The great inheritance tax scam

As is known, the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels in 1848 constitutes the central document of the totalitarian religion of our time. There are ten points to sabotage and exterminate the capitalist system are detailed there. In its third point, it is advisable to eliminate inheritance in the context of what that manifesto says in that “the communists can undoubtedly summarize their entire theory in this single expression: abolition of private property.”

It has been argued that the establishment of the inheritance tax tends to equalize all in the start of the race for life, attenuating the advantages of birth; and, in the Marxist extreme, it would be leveled in an absolute sense in that sportsman metaphor. It continues to be said that this is fair because it allows each one to develop their potentialities without the support of the efforts of their ancestors.

Anthony de Jasay – the celebrated Oxford professor and probably the most prolific and creative author in the tradition of liberal thought – shows that the example of the race for life is self-destructive. This is so because the one who arrives first in that contest will see their effort destroyed, since they will level their descendants again in the next race, since they will not receive anything from the effort of their progenitor due precisely to the horizontal guillotine implied by the inheritance tax, whether expropriating in whole or in part, in which case the result will cover the whole or the negative effect will be on a part.

It is completely irrelevant to the well-being of the people who specifically it is who generated a fortune: if the father, grandfather or the owner of the moment; the issue lies in the results and the respective administrative management. If the heir manages badly, that is, if in an open market he does not hit the key with the preferences of his peers, he will incur losses, which means that he will transfer his resources to other more competent hands. The inheritance tax blocks, deteriorates and blurs the aforementioned process, which translates into waste that consumes capital and, therefore, contracts wages and income in real terms. In this context, who will be the one to invest in a business if the result cannot be fully or partially transmitted to descendants? This will tend to live from day to day without savings. In other words, the inheritance tax hurts the entire economy, but especially the most vulnerable, since lower capitalization rates always affect the poorest the hardest.

Statists are always on the lookout to include measures of the aforementioned type, which unfortunately in our times includes at the head of the Catholic Church with its encouragements to the redistributionism of the fruit of the work of others and the attacks of the state apparatuses. Hence, when the current pope was asked if he is a communist, he replied: “It is the communists who think like Christians” (Rome, The Republic, November 11, 2016); and also its repeated statements and miscellaneous documents that wage it against capitalism and free markets, while praising Third Worldists and equivalents, all of which intensify poverty to a great extent.

The central influence on Marx came from Hegel, who in his Philosophy of law (subject that also alludes in The philosophy of history) summarizes his position when he writes: “The State is the reality of the ethical idea; is the ethical spirit […] The State is the divine will as a present spirit. ” This work has subsequently been prefaced by Marx, where he emphasizes: “Religion is the sob of the oppressed creature […] It is the opium of the people. The elimination of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the condition for their real happiness ”. This conceptual scaffolding has been taken into account by his followers in order to demolish official religions from within, a task carried out mainly, but not exclusively, by Antonio Gramsci to incorporate adherents to Marxism.

A prominent precursor of Marxism was Robespierre, who in the French counterrevolution expressed in his well-known diatribe of December 2, 1793: “Everything indispensable for preservation is common property.”

It is sad that from the pulpit what has been said is encouraged, since another decisive influence on Marx’s thought was the physical determinism in Democritus, on which he worked his doctoral thesis. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper and the Nobel laureate in neurophysiology John Eccles have explained, among many, this position denies the existence of the psyche outside of the causal links inherent in matter, which makes free will impossible. , the review of our judgments, true and false propositions, self-generated ideas, individual responsibility, morality and freedom itself. This Marxist stance is especially highlighted in the work he co-authored with Engels entitled The Holy Family. Criticism Criticism Criticism (It is not a misprint, the title is like that), in which they allude to studies carried out by Bruno Bauer and his brothers Edgar and Egbert, where he mixes this theme with offenses against Judaism – which he develops in The Jewish question -, despite descended from a rabbinical family, although his father changed his religion to the effect of having more clients in his law firm in the context of the Prussian regime.

A good number of intellectuals were seduced by the Marxism that they just abandoned once they saw first-hand the irreversible disasters it produces. Today the Marxist label is usually denied, but a good part of its recipes is adopted, which is present in university classrooms, in union circles, in not a few journalistic media, in business circles, in international organizations financed by governments and in a number of not inconsiderable from published books. There are even those who openly proclaim themselves anti-Marxists but swallow their principles.

There have been and are fervent revisionists who object to different aspects of Marxism, but they return again and again to its central axes, as is the case of the inheritance tax. Sweetened Marxists appear who emphatically reject violence, without realizing that it is in the nature of every totalitarian regime the systematic use of force to the effect of twisting wills that seek to operate in directions other than those imposed by the bosses on duty.

It is even conjectured that Marx himself realized his error, insofar as his thesis of surplus value and the consequent exploitation was not vindicated once the subjective theory of value expounded by Carl Menger in 1871 appeared, which he demolished with the Marxist labor theory of value. That is why after the first volume of Capital In 1867 he did not publish more on the subject, although he had the other two volumes of that work written, as Engels informs us in the introduction to the second volume twenty years after the death of Marx and thirty after the appearance of the first. I take. Despite being 49 years old when he published the beginning of that work, he refrained from publishing, except for two secondary texts: on the Gotha program and the brochure on the Paris commune.

The author completed two doctorates, is a teacher and a member of two national academies

We would love to say thanks to the writer of this article for this outstanding content

The great inheritance tax scam