This is why estate taxes should be 100%

[Martinus]

Viking, sorry but is your point actually that Romans did not have legally enforceable property rights because when the Roman Empire fell, these laws were no longer enforceable? I hope it isn't that, because if it is, then your point is extremely retarded.

[Viking]

Viking, sorry but is your point actually that Romans did not have legally enforceable property rights because when the Roman Empire fell, these laws were no longer enforceable? I hope it isn't that, because if it is, then your point is extremely retarded.

The Romans did. However, after the Romans a period of time happened when all land property was revoked and became feudal grants which were not inherited, but rather in the gift of the local strong man. It is the land holders struggle to get rights of inheritance in the middle ages I am referring to. I am referring to the development from a frank, goth or saxon declaring that all he beholds now belongs to him before he parcels the land out to his vassals through the vassals getting some title to the land recognized and the ability to hand the land over to their sons through to actual modern property rights.

The romans certainly had laws, but those laws ended and where they continued they were resurrected by interested parties.

[Tamas]

It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.

In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. 

That's fine - I'm fine with gifts, since the giver is still in mental capacity and presumably the decision is correct. But once a person croak, there is really no reason why his adult children should get anything of it (except if someone is e.g. disabled and cannot earn his or her maintenance).

That's why we invented these things called "wills."

...I'm sure this has been brought up already, but God damn.

Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax.  100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.

you can so reveal the basic sentiment behind socialism - "it is not just to have people with more money than I do"

[Martinus]

Viking, sorry but is your point actually that Romans did not have legally enforceable property rights because when the Roman Empire fell, these laws were no longer enforceable? I hope it isn't that, because if it is, then your point is extremely retarded.

The Romans did. However, after the Romans a period of time happened when all land property was revoked and became feudal grants which were not inherited, but rather in the gift of the local strong man. It is the land holders struggle to get rights of inheritance in the middle ages I am referring to. I am referring to the development from a frank, goth or saxon declaring that all he beholds now belongs to him before he parcels the land out to his vassals through the vassals getting some title to the land recognized and the ability to hand the land over to their sons through to actual modern property rights.

The romans certainly had laws, but those laws ended and where they continued they were resurrected by interested parties.

You make it sound as if Roman law died with the Empire and then the modern civil law was a product of the Franks, Saxons and Goths. From about 13th century onwards there was a very strong movement in continental Europe to actually resurrect Roman law (which was studied quite extensively in Padua, Bologna and at the Sorbonne), with the Emperor and Kings, especially those who wanted to rely on the bourgeoisie, being the strong proponents of it. As a result, most civil law concepts in the continental Europe are based on Roman law.

[Syt]

Considering that a large amount of surviving documentation (besides church scripture) from the post-Roman world concerns property affairs (who owns what) I find it a bit surprising to hear that the notion of property rights had been abandoned in that period.

[Viking]

You make it sound as if Roman law died with the Empire and then the modern civil law was a product of the Franks, Saxons and Goths. From about 13th century onwards there was a very strong movement in continental Europe to actually resurrect Roman law (which was studied quite extensively in Padua, Bologna and at the Sorbonne), with the Emperor and Kings, especially those who wanted to rely on the bourgeoisie, being the strong proponents of it. As a result, most civil law concepts in the continental Europe are based on Roman law.

Yes, and the conflict between the lord and his vassals for rights of inheritance has been going on for centuries by the 13th century. You used the word "resurrect". I'm saying roman property law was abandoned for feudal contract with the barbarian conquest. The world of the 13th century looked economically much more like the 2nd century roman empire than it did the 8th century proto-feudal kingdoms.

[Tamas]

This whole thread is right up there with Marty's "people are stupid for wanting kids" thread. It is human nature to desire a legacy, a way to support the loved ones you leave behind when you die. Fighting it is silly and hopeless.

[Martinus]

You make it sound as if Roman law died with the Empire and then the modern civil law was a product of the Franks, Saxons and Goths. From about 13th century onwards there was a very strong movement in continental Europe to actually resurrect Roman law (which was studied quite extensively in Padua, Bologna and at the Sorbonne), with the Emperor and Kings, especially those who wanted to rely on the bourgeoisie, being the strong proponents of it. As a result, most civil law concepts in the continental Europe are based on Roman law.

Yes, and the conflict between the lord and his vassals for rights of inheritance has been going on for centuries by the 13th century. You used the word "resurrect". I'm saying roman property law was abandoned for feudal contract with the barbarian conquest. The world of the 13th century looked economically much more like the 2nd century roman empire than it did the 8th century proto-feudal kingdoms.

Yes, but after the end of the feudal era the feudal contract was abandoned in favour of "modern" property law - which is essentially Roman law resurrected, at least as far as continental Europe is concerned. So saying that feudal relations played a role in development of modern property law but Roman law didn't is quite ignorant.

[Viking]

Considering that a large amount of surviving documentation (besides church scripture) from the post-Roman world concerns property affairs (who owns what) I find it a bit surprising to hear that the notion of property rights had been abandoned in that period.

Feudal Contract means no property rights. You don't own your land, you hold it for your lord. The roman law thing is a red herring here. For the castle building knights of the feudal contract your land was the land you could hold by force of arms and the only title deed was your lords appreciation of the fact that starving you out of your castle was too much of a hassle. The conquerors took all the land, they then used the land as a reward for past and future service. This is not a continuation of centuries of roman legal tradition this is a replacement by germanic tribal custom. All land was owned by the king and the king gave it out to whoever he wanted. This is the starting point for centuries of struggle between vassals and their lords for the rights of inheritance.


but fuck it, nobody is actually listening...

[Viking]

You make it sound as if Roman law died with the Empire and then the modern civil law was a product of the Franks, Saxons and Goths. From about 13th century onwards there was a very strong movement in continental Europe to actually resurrect Roman law (which was studied quite extensively in Padua, Bologna and at the Sorbonne), with the Emperor and Kings, especially those who wanted to rely on the bourgeoisie, being the strong proponents of it. As a result, most civil law concepts in the continental Europe are based on Roman law.

Yes, and the conflict between the lord and his vassals for rights of inheritance has been going on for centuries by the 13th century. You used the word "resurrect". I'm saying roman property law was abandoned for feudal contract with the barbarian conquest. The world of the 13th century looked economically much more like the 2nd century roman empire than it did the 8th century proto-feudal kingdoms.

Yes, but after the end of the feudal era the feudal contract was abandoned in favour of "modern" property law - which is essentially Roman law resurrected, at least as far as continental Europe is concerned. So saying that feudal relations played a role in development of modern property law but Roman law didn't is quite ignorant.

yes, "modern" property law in it's resurrection of roman law represents the success in the struggle for property rights. I don't understand why you can't comprehend that "not being used anymore" is not the same thing as "never having existed".

[Brazen]

http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/page/1

What's your problem with these pictures? This is what I imagine your soirées look like.

[Ed Anger]

Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax.  100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.

As your Avatar title says, Fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuck you.

[Razgovory]

It's also their right to give it to the cum parasites.

In the US, you can gift $13k tax free per year. I know because I give my mom that much every single year. 

That's fine - I'm fine with gifts, since the giver is still in mental capacity and presumably the decision is correct. But once a person croak, there is really no reason why his adult children should get anything of it (except if someone is e.g. disabled and cannot earn his or her maintenance).

That's why we invented these things called "wills."

...I'm sure this has been brought up already, but God damn.

Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax.  100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.

you can so reveal the basic sentiment behind socialism - "it is not just to have people with more money than I do"

What about people who are already wealthy?

[Razgovory]

Considering that a large amount of surviving documentation (besides church scripture) from the post-Roman world concerns property affairs (who owns what) I find it a bit surprising to hear that the notion of property rights had been abandoned in that period.

Feudal Contract means no property rights. You don't own your land, you hold it for your lord. The roman law thing is a red herring here. For the castle building knights of the feudal contract your land was the land you could hold by force of arms and the only title deed was your lords appreciation of the fact that starving you out of your castle was too much of a hassle. The conquerors took all the land, they then used the land as a reward for past and future service. This is not a continuation of centuries of roman legal tradition this is a replacement by germanic tribal custom. All land was owned by the king and the king gave it out to whoever he wanted. This is the starting point for centuries of struggle between vassals and their lords for the rights of inheritance.


but fuck it, nobody is actually listening...

Cause it's based on incorrect information.  Even under feudalism, some people owned landed.  And Feudalism wasn't universal in Europe.

[Ideologue]

Anyway, I generally agree with the idea of a very aggressive estate tax.  100% past, say, $200,000, not including a family home that the survivors intend to live in.

As your Avatar title says, Fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuck you.

Now, I can compromise.  I suppose the number could vary based on family size.