No, robbery is the unlawful taking of somebody else's property that you have no legal right to.

Article 1, Section 8, first line:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The government has the right, through acts of Congress, to do this. Therefore, its not "pretty much robbery" or any other weasel words.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean its automatically illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral.

But taxing the exact same income twice *is* robbery. And it will get taxed a third time because the inheritor will have to claim the remaining 45% on their income taxes.

http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=34380
four more needed

Where is it robbery? At what point does it become an unlawful taking?

The answer, sir... is that it doesn't. Again, just because you don't think its right, doesn't mean it becomes illegal.

The law says its legal. Therefore, its not robbery.

Of course not. I never said that it was illegal or unconstitutional. I know that the estate tax is both of those things, and that taxation is obviously needed for the county to run. I would argue for a flat tax on everyone that would be much lower.

And I can still argue that it is immoral. Just because the Constitution allows it does not make it moral.

Look at it the other way: the Government has to raise X amount of tax. Basically they can choose between sales tax, income tax, corporation tax or death tax. If they charge less death tax they have to put up the others. Which do you prefer?

Personally, I think the biggest issue is when families are forced to liquidate assets, especially running businesses, to pay it. If there was some way of severing the charge until the asset was sold, like capital gains tax, then I think it would be better.

I would rather have them tax the others for the exact reason that you mentioned.

Robbery - The taking of money or goods in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, by force or intimidation.

It doesn't have to be against the law to be robbery. The government robs us of our stuff every day. They just do it "legally."

Severing = deferring

Draugnar, you're showing a rather superficial understanding of law.

You can make an argument that its immoral, and you might even be right. Its not robbery, because robbery is unlawful taking.

Tom: Also, "True but taxation at a level of 55% is pretty much robbery" You're saying its robbery, which is illegal. So I understand you're backing down from that position, but you DID say it was.

If they just make estate taxes apply to estates that aren't first generation, then I'd be good with it. At the same time, it need sot be based on liquid assets, not stocks or property, and it should take into account *all* fiscal obligations like employee salaries. That way mom and pop's small grocery chain they left their only son doesn't fold when he dies and his wife and kids take over the business. Inventory and buildings may be worth 10 million, but liquid assets be less than 2 and yearly payroll for two stores be aproximately 800k (20K per person per year, 20 employees per store, 2 stores).

The feds get their cut of the cash after deducting a year's operating expenses and, if part or all of the business is sold off within some term, say 2 years, they can then collect the estate tax from that sale as well.

Well, according to the stated law above, the Death Tax *is* illegal, because it is not equally applied. Also, I think the "general welfare" clause is probably the most abused, misinterpreted phrase in the Constitution used to justify the *robbery* of wealth. You would think that - if that phrase meant everything it is abused into meaning today - that they would have immediately implemented all the demented social programs we have today *when they approved the language*. Instead, it took decades and decades before all these new "rights" were found in the General welfare clause.

Death tax is robbery. I'll tell you what...if they passed a law saying that if you make over X amount of money, a business can charge you twice for the things you purchase, would that be fair? legal, yes? Moral? No. Right? No. The whole "it's legal therefore it's OK to do" is a bullshit argument. Just ask the SLAVES that used to be legally owned by another human being.

Here is the real question; All those in favor of the death tax, i nfavor of having one person's wealth and property taken for another...I'd love to see how much these people contribute to charity? I'd love to see how they apply these same principles in their daily life. Statistics have shown conservatives are generally more charitable - those in favor of lower taxes tend to give more. An interesting anecdote would also be to look at the current crop of Tax and Spend democrats. Think of how many tax cheats are in the Democrat administrations, from Gietner, to Rangle. Even John Kerry, while not failing to pay taxes, keeps his yacht in a location that prevents him from paying his state's luxury taxes. yeah...the hypocrisy of the tax and spend left is enough to convince me that *even they* don't believe in the taxation they want to impose on others.

@J_K: Yeah, I'm not saying it is literal robbery. Just used "robbery" to try to get my point across more (which seemed to be a bad word choice =P)

@Jack - stop being a pedant. We know it isn't legal robbery. The fact is it is morally robbery. K? We know legally it isn't. Doesn't make it any less a crime of the senses and an outrage committed by the state on the person after they are dead.

I'm making sure you don't use loaded words to describe something inaccurately.

If you want to have a discussion about this in a clearheaded way, then we can, but if you start trying to provoke an emotional response by using words like "robbery" and "outrage committed" then we stop having a productive conversation.

Krellin: Go read the Sixteenth amendment... I didn't think I needed to quote the entire Constitution.

If you think the inheritance tax is unconstitutional. it is your right (and in my opinion your duty) as a citizen of the Republic to challenge it in court. Good luck.

As far as "new rights" that were "discovered", I suggest you read the Ninth Amendment, and think think about what those words mean.

I'm finding that the more people rant about how they want to "restore Constitutional Government" the less they know about how the Constitution actually works.

@Jack - The constitution explicitely states that the feds have no more rights than the constitution gives it. Yet then they get the interstate commerce clause involved and suddenly everything is within their rights. I don't even bother to understand why we have individual states any more as the feds think they run it all when (and you porve me wrong here) the constitution was oriented around states rights and restricted federal rights when it was written.

Start reading case law, Draugnar.

I'll give you a short list:

Gibbons v Ogden
National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
United States v Darby Lumber Company
Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States
Daniel v Paul
United States v Lopez

And so on. Its an interesting read (at least for me).

"Look at it the other way: the Government has to raise X amount of tax. Basically they can choose between sales tax, income tax, corporation tax or death tax. If they charge less death tax they have to put up the others. Which do you prefer?"

That's not why they're doing it, and I should hope this would be apparent. If they perceive the need (read: they want), they'll raise taxes on the other three regardless of whether or not they raise the death tax.

Case law... Hmmm... And interpretation but a bunch of guys appointed by another guy to interpret the constitution and they don't even agree internally most of the time. And I don't have the time or the nuanced understanding to get everything out of the law. I'm an IT geek. Put an overview in plain and simple english, please.

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

OK....and how does this Amendment make it OK for the government to confiscate my wealth and give it others? Generally speaking, the Constitution was intended as a document to **limit** the power of the Federal government against the individual. And then the Left "found" all of these rights and responsibilities in the the "general welfare" clause and uses it against the individual for the benefit of the state. All you need to do is look at the language of the Left...they talk about the government "losing money", which is why they have to tax us more. They operate under the concept that all the money belongs to them, and they let us keep some. In reality, this country was founded under the idea that all the money and wealth belongs to the people, and the government would take *only* what is needed for a very limited set of responsibilities.

I read the 9th there and see that I have a certain set of rights that can't be trampled upon. And yet, the "general welfare" clause is far too often used to strip me of my rights in order to prop up the "rights" of others. health care - great example: the left claims people have a "right" to health care. And yet, in order to provide this "right" you are required to cause another to act on your behalf. A doctor is forced to provide this health care, and I am forced to pay for someone else's health care. I am paid when I work, so in effect I am forced to work on behalf of another.

I'm finding that the more people understand the Constitution, and the philosophy behinds the founding of this nation, the more the left makes random statements such as yours in a poor, poor attempt to hold on to power over the people. jack - if you think the current government is an example of "how the Constitution actually works", then *you* are the one in need of understanding.

As far as the inheritience tax being "Constitutional", yes, it is legal. does that mean it is moral or just? no. Again...slavery was legal at one point. I hardly believe you think that was OK. In like manner, many people feel that the idea of a death tax, while strictly legal, is a moral outrage and flies in the face of the founding principles of this nation. That's what people like you just fail to comprehend.

And Jack, it is an "outrage committed by the state". Slavery was also an "outrage committed by the state". Outrage is not a legal term.

out·rage (outrj)
n.
1. An act of extreme violence or viciousness.
2. An act grossly offensive to decency, morality, or good taste.
3. A deplorable insult.
4. Resentful anger aroused by a violent or offensive act.

I like definition #2 for my usage when I say it is an outrage committed by the state.

Krellin, again, if you don't like the fact that you have to pay taxes to live in the US, feel free to move to some place with less tax.

Again, I suggest Somalia. Its an entrepreneurs paradise right? No taxes, no government meddling!

" OK....and how does this Amendment make it OK for the government to confiscate my wealth and give it others?" Using prejoratives to try to color opinion. Classic Glenn Beck, really. And I covered that already. Article 1, Section 8, first line. Please keep up.

Yes, you have to contribute your fair share. The part that amazes me, is that nobody seems to notice that the rich are making off like bandits. Warren Buffet pays less in taxes as a percentage than his secretary does. (I think the numbers were he pays 25 percent, and she paid 33 percent). Mega corporations don't pay a fucking dime. I think Exxon Mobil posted profits in the billions, but didn't pay shit in taxes.

The sick part is, the rich have convinced so many middle class people that they're not the problem... its that dirty government that's the problem. They're fucking you in the ass, and have convinced you that its somebody else's fault.

Going off on how taxes are immoral by nature is basically saying we want no government, no services, no cops, no military, etc etc etc.

Its as absurd as a 19 year old college kid extolling the virtues of "perfect communism".

And it deserves our equal scorn.

This tax is immoral in particular. What is the purpose for taxing dead people. Its distasteful to say the least.

The word we are all looking for is this is ursury

"The part that amazes me, is that nobody seems to notice that the rich are making off like bandits. Warren Buffet pays less in taxes as a percentage than his secretary does. (I think the numbers were he pays 25 percent, and she paid 33 percent)."

1) both are entirely too high percentage-wise anyway
2) one anecdote -> rich are making off like bandits...?

also most aren't saying taxes themselves are immoral... the objection is taxing AGAIN, effectively as a punishment for dying, and completely ignoring the wishes of the deceased in how they want their possessions divided... that specific series of qualifiers is what makes people call this immoral

I'm not against fair and equitable taxes. I am against excessive taxes targetted at individuals who happened to have been successful in their lives.

As far as Buffet and his secretary, I find that claim highly dubious. I would put money that one was just Federal income tax and the other was Fed, State, local, and Social Security combined. The left loves to skew numbers after all.