What I do not understand is why there is a presumption that a person who has property to pass on to heirs or to give to the natural objects of the person's bounty acquired that property on account of advantages from a system that discriminated unjustly in favor of that person.
Although there are persons who did nothing to acquire property other than being born to the "right" parent(s), there are far more who started with nothing, faced unjust obstacles of a variety of sorts, and who prospered by pusing through with a determination born of "I'll show them" or "I'll get there, by God." Or perhaps the person, denied opportunity, created his or her own opportunity. It is in the nature of the selfish gene for such a person, who has acquired wealth against the odds, to take steps to maximize the chances that their grandchildren will have grandchildren who in turn can procreate... something that is more likely to happen if there is property available for the descendants. There also are folks who face unjust obstacles and who give up, or who seek an easy path, or who select a deceitful path, to the acquistion of status that ensures the existence of great-great-grandchildren (which is what the biologically driven urges at all levels are all about). A system that rewards based on merit would consider these folks to be persons who had the same opportunity but who relinquished it, and who thus are not deserving of society's assistance through wealth transfers from those who took advantage of their opportunities, unless, of course, society has some overriding interest in sustaining these folks. Sadly, history tells us that often these folks were sustained so that they could provide service to those upon whom they had voluntarily or involuntarily become dependent; it is often from these folks that society drew its slaves, its servants, its serfs, its expendable infantry, and so forth. Surely this is not a norm that ought to be countenanced in Constitutional interpretation. So the justice that is described is one that has to find its roots somewhere. In the pre-post-modern world religion (conceptually, not denominationally) provided that root, at least in theory. With religion relegated to the sidelines when it comes to re-framing the Constitution, and with natural rights set aside in favor of some sort of sovereignty, what then justifies the justice that in turn allows for wealth redistribution, whether in the form of high taxes, minimum wages, consumer purchase rationing, etc.? It is interesting that the political philosophers have had (too) much to say on the matter. Isn't it time to listen to the implications of what the anthropologists, the microbiologists, the theologians, the social workers, and the pyschiatrists are saying? Even though there is much resistance to the idea of "naturalist conceptions" (perhaps because of dislike for where that path takes the interpreation), it very well may be that science and other disciplines will refine and re-define those naturalist conceptions. Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/30/03 11:20AM >>> The Lochner era philosophy was right at one level: questions about the constitutionality of economic regulation (whether taxes or other forms of regulation) turn ultimately on fundamental conceptions of individual rights and justice. The Lochner era majority embraced a naturalist conception of inherent property rights. Holmes and others, rightly, in my view, reject that philosophy (I agree that such a theory of constitutional rights was consistent with the framers' philosophy, but I think it is clear that Lincoln and the post Civil War reforms to our constitutional system reject natural rights in favor of democratic sovereignty as the theory of American constitutionalism -- see Edward Corwin). In any case, any conception of property rights is socially constructed, not natural. And so the only question is what system of property rights comports best with our considered conceptions of justice (either inside or outside the constitution). There is a large literature within political philosophy on this question, and I will not rehash those arguments here (but for those interested, I would suggest John Rawls, Robert Nozick and Charles Taylor for starters). But let me suggest that those who believe that the Constitution commits us not only to maximize individual liberty but also to ensure equal basic liberties (or "equal opportunity" if you prefer), should embrace both free market institutions but also many types of "redistributive" institutions (including relatively high inheritance and gift taxes). And this has nothing to do with selfishness. Why? Because the values of free markets and equal opportunity are based on the core principle of "just dessert" (i.e. individuals should get what they deserve or merit, and not get what they don't deserve or merit). A society that says our institutions reward people on the basis of merit rather than some arbitrary characteristic such as race, sex (or family name), but then turns around and allows the inheritance of "massive economic advantage" (or disadvantage) on the basis of these arbitrarily distributed characteristics would be both irrational and hypocritical. CWC At 09:31 AM 5/30/03 -0400, you wrote: >I suppose I was being a wee bit sarcastic using the term "ironic" rather >than, say, "irrational." > >But in a sense it is not irrational to make an argument that taxes >should be as high as necessary to generate benefits for those demanding >the benefits. Such an argument is a product of the so-called "selfish >gene", that is, the urge to acquire, however possible, a maximum of >wealth for the most minimally possible effort. We're born that way, and >the degree to which we mature and become "civilized" dictates the >parameters of that basic quest for survival. So I'm not so sure that >those who clamor for high taxes and redistribution of wealth are being >irrational, especially if they are or have been on the less advantaged >side of the transfer. > >During certain periods of this nation's history the tax rates (income, >estate, etc) were very high... up in the 90 percent range. For example, >during World War Two taxation (and rationing) curtailed almost all >consumer spending (and thus consumer choice). It is logical and rational >to consider that level of taxation and regulation to be appropriate to >the situation, which in a sense involved survival of the nation (back to >that "selfish gene" again). In contrast, there are those who do not >think such levels of taxation are appropriate to effectuate wealth >shifting. It comes down to a matter of values. > >Does the Constitution prefer one set of values over another? For >certain values, yes, it does. For other values, it does not speak to the >question. When there is such silence, what becomes the framework for >identifying rational versus irrational? Something outside the >Constitution? Something found within value patterns imbedded in the >Constitution? I'm not sure. > > > >Jim Maule >Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law >Villanova PA 19085 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule >President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) >(www.taxjem.com) >Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) >Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) >Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) > > > > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/29/03 11:36PM >>> >Jim Maule wrote: "...As for the constitutional question, it would be >ironic if one could successfully argue that confiscatory taxation (to >the extent of taking everything) did not violate the constitution, >because it was on that very question that the revolution took >place...." > >*** > >I think we're still looking (one of us is, anyway) for some positive >(as >opposed to, say, 'ironic') authority for the proposition that >government >exactions or mandates to pay money in the form of taxes, or minimum >wage >laws, or whatever, can be held unconstitutional on their face, illegal >per se, because the amount, level, or proportion is so high as to be >confiscatory, unconscionable, whatever. I've suggested failure on >rationality grounds, but that was simple guesswork. In a post-Lochner >world where the Constitution is not supposed to prefer one economic >system over another, according to the Holmes dissent in Lochner, on >what >theory may one attack the LEVEL of a tax imposition legally, i.e., in >constitutional law theory, as opposed to fomenting a revolution, other >than on rationality grounds? Perhaps 'ironic' is another way of >expressing that something is irrational when considered in light of >the >reasons that prompted the revolution. > >Bob Sheridan >SFLS > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Discussion list for con law professors >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Maule >Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:13 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Statistics > > >Tax type here. Double taxation, as you analyze it, is what you >describe, >but I'd support a definition that applies your explanation to the same >sort of tax. So your corporate shareholder example is a good one, as >is >your example of earning income, paying tax, and then paying a lawyer >(my >students instinctively see that as "double taxation" when they start >the >course.....<G>) > >But if there are two different types of taxes, then it is problematic >to >use the term "double taxation." So if a person earns income and pays >an >income tax, that is one tax. Suppose the person invests some of the >"after tax" income and then is subjected to a wealth tax. That is not >"double taxation" because neither tax is applied twice. It is "serial >taxation." The person spent some of the "after (income) tax" income... >and perhaps paid a sales tax. Double taxation? No. The same for a gift >or estate or inheritance tax. > >In theory, the person's income could end up in three buckets: taxes, >consumption, and investment. The issue is whether taxes ought to be >set >in ways (serial taxation) that cause a person's investment at the time >of death (or earlier) to be zero or minimal so that redistribution can >occur. This is a very old debate, and what I see in this thread is a >new >reason advanced in favor of redistribution. > >As for the constitutional question, it would be ironic if one could >successfully argue that confiscatory taxation (to the extent of taking >everything) did not violate the constitution, because it was on that >very question that the revolution took place. > > > >Jim Maule >Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law >Villanova PA 19085 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule >President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) >(www.taxjem.com) >Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Owner/Developer, >TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com) Maule Family Archivist & >Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) > > > > >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/29/03 02:19PM >>> >Just on the multiple taxation issue: all the money in circulation has >been taxed many times. That doesn't mean future transfers shouldn't >be >taxed. The argument about multiple taxation has force when the >ultimate >recipient of the money seems to have had a claim on it at the time the >first tax was imposed. Shareholders own a corporation; they own the >money it earns, on which it pays taxes. Should they have to pay a tax >again when that money is distributed to them? This is plausibly >described as double taxation. When I earn money and pay tax on it, >then >use my after tax earnings to pay a lawyer (for example), it doesn't >look >like double taxation to require her to pay tax. So the question of >whether the inheritance tax is an instance of double taxation comes >down to the question of whether children have this sort of >pre-existing >claim on a parent's wealth. You can take this as a question directed >either to your philosophical intuitions, or to our current legal >system, >but in either case I don't think it's preposterous to say the answer >is >no. > >Eastman, John wrote: > >>Cornell Clayton's position below really is preposterous. Talk about >>double taxation -- the money left via a will has already been taxed, >of >>course (often several times!). I'm curious, though, how far he would >go >>with it. If I give my kids $100,000 over 4 years for college >tuition, >>would he tax that as "income" to my kids? How about room and board >for >>the 18 years before that? >> >>But to bring this back to constitutional law. Are there any >>constitutional limits on the taxing power at all? Anything to >prevent >a >>90 or 100% confiscatory estate tax? In the Federalist 10, James >Madison >>counted it "the first object of government" to protect the diversity >in >>the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate. >Is >>there anything in the Constitution that is designed to further this >>purpose? >> >>John C. Eastman >>Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law >>Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional >>Jurisprudence >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Cornell Clayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 12:58 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: Statistics >> >> >>Glenn Reynolds wrote: >> >>>2. It would be ironic, if people's right to pass their property on >to >>>their descendants were generally regarded as unfair and >illegitimate. >>> >> >> >>I, for one, do think that laws allowing inheritance of massive >amounts >>of property or wealth (or economic advantage) are unfair and >>illegitimate. Following a Rawlsian conception of equality -- which I >>believe is the best interpretation of our constitutional commitment >to >>equality -- I can see no difference theoretically between one >inheriting >>arbitrary advantages (or >>disadvantages) on the basis of birth-family as opposed to color of >skin. >>One does nothing to merit either one, so one has no more just >>expectation to inherit privilege on the basis of the family you are >born >>into than to inherent privilege on the basis of the skin color you >>happen to be born with. This is one of the reasons I think the >>Republican attack on the >>estate tax is so egregious. It is not a "death tax", but a tax on >>income >>that is not deserved or merited! Not only should we not eliminate >the >>estate tax, we should tax inheritance at a much higher level than >earned >>income. >> >>Of course, I readily concede Glen's other point, that as a matter of >>history (as opposed to theory) the US experience with race >>discrimination is quite different than thinking about problems >created >>by economic inheritance. >> >>Cheers, >>Cornell Clayton >> > >-- >Kermit Roosevelt >Assistant Professor >University of Pennsylvania Law School >3400 Chestnut Street >Philadelphia PA 19104 >215.898.5185 >
