re: 'Rights of Man' & inheritance taxes

Topics: Misc
09 Mar 1992

From:

First, I cannot help but notice that the person who has middle income
parents and numerous siblings is in favor of a large inheritance
tax while the person with prosperous parents and fewer siblings
seems to hold the opposite opinion.

Paco says:
> [Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" suggests inheritance taxes for
> purposes of redistribution of wealth to give everyone something
> to start with. ]

Where does Paine say this? Is it in 'Rights of Man'? I never read anything
about this. I was looking even since I knew that was the topic beforehand.

I thought the point was to discuss 'Rights of Man', but since inheritance
taxes seem to be the issue, I can't help but discuss it :-)

> [ Inheritance taxes are not onerous because no one has a right to
> inherited wealth. ]

True, but irrelevant. The right is not to *receive* inheritance but
to *give* it, an entirely different thing. If I give a gift to someone,
how should it be taxed? Does it matter if I'm living or not? Does it
matter if they are related or not? Does it matter if they worked for
it or not? The only question that seems even possibly relevant is the
last one. If I can give my fiancee a diamond ring worth $10,000, why
cannot I give my kids a $10,000 car?

> [ a few generations of inheritance sanctioned stealing America from
> the indians. ]

I agree, the Indians had their land stolen from them in the 19th century.
But what does this have to do with inheritance tax? If the inheritance
tax were 100%, the government would not have given the profit back to the
Indians.

> [ nobility in Europe kept its properties through inheritance ]

Yes, here I agree, but only because they did not come by it legitimately.
As Paine points out, their estates were unfairly
maintained at public expense:

Several of the most heavy and productive taxes are so contrived as
to give an exemeption to this pillar [aristocracy], thus standing in its
own defence. The tax upon beer brewed for sale does not affect the
aristocracy who brew their own beer free fo this duty. (p. 320)


To all these are to be added the numerous dependants, the long list
of younger branches and distant relations, who are to be provided for
at the public expense; in short, were an estimation to be made of the
charge of aristocracy to a nation, it will be found nearly equal to that
of supporting the poor. The Duke of Richmond alone (and there are
cases similar to his) takes away as much for himself as would maintain
two thousand poor and aged persons. (p. 323)

There were numerous other examples of how the aristocracy by virtue of
holding all of the political power exempted themselves from taxes and
took unreasonable benefits from the government.
As surely as Paine was going to take away
the King's inherited 'right' to the crown immediately, he was going to
take away slowly the property of the aristocracy for similar reasons,
i.e. that is was not legitimately theirs. The key, for me, is that the
aristocracy by monopolizing parliment (only the landed aristocracy could
vote) was an un-acceptable imposition the same way the king was and forcible
means to dissolve their wealth were appropriate.
The most complete comment that I can find is:

Although an inquiry into the origin of those estates be unneceessary,
the continuation of them in their present state is another subject.
It is a matter of national concern. As hereditary estates, the law
has created the evil, and it ought also to provide the remedy.
Primogeniture ought to be abolished, not only because it is unnatural
and unjust, but because the country suffers by its operation. By
cutting off (as before observed) the younger children from their
proper portion of inheritance, the public is loaded with the expense
of maintaining them [since they will be given do-nothing government
jobs]. (p. 348).

I do not see that any of this argues against the right to bequeth an
inheritance, in the ordinary sense, especially not in light of the previous
quotes.

Home