Do you favor an unrestricted power in government to tax inheritances?
No. Among the fruits of one’s labors is included the right to pass those fruits on to one’s progeny, or to any other person or organization. For government to skim off any of whatever personal wealth one wants to give to another is theft.
Moral Basis of a Free Society ?4
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
To tax inheritances is to further the view that what we have is truly a stewardship of the states. If we pay the "filing fee" (so to speak) to transfer the agreement to ourselves, we can assume anothers stewardship. If we do not pay the fee, then the property reverts back to its rightful owner. Thus illustrating how unnatural our property rights and laws are. (Since the property under natural property rights defaults to its natural owner)
To play devils advocate however:
This is really just an additional income tax passed to close an unfair loophole through which the income of the rich is not taxed. Since the "inheritance" has a transfer to the party of the second part, it is clearly income (being above and beyond his "even trade" to sustain what he had). Since it can clearly be shown therefore as income, it must be fairly taxed to insure that fairness for which we seek.
To play devils advocate however:
This is really just an additional income tax passed to close an unfair loophole through which the income of the rich is not taxed. Since the "inheritance" has a transfer to the party of the second part, it is clearly income (being above and beyond his "even trade" to sustain what he had). Since it can clearly be shown therefore as income, it must be fairly taxed to insure that fairness for which we seek.
-
WhisperFox
- captain of 100
- Posts: 330
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
Devils Advocate :twisted:
It's easy to just say that since the communist manifesto says it, it's wrong. It is also easy to say that it's stealing. Let's argue the points.
In your other post you acknowledged that taxation for the good and neccesary functions of governments is okay (or maybe even good and right and just?) What are the ramifications in the perfect system if I do not agree with where you draw that line and decide not to pay the just tax? How does it differ from theft in this case?
In another topic you mentioned our bondage that was placed upon us by our parents. Do you advocate that the rich pass on their wealth and the poor pass on their debt and bondage?
By a strict interpretation of income how does an inheritance differ from income? (As far as the inheritor is concerned since a dead man cannot be taxed as no penalty for a failure to adhere to it can be enforced?)
In your other post you acknowledged that taxation for the good and neccesary functions of governments is okay (or maybe even good and right and just?) What are the ramifications in the perfect system if I do not agree with where you draw that line and decide not to pay the just tax? How does it differ from theft in this case?
In another topic you mentioned our bondage that was placed upon us by our parents. Do you advocate that the rich pass on their wealth and the poor pass on their debt and bondage?
By a strict interpretation of income how does an inheritance differ from income? (As far as the inheritor is concerned since a dead man cannot be taxed as no penalty for a failure to adhere to it can be enforced?)
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
Ultamately we could argue these points indefinately as has been done for the history of mankind. The devil can outdebate us all. I can make a pretty tight argument for either side.
The point that all of these arguments will have to boil down to is that at some future period we will have to submit to a law regardless of whether we agree with how it is established or administered. The rightness of it does not come through understanding and concensus, but rather from the moral principles upon which it is established. Eventually every debate MUST become a debate of the moral issue underlying it. We know that at the start of the millenium there will be more than one government (*DHC 5:212), hence no one will have to submit to our government, there will be other choices. As with the Council of Fifty there will have to be a conscensus or a withdrawing from the government. there are many references to folks being able to leave (consecration). Eventually all of these governments will fall and yield to our superior and blessed government which will be manifest in copious ways.
I do not wish to go round and round debating the wordly virtues (oxymoron) of either ideal. As I mentioned that has already gone on through human history. I think if we cut to the chase and get down to the moral arguments and words of the prophets (putting faith in them) that we will see the virtue as far as is possible to be seen from this perspective.
*DHC 5:212
"The Rule of Christ in the Millennium
While in conversation at Judge Adams' during the evening, I said, Christ and the resurrected Saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth, but will visit it when they please, or when it is necessary to govern it. There will be wicked 2 men on the earth during the thousand years. The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgments of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth. (Dec. 30, 1842.)"
(the footnote explains that these were good men (hence not destroyed at the advent of the millennium), but unbelieving.)
The point that all of these arguments will have to boil down to is that at some future period we will have to submit to a law regardless of whether we agree with how it is established or administered. The rightness of it does not come through understanding and concensus, but rather from the moral principles upon which it is established. Eventually every debate MUST become a debate of the moral issue underlying it. We know that at the start of the millenium there will be more than one government (*DHC 5:212), hence no one will have to submit to our government, there will be other choices. As with the Council of Fifty there will have to be a conscensus or a withdrawing from the government. there are many references to folks being able to leave (consecration). Eventually all of these governments will fall and yield to our superior and blessed government which will be manifest in copious ways.
I do not wish to go round and round debating the wordly virtues (oxymoron) of either ideal. As I mentioned that has already gone on through human history. I think if we cut to the chase and get down to the moral arguments and words of the prophets (putting faith in them) that we will see the virtue as far as is possible to be seen from this perspective.
*DHC 5:212
"The Rule of Christ in the Millennium
While in conversation at Judge Adams' during the evening, I said, Christ and the resurrected Saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth, but will visit it when they please, or when it is necessary to govern it. There will be wicked 2 men on the earth during the thousand years. The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgments of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth. (Dec. 30, 1842.)"
(the footnote explains that these were good men (hence not destroyed at the advent of the millennium), but unbelieving.)
-
WhisperFox
- captain of 100
- Posts: 330
HV Anderson, J. Ruben Clark, and Ezra Taft Benson all stated that there is a right and a wrong for every one of these issues. The hard part comes when any of us try to explain 40 pages from any one of these three's comments in a short enough post to make it digestible online by the average Joe.
For now, all I can do is assure you that my comments (especially as part of this series of threads) aren't based on my own personal opinion, but on their joint opinions of better, on the eternal truths they point out. If you want more info I can gladly post it or better, I'd be happy to lend you any of their books that I have so you can research it yourself.
My comment that inheritance is covered in the CM wasn't to infer that just because it was there it was wrong, nor that these men hadn't covered it elsewhere. I won't argue the point, or play devils advocate. That is a waste of time when they have given us the truth and all we have to do is pay a small price, give up a little of our time, read it, and understand the truth.
Point. If we own something, someone else, including the government has no right to it. We own the entire "bundle of rights" (a legal term). If we own it, we have the right to keep it or give it away without tax, including leaving it to our children as an inheritance without tax.
Is there a need for me to post additional information on this (I'll be happy to if there really is a question) or is this a point that is fairly easy to see?
For now, all I can do is assure you that my comments (especially as part of this series of threads) aren't based on my own personal opinion, but on their joint opinions of better, on the eternal truths they point out. If you want more info I can gladly post it or better, I'd be happy to lend you any of their books that I have so you can research it yourself.
My comment that inheritance is covered in the CM wasn't to infer that just because it was there it was wrong, nor that these men hadn't covered it elsewhere. I won't argue the point, or play devils advocate. That is a waste of time when they have given us the truth and all we have to do is pay a small price, give up a little of our time, read it, and understand the truth.
Point. If we own something, someone else, including the government has no right to it. We own the entire "bundle of rights" (a legal term). If we own it, we have the right to keep it or give it away without tax, including leaving it to our children as an inheritance without tax.
Is there a need for me to post additional information on this (I'll be happy to if there really is a question) or is this a point that is fairly easy to see?
-
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6047
- Location: Driven
I'm sorry, I thought your intention was to argue this here. Most all of the questions are very easily answered through inspired writ. I have plenty of reading material to tell me that too. I mistakenly thought that the intention was on debating (to better understand) the points. Sorry, wont happen again.
-
WhisperFox
- captain of 100
- Posts: 330
If one has a serious question, doubt, or concern, this is indeed the place to post it.
I'm not interested in debating the issues.
There are plenty of liberal even liberal LDS forums out there to debate the issues. I figured this is a forum for "latter-day conservatives", a place to refine our views and to learn what the prophets have taught us on the issues.
If someone here really has a question, I'm more than happy to research and post answers based on the scriptures and latter-day revelation. Posting answers to a bunch of "devil's advocate" type questions in hopes that a liberal or socialist comes by and stumbles over them seems like a waste of time for all of us if we really are already on the same path.
I'm not interested in debating the issues.
There are plenty of liberal even liberal LDS forums out there to debate the issues. I figured this is a forum for "latter-day conservatives", a place to refine our views and to learn what the prophets have taught us on the issues.
If someone here really has a question, I'm more than happy to research and post answers based on the scriptures and latter-day revelation. Posting answers to a bunch of "devil's advocate" type questions in hopes that a liberal or socialist comes by and stumbles over them seems like a waste of time for all of us if we really are already on the same path.
-
ChelC
- The Law
- Posts: 5982
- Location: Utah
I agree with property rights in our system of government, BUT - I must say this. Who owned the property originally and gave us the right to purchase it?
I think we all know that it is the Lord who owns it, and thus unless He has literally given it to us, (not temporarily blessed us with it) it belongs to no earthly man. This is why the United Order is the correct form of government, but can only exist among righteous saints.
I think we all know that it is the Lord who owns it, and thus unless He has literally given it to us, (not temporarily blessed us with it) it belongs to no earthly man. This is why the United Order is the correct form of government, but can only exist among righteous saints.
