought, not necesarily my primary personal philosophy.
“On that basis, it is more meritorious for a person to gamble away his millions than to give it to his children or friends. How perverse is that?”
How so? How merit and ease are hardly ever proportional. With a death tax of say 50%, one could either leave his children 1 million, or gamble away 2 million. If the person in question wanted to leave his children 2 million instead, he would simply have to work harder.
Absurd. Because the money that is in the “graves of others” belongs to the people to whom that wealth was bestowed. It is not yours to grab. You seem to take the view that when a person dies, that the choices that person makes over the posthumous use of that wealth are null and void. What a selfish view you seem to take.
But the people who bequeathed a large fortune have already paid taxes already. So why should their wealth, which they chose to give to someone else, be taxed again?
Your argument, if I can call it that, is nothing more than saying that all wealth is ultimately owned by the state and that the desire of people to transmit their wealth to others can be treated with high-handed contempt. I think it is a mark of a civilised order that we allow the transmission of wealth and cultures across the generations.
“Absurd. Because the money that is in the “graves of others” belongs to the people to whom that wealth was bestowed. It is not yours to grab. You seem to take the view that when a person dies, that the choices that person makes over the posthumous use of that wealth are null and void. What a selfish view you seem to take.”
Fair enough. I way merely playing off the rhetorical device used by someone else “grave robbing.” I probably should have not, as it does slightly mischaracterize the situation and abstract the inherent assumptions. As for my view, people are taxed; that is a fact. The only question remains as to when to tax them: you seem to think that they should be taxed through their entire life and not at all when they die or when they receive/bestow gifts, whereas I hold that perhaps they should be taxed less during their entire life and a bit more when they die/receive inheritance. I fail to see how our two views as so different so as to create moral revulsion for you. After all, we both desire to tax transactions; the only difference is which ones and how much; I seem to lean toward post-humous transactions more than you, while you seem to lean toward pre-humous market transactions more. Furthermore, since when do libertarians use “selfish” as a pejorative?
“But the people who bequeathed a large fortune have already paid taxes already. So why should their wealth, which they chose to give to someone else, be taxed again?”
You are simply accepting the status quo. Dare to challenge it completely. What if those people instead paid slightly less tax while they were alive, and slightly more after they died. In the end, it could be the exact same monetary amount, differing only as to when it was to be collected (with you prefering earlier, and me preferring post-death).
“Your argument, if I can call it that, is nothing more than saying that all wealth is ultimately owned by the state and that the desire of people to transmit their wealth to others can be treated with high-handed contempt.”
I fail to see how my argument is any more so than yours. After all, we both seem to accept that limited taxation is a necessary evil, and differ only in our choice as to the implementation thereof.
“I think it is a mark of a civilised order that we allow the transmission of wealth and cultures across the generations.”
Just as it is a mark of civilised order that we allow the transmition of goods and services in exchange for money, yet you do not seem to be so concerned with the taxation of that transfer, where as you seem to be very concerned with the taxation of inheritance (remember, no one is suggesting a death tax of 100%, only perhaps something > 0%).
Perhaps if we look at this from a different angle:
Suppose a person is to be taxed $5000 throughtout their life. Is it so much worse that they be taxed $0 while alive, and $5000 after they are dead than being taxed $5000 while alive and $0 after death?
P.S. This debating thing is fun. 🙂
Suppose a person is to be taxed $5000 throughtout their life. Is it so much worse that they be taxed $0 while alive, and $5000 after they are dead than being taxed $5000 while alive and $0 after death?
Well let’s try yet another perspective. Who pays inheritance tax? Usually the grieving friends, relatives and children of the deceased.
What isn’t immoral about taxing these people?
Of course this depends on you believing someone has the right to dispose of their own wealth how they see fit.
I obviously do believe that. cryptononcommie seems to believe it’s “ashes to ashes, dust to dust and legacy to government”.
On a more practical note (made by Jonathan, I think) the effect of inheritance tax on splitting-up family businesses and the like is a very strong argument to can the whole sorry mess.