re: #772 Obdicut

That’s a good distinction, that family is mutable in a limited way. However, it still doesn’t say why they should have this privilege, just a way that they’re different. And the demarcation line of spouse, children, parents— so not siblings? Someone dying and leaving his estate to his brothers and his nephews would, I believe, not fall under your definition of ‘family’. So your cut off seems rather arbitrary.

In the end, it seems to me that your idea privileges someone who dies suddenly with five children above someone who dies without issue. Is that your intention, to have taxation function as social engineering and reward the family unit?

Not quite, although any tax applied unevenly is social engineering, right?

My idea is not so concrete as to debate specific family lines. Let’s say for the sake of this debate that we’re only discussing family = wife and children. I’m not privileging anyone. Watch-

Two people with $10M estates die suddenly. In my example above, neither can give tax-free to individuals who are not their wife or children.

See? Even stephen.

To your comment farther above - “That’s a good distinction, that family is mutable in a limited way. However, it still doesn’t say why they should have this privilege, just a way that they’re different. “
Ask someone with children if it’s a reasonable proposition to debate about whether their relationship with their children is more, less, or equally special than their relationship with their friends. Come on. The sky is blue, and one’s kids are different from one’s friends.

It’s one of several logical places within a family where one could logically draw a circle and say “within here, we will respect your privacy by allowing you to gift your hard-earned money to whichever family member you choose at whatever time you choose to do so”.