But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the
life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for
manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the
property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their
father than the loss of their patrimony.—Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 17
Although I am, sadly, likely to become the beneficiary of the inheritance laws within the next ten or so years, I honestly don’t understand the arguments in the discussion of the inheritance tax (or as some prefer to describe it, the death tax). To libertarians: there is no liberty interest here. Neither the decedent nor the heir has any obvious right to control the distribution of the property being discussed. The decedent’s rights over the property have ended with his or her death. There’s nothing inherent in the heir nor has the heir done anything which entitles him or her to the property in question. It’s a matter of custom and convention only. To small government (or no government) fanciers: only the law secures inheritances. Attaching all estates would be no more or less government than securing estates for the heirs. To those who favor redistribution of wealth: the current inheritance taxes have virtually no effect on the distribution of wealth. Come what may Paris Hilton is safe from the provisions of the inheritance tax. The truly wealthy have many devices at their disposal for transferring their wealth to their heirs. Only a very small segment of wealth is exposed to the inheritance tax: estates greater than, what?, $1.5 million whose owners are unfortunate or imprudent enough to take the simple precautions needed.
So, I repeat, I don’t get it.
“Neither the decedent nor the heir has any obvious right to control the distribution of the property being discussed. The decedent’s rights over the property have ended with his or her death.”
Huh? The disposition of the property occurs during the decedent’s life, when the will is executed. Are you arguing that a living person has no property rights?
And some people — like, um, the Framers — believed that property rights exist independent of the government, so the correct argument is actually the reciprocal of your reasoning: Since the state has no (just) right to seize property in life, in cannot possibly have that right in death either.
Absolutely not. I believe that if people want to give their property away they should do so while they’re alive. And the actual transfer should take place while they’re alive. Once they’re dead they have no natural rights. After they’re dead the State’s inherent right to secure the property for the heirs is no greater than the State’s inherent right to secure the property for anyone else. The State is the securer of inheritance for political reasons (as Machiavelli noted) and for reasons of custom and convention.
And as to whether the Framers thought that the State had the right to take property you might check the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Obviously, some of the Framers believed differently than you do. This is a battle that was fought and lost while George Washington was still in office. And also, obviously, Framer Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the position you seem to be articulating.
What about the fact that there are gift taxes that are similar to estate taxes?