U.S. House passes estate tax repeal despite veto threat

No. They absolutely wanted to tax commerce. The whole fed 12 is about this. The idea is to tax transactions to raise a % of GDP. That's exactly what is described.

The constitution forbade direct taxation by the Feds. Very specifically, they went out of they way to record it that way.

If you randomly select a word here, a word there, you can bend it to your will.

It simply is disingenuous to ignore 99% of the text that does not at all say what you want.

 

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Article I Section 9, U.S. constitution.

No direct taxation, period. No "tax the rich." No inheritance tax. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

The federalist papers were written to encourage the ratification of the constitution, not to shoot it down via debate.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._12

In Federalist 12, Hamilton argues that the formation of the union will lead to greater wealth for the states. The government, by establishing currency, would encourage industry and all Americans would enjoy the benefits. Hamilton continues by arguing that there is no rivalry between commerce and agriculture - rather each benefits when the other prospers. Taxes should be levied on commerce and the union will be much more efficient than the states at collecting revenue. In fact, the article predicts that revenue will triple with the new federal government administering tax collection. The states have been unable to establish an adequate way to collect taxes. Hamilton claims that direct taxation is not a reality for the new government. Instead, taxes should be levied on imports and exports, mainly on imports. Hamilton also points out that if the federal government administers tax collection instead of leaving the task to states, it will reduce the amount of resources needed to ensure that the tax is not being evaded. It will be much easier for the federal government to protect one border - the Atlantic coast - than it would be for each state to protect its borders. A few ships stationed outside of Americas ports would ensure the collection of duties. Hamilton concludes that funding the government is essential and if Americans fail to do so then the Revolution itself will have been in vain.

 

No, it is dismissed. In England, the king granted and took away lands by edict, and taxed the lords who were given the lands. That's not at all what was envisioned here.

The idea was for the Feds to tax the states proportional to their population. The states had to come up with the money however they saw fit, including an income tax if they so chose. The Feds' taxation was to be import duties, which encourages people to buy domestic goods.

To this day, the income tax is a serious breach of our Liberty (privacy) and contrary to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. The government can raise revenue without spying on my income, sources of income, or what I spend. States do it via sales tax and gas tax, etc.

 

It seems, in reading this thread, that:

Giving your (already multiply-taxed) inheritance to your kids without tax => kids are freeloading, get-a-job, whiners.
Giving your (already multiply-taxed) inheritance to Lockheed, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or to a health insurance company = ...

 

Lockheed is by definition a product of big government.

 

I don't want to protect any group, but treat them exactly the same. You're the one in favor of targeting 5400 families a year.

 

I expect to pass $0 on to anyone but my wife. I hope to spend everything I've made and enjoy it before the end.

Unlike you, I didn't quibble. $5M isn't enough, as honkicracker said.

 

Well, what's to answer but your uneducated guess?

 

Only a moron loses his family estate and is happy about it.