4 ms·

Jefferson, and the founders in general, were referring to covenants or trusts governing the use of property after death, such that no living person had unrestri

Jefferson, and the founders in general, were referring to covenants or trusts governing the use of property after death, such that no living person had unrestricted use of it ("to bind it up from posterity", not to decide which particular posterity inherits it). I would generally agree that someone currently living must always hold the property rights—the dead cannot own property, so if the rights did not transfer then the property would be abandoned and free for anyone to claim via homesteading. That, however, is a separate matter from transferring rights to a designated benefactor at the time of death via an explicit prior arrangement such as a will. As for Smith, here we'll just have to disagree. I find it beyond bizarre that anyone would claim that a person has the right to dispose of their property as they wish at any point before death, but not at the moment they die. That distinction is nothing but the most trivial technicality.

didibus 6y ago
> Jefferson, and the founders in general, were referring to covenants or trusts governing the use of property after death, such that no living person had unrestricted use of it Did you read the article I linked? Cause that doesn't seem to be the case. He repealed the laws of primogeniture and entail, and he himself quoted Smith, showing that he was in agreement with Smith. And confirmed here as well: > Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth "a danger to the happiness of mankind." From https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-america...
- nybble41 6y ago
  Primogeniture is again a different matter—that is the idea that the estate, or at least a certain portion of it, must be inherited by the firstborn heir, not a beneficiary chosen by the owner. I would 100% agree with repealing primogeniture laws. Entail, "an interest in land bound up inalienably in the grantee and then forever to his direct descendants"[0], is a reference to the covenant or trust concept I mentioned earlier. Transferring the rights upon death is one thing; making it so that the recipient is subject to restrictions imposed by the deceased donor and unable to dispose of the property as they wish is another. My own position is that for any action to be considered off-limits (i.e., sufficient justification for any punishment or reciprocation involving force) there must be some living person whose rights would be infringed by the action; deceased former owners lack standing in the matter. The article that you linked was behind a paywall, but I read as much of the intro as I was able. Jefferson himself was mostly anti-property in general, as your quote about redistributing all property every 50 years shows, but that was a fringe position among the founders. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/entail https://www.britannica.com/topic/entail
  - didibus 6y ago
    Doesn't seem to be a fringe position at all, see here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/38964 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/38964 Jefferson, Franklin, John Adam, Hamilton, Washington, Madison, all seem to have some quotes referring to this. And Paine, Smith, Tockevile which were all influential thinkers similarly. In general I feel the consensus of that stackexchange answer seems right to me: > Although quotes from founding fathers directly addressing an estate tax are scarce, it is commonly argued in related articles that they did not want a privileged aristocracy; and that they believed individuals should achieve wealth through merit and hard work, not inheritance. The founding fathers were rebelling against empires that had large concentrations of power, generational wealth, and class status that was earned through birth rather than labor So while there's no way to know where precisely they'd land on the matter of abolishing inheritance, it seems pretty clear to me they'd at least have some concerns over any form of inheritance schemes or other schemes that allows wealth to be acquired or transferred without risk and/or labor. But again, what the founding fathers would think don't make it best, we can value their hindsight, but we should be able to argue for our positions on its own as well. Morally there is the natural right to property, which neither of us disagrees with. But I consider the right to transfer your right to someone else problematic, in that, once you choose to let go of your property, I'm not sure you own it anymore, and don't get to decide who it goes too similarly. Also, your natural right to property is conditional on having acquired it fair and square. If you stole it for example, it doesn't count. In my opinion, within the value framework of capitalism, that would extend to if you didn't earn it it doesn't count, and I don't see how inheritance can be defended as having earned it. Same goes for having it be gifted to you. Anything outside the markets shouldn't count as earning it in my opinion. You got to show up for it with merit and hard work, which the markets are a measure of. So schemes where you can acquire wealth by birth or blood association, or by friendship or courting, they seem immoral to me. And on a non-moral angle, from a practical standpoint, I do feel it hinders free markets, optimal competition, and societal stability. Now I reckon it would be tricky to get rid off now, and finding the replacement strategy will be challenging as well, some alternatives could be worse, so we'd need to be careful, etc. But basically because of all I just said I've started to rethink this whole inheritance thing. And maybe like Theodore Roosevelt of the Republican Party did a while back, a graduated estate tax is the best solution, and we should revise it to today's proportions and inflation. As he said: > We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate. Though I'm not as onboard with the graduated income tax, some amount of it as needed to provide the minimum of opportunity to others, but beyond that if you earned it, you deserve it. That said, gifting it to others or transferring it to heirs or friends or spouses, that doesn't sound merited to me.

didibus 6y ago

> Jefferson, and the founders in general, were referring to covenants or trusts governing the use of property after death, such that no living person had unrestricted use of it Did you read the article I linked? Cause that doesn't seem to be the case. He repealed the laws of primogeniture and entail, and he himself quoted Smith, showing that he was in agreement with Smith. And confirmed here as well: > Some founders wanted to eliminate inheritance entirely. In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson suggested that all property be redistributed every fifty years, because "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." Madison gently pointed out the plan's impracticality. Benjamin Franklin unsuccessfully pushed for the first Pennsylvania constitution to declare concentrated wealth "a danger to the happiness of mankind." From https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-american-founders https://origins.osu.edu/history-news/death-taxes-and-america...

nybble41 6y ago
Primogeniture is again a different matter—that is the idea that the estate, or at least a certain portion of it, must be inherited by the firstborn heir, not a beneficiary chosen by the owner. I would 100% agree with repealing primogeniture laws. Entail, "an interest in land bound up inalienably in the grantee and then forever to his direct descendants"[0], is a reference to the covenant or trust concept I mentioned earlier. Transferring the rights upon death is one thing; making it so that the recipient is subject to restrictions imposed by the deceased donor and unable to dispose of the property as they wish is another. My own position is that for any action to be considered off-limits (i.e., sufficient justification for any punishment or reciprocation involving force) there must be some living person whose rights would be infringed by the action; deceased former owners lack standing in the matter. The article that you linked was behind a paywall, but I read as much of the intro as I was able. Jefferson himself was mostly anti-property in general, as your quote about redistributing all property every 50 years shows, but that was a fringe position among the founders. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/entail https://www.britannica.com/topic/entail
- didibus 6y ago
  Doesn't seem to be a fringe position at all, see here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/38964 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/38964 Jefferson, Franklin, John Adam, Hamilton, Washington, Madison, all seem to have some quotes referring to this. And Paine, Smith, Tockevile which were all influential thinkers similarly. In general I feel the consensus of that stackexchange answer seems right to me: > Although quotes from founding fathers directly addressing an estate tax are scarce, it is commonly argued in related articles that they did not want a privileged aristocracy; and that they believed individuals should achieve wealth through merit and hard work, not inheritance. The founding fathers were rebelling against empires that had large concentrations of power, generational wealth, and class status that was earned through birth rather than labor So while there's no way to know where precisely they'd land on the matter of abolishing inheritance, it seems pretty clear to me they'd at least have some concerns over any form of inheritance schemes or other schemes that allows wealth to be acquired or transferred without risk and/or labor. But again, what the founding fathers would think don't make it best, we can value their hindsight, but we should be able to argue for our positions on its own as well. Morally there is the natural right to property, which neither of us disagrees with. But I consider the right to transfer your right to someone else problematic, in that, once you choose to let go of your property, I'm not sure you own it anymore, and don't get to decide who it goes too similarly. Also, your natural right to property is conditional on having acquired it fair and square. If you stole it for example, it doesn't count. In my opinion, within the value framework of capitalism, that would extend to if you didn't earn it it doesn't count, and I don't see how inheritance can be defended as having earned it. Same goes for having it be gifted to you. Anything outside the markets shouldn't count as earning it in my opinion. You got to show up for it with merit and hard work, which the markets are a measure of. So schemes where you can acquire wealth by birth or blood association, or by friendship or courting, they seem immoral to me. And on a non-moral angle, from a practical standpoint, I do feel it hinders free markets, optimal competition, and societal stability. Now I reckon it would be tricky to get rid off now, and finding the replacement strategy will be challenging as well, some alternatives could be worse, so we'd need to be careful, etc. But basically because of all I just said I've started to rethink this whole inheritance thing. And maybe like Theodore Roosevelt of the Republican Party did a while back, a graduated estate tax is the best solution, and we should revise it to today's proportions and inflation. As he said: > We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate. Though I'm not as onboard with the graduated income tax, some amount of it as needed to provide the minimum of opportunity to others, but beyond that if you earned it, you deserve it. That said, gifting it to others or transferring it to heirs or friends or spouses, that doesn't sound merited to me.