Home / Culture and Society / U.S. Property Rights in Line with Tenets of Communism

U.S. Property Rights in Line with Tenets of Communism

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Regardless of how you may have felt about George Steinbrenner during his life, you must admit when he died a few weeks back he went out a winner. His prized possession, the New York Yankees, are on top of the baseball world having won their 27th World Series last October and apparently poised to make another run at it this fall. But, more importantly, especially for his heirs, he died during a year with no federal estate tax.

The latter victory is a really big deal for the Steinbrenner heirs since George’s net worth was estimated to be about $1.1 billion. If Congress had not messed up and allowed the 45 percent federal estate tax to lapse last January, they would have been required to pay $500 million to Uncle Sam. The need for huge liquidity to pay the tax may have forced the family to sell the team it has owned since 1973.

It may be too late for them to stick it to the Yank’s deceased owner but members of Congress are planning to reinstitute the levy next year., Of course, they plan to do it with a vengeance by making the new rate of pillage 10 points higher at 55 percent to make up for their terrible error of letting the federal estate tax lapse in 2010.

It’s interesting that given how our politicians boast about how we honor property rights in this country, they have and will again impose a huge redistributive tax on the dead and their heirs. I mean 45, 55 percent? Isn’t this exorbitant? Taking the Steinbrenner fortune as an example, didn’t he amass it while at the same time employing 1000s of people? Didn’t his venture enrich the lives of millions of baseball fans? Don’t these social benefits account for anything?

But, estate taxes are not the only assault on property rights in America. The whole “American dream of owning one’s own home” is a farce. In America, you never fully own your own home. If you have to take out a loan to buy your house then you jointly own it with the lender until the debt is repaid. That is fair enough and represents a mutual business arrangement that is beneficial to both sides. The homeowner gets the ability to purchase his house and the bank makes money by collecting interest.

What is not fair is that of no choice of your own you are also and always a joint owner of your home with the local taxing authority (either town and/or county). The bottom line is that if you pay off your mortgage to the bank but fail to pay property taxes on your house the government can take it away from you. Unlike the bank, the government has no risk or stake in your property. It becomes a joint owner with you not because it put up the money or gave you a loan to improve the property – it becomes a joint owner simply because it says so in exchange for so called promises to provide services to you that you may not even want or need.

In my own case, I pay property taxes on my summer home. These taxes go towards schools, parks, roads, trash removal, courts, libraries, street lights, and other communal resources in my county. I really only partake of trash removal and roads. Thus, I have money essentially stolen from me under the threat of my house being confiscated to finance the wants and needs of others. Would you go into a store, buys things you didn’t personally use, and leave them for the next patron? Of course, not, but property owners do this all the time when they pay in many cases exorbitant amounts to local taxing authorities for essentially the right to keep their own homes.

And it is amazing that the statist do-gooders who usually stand up tall for the economically disadvantaged and downtrodden rarely advocate for the thousands if not millions of elderly property owners who living on fixed budgets lose their homes due to high property taxes. The following quote from a taxpayer on a New York state government site says it a lot better than I can:
“I fully agree on all the points gesiburn has stated. I am in my late 70’s, not working at my profession now, and having to spend down my savings and a reverse mortgage in order to afford keeping my home that I have lived in since 1967. The taxes including the largest, the school tax, is an enormous burden on me and I and my late husband have dutifully paid the school taxes with no children in the system all these years. It is time that we seniors have this enormous school tax burden lifted from our shoulders.”
From redhead

Two of the major tenets of communism are: abolition of all rights of inheritance; and abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Although we still retain the right of private ownership of property in America, estate and property taxes put us perilously close to fulfilling the dreams of communists everywhere. The death tax should be abolished altogether to preserve the full right to property ownership. Local governments must slash taxes, impose user fees, and solicit charity to pay bills in order to protect property rights. If these two things happen, we can all go out winners like George Steinbrenner.

Powered by

About Kenn Jacobine

  • Kenn,

    Citizens, face closer scrutiny in the airport (immigration) than the illegals coming across the border.

    That’s because the airports are extremely dysfunctional.

    I want to know why I would have to leave my rights in my car’s trunk if I even wanted to enter an airport lobby!

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Of course the Founders knew we would grow and that was why we have the amendment process.

    As I came and went this summer, I thought how I, as a citizen, face closer scrutiny in the airport (immigration) than the illegals coming across the border. Hell, I just saw a video of Rep. Pete Stark talking about the right of illegals to get jobs in America. Look, I am pro-immigrant. My four grandparents came from Italy also, but they migrated legally through Ellis Island. I believe because the system was more formal they respected the country more and weren’t looking, like many, but not all anchor families, for handouts but opportunities. I oppose changing the 14th. We simply have to enforce our border laws alreadynon the books.

  • : )They are in good company.

  • John Wilson

    Jeannie asks: “My grandmother came from Italy and had five children…is my family not American now?”

    On the contrary! Your family is, by definition, part of the chic new latino race that is taking over!

  • Kenn,

    It goes without saying.

    “General Welfare”. It doesn’t say US citizen’s welfare.

    : ) It doesn’t have to.

  • Well, the Constitution is like a bible to Mr. Kenn. Having said that, he’s also a fundamentalist at heart.

    But as they say, you can’t escape the religious impulse. Sooner or later, it will manifest itself in something.

  • Kenn,

    Did the founding fathers also know we would grow?

    I think the answer is yes, because as population grows, so does the house of representatives respectively.

    and all this talk of changing the 14th to suite “the ethnocentrism’s agenda “is nuts…My grandmother came from Italy and had five children…is my family not American now?

    OMG, what about me? I’m adopted

    I’m serious, what’s next? ethnic cleansing?

    :0 I just wanted to throw that out there and see what you think…I’ll have to reread my last article to see the tenth.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    The problem with John’s statement is that the Constitution limited the federal government to be on no group in particular’s side. Hence the term “General Welfare”. It doesn’t say US citizen’s welfare.

    The Founders were smart enough to know that once the government began handing out goodies to whomever from the Treasury there would be no end to it. That is why the power of Washington to regulate anything is very small in the Constitution. Most of that power has been reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.

  • My cousin has a great long-distance plan. I’ll get the number for you to call. It works something like this:

    If you talk longer than ten minutes, then it kicks in.

    : ) I have no trouble getting past that ten minute mark.

  • Kenn,

    Yes…monopolies have monopolized this country.

    Better that we should strive for a better regulated market that is operated on behalf of US citizens rather than US monopolies, as it is now.

    : ) so…you agree with John’s statement?

  • John Wilson


    Ma Bell was broken up and has been replaced by a hundred snakes.

    What we have are monopolies acting as an oligopoly, several vendors making offers in vendor predetermined markets.

    An hour ago I had a confrontation with one of those monopolies because their prepaid international LD card is a fraud that results in phone cost that is more than 10 times as high as advertised.

    Fortunately, it’s only a $10 exposure, and can be no more because I prepaid (which I’m doing for as many things as possible these days).

    You can’t trust monopolies and you have no recourse.

  • : ) Meant in a nice way.

  • OK, I’ll abstain.

  • Roger,

    Do we have to be experts to have opinions and ideas?

    : ) Don’t discourage , Kenn he talks to me.

  • compassionate capitalism…

  • John,

    Great comment!

    Better that we should strive for a better regulated market that is operated on behalf of US citizens rather than US monopolies, as it is now.

    Ma Bell was broken up…

  • John Wilson

    One might say that Nature abhors a Free Market. Something rushes in to dominate the market. In the USA that is a combination of monopolies and government. They serve each other.

    We have never had a free market in the US and never will. Better that we should strive for a better regulated market that is operated on behalf of US citizens rather than US monopolies, as it is now.

  • Kenn’s idea of “market” is awfully naive. He realizes not that in our system, markets and needs are manufactured. Consequently, his economic analysis suffers from similar naïveté and can be condensed to the opening paragraph of Economics 101 textbook.

  • I doubt that it’s only government in the way…

  • Kenn Jacobine

    If there is a demand and thus a way to profit from it someone would do it. Perhaps the uncertain future of the economy has investors skitzy about investing at this time. Perhaps Obama’s anti-business policies are discouraging folks. I am confident that if gov’t would get out of the way and there is demand (enough buyers to make a profit)for it then someone(s) will fill the need. That is how the market works.

  • Well, Kenn, that may have sounded good to you, but the truth is that there is a demand for green technologies.

    Green Energy Council

    environmental careers

    : ) So, what’s holding us up?

  • Kenn Jacobine


    You assume there is a market for
    green technology jobs, building high speed rails , and setting up health clinics. if there is not a market (demand) for these things then all we have is another misallocation of resources. Not only have valuable, scarce resources chased after something not wanted, but those same resources have been taken away from potentially demanded things. This is why gov’t sucks at determining what the consumer wants. The market is the best means to meet the demands of people. Refer to every socialist society in the history of the world.

  • Is this conversation over? it’s taking up room on my toolbar.

  • Kenn,

    Obama’s stimulus spending would go a lot further if, the party of no said yes to creating private sector green technology jobs, building high speed rails , and setting up health clinics.

    : 0 The way to move is forward, and this will be remembered come, November.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    John, I absolutely agree.

  • John Wilson

    The government finds it necessary to leech from people to pay for the wars that it’s prominent citizens seek, and to build big projects to facilitate big business.

  • Kenn Jacobine


    The point was that if you don’t pay your mortgage then the bank takes your house and sells it to get its money. If you don’t pay your taxes the government takes your house to sell to get its money. The difference is that the bank actually put something into your house – the risk of losing its money. The government is nothing more than a leech.

  • Dillon Mawler

    The author seems to have little understanding of economics, or even the basic tenets of how the world works. F’rinstance, if you believe that you “jointly own” your house with your mortgage lender, why doesn’t the lender pay a share of your property taxes? And if your mailman breaks his leg on your stairs, make sure he sues you AND your bank; after all, you “jointly own” the house.

    Obvious errors like this discredit the writer, so the reader can comfortably skip the rest of his tired “Why should I have to pay for services I don’t even use” argument.

  • John,

    That would be a huge waste of money similar to Obama’s stimulus spending.

  • John Wilson

    Kenn: your #42, et al, demonstrate a remarkable lack of first-hand information about Keynes. Straw horse arguments. I suppose you are informed by second hand opinions from your political compatriots. I advise enrolling in a nightschool course at your local community college.

  • Thanks for the encouraging words, I’ll be sure to keep the discourse going…

    Paulson = shmuck

    : ) …

  • Paulson: Liar or Misfit? I love our discourse, thanks. I am originally from Philly, am Italian, and teach middle school so there is not much that insults me.

  • Kenn,

    What’s the title?

    🙂 I respect your opinion on many subjects, so please don’t take my jabs as insults.

  • jeannie,

    You have to give me more credit than you do. I wrote an article in Nov. 2008 calling Hank a liar and thief. Click on my name to read. I believe I was ahead of that curve.

  • “Ah, well, then I suppose I shall have to die beyond my means.” —Oscar Wilde

  • You said that?

    Be careful, Kenn, it’s a slippery slope to liberal-moonbatsvile from here!

    : )

  • Kenn,

    I’d start with Hank

    :O They never should have let that man go on camera with a bottle of water.

  • Kenn Jacobine


    I actually said, “Reagan and Bush lacked the courage to cut spending – not just individual welfare, but corporate and military welfare as well.” So glad we can agree!

  • Kenn Jacobine


    When the economy enters a recession and shrinks by say 2 percent a year, Keynesians endorse gov’t spending to “stimulate” the economy. Once stimulated to say 4 percent annual growth why not then continue to stimulate until we reach 10 percent growth. Why stop at 4 percent?

    And you say Keynes argued that gov’t save during boom times. That is contradictory because gov’t savings would mean less money to invest and spend to allow the economy to grow. His theory, like communism is nothing more than feel-good. We all want everyone to have a decent standard of living but Keynesianism and communism are not how effective economic systems work. There must be an incentive to succeed and sound money. Neither of the above provide that.

  • Kenn Jacobine


    The reason we have booms and busts is because of the central monetary planners at the Fed. They cannot predict the proper amount of money in the system anymore than the Politburo could predict consumer demands in the socialist defunct USSR.

  • Kenn Jacobine


    Big banks do this all the time because they know the Fed and their cronies in both Repub and Dem administrations will look the other way. How many execs so far have been indicted in this crisis? Obama says that what they did was wrong and fleeced hard-working Americans. He should make an example out of just one.

  • Well said, John Wilson,

    Reagan and Bush lacked the courage to cut spending – not just individual welfare, but corporate and military welfare as well.


  • John Wilson

    Kenn says:

    “Plus, this was tried in the 30’s for the first time and the recession turned into a depression and lasted for the longest time period up to that point in our history.”

    Actually, things got better until 1937 when FDR tried the debt-reduction schemes promoted by the republicans, which was a disaster, then he went back to deficit spending.

  • John Wilson

    Kenn says:

    “Tax cuts are not new money.”

    Right! So tax cuts to some must be compensated by taxes from others, or by increasing government debt and postponing the problem. Inevitably, either method dishes tax cuts for the rich off onto the poor and middleclass.

    “A tax cut is less money the gov’t extorts from the people.”

    Which would be balanced if it was compensated by decreased government spending somewhere. Which never happens. It doesn’t even happen with rightwing republican governments: they just get giddy and blow a bunch of money on new wars and handouts to corporations!

    ” The problem with the deficit was that Reagan and Bush lacked the courage to cut spending – not just individual welfare, but corporate and military welfare as well.”

    But what did you expect? They always do that. They don’t have the courage to stand up to their corporate bosses in the executive suites.

    “By the way, even though I own stock in a bank, I still advocate abolishing the Fed,”

    Unfortunately the fed is sewn in to the economy, and they should serve a useful purpose, i.e., control the amount of cash in the economy, but they have bent to the will of Big Money in the USA and taken it as their holy mission to control inflation, and, oh yeah, to bailout financiers.

    “…fractional reserve banking,”

    It should be regulated, not eliminated, because fractional reserve banking has financed the economy successfully when it was properly regulated.

  • Kenn,

    please explain to me how more of the same that got us into this mess and putting everybody deeper in debt is going to cure the economy.

    Where do you think the money goes?

  • Kenn,

    Look: A March 2010 report by the court-appointed examiner indicated that Lehman executives regularly used cosmetic accounting gimmicks at the end of each quarter to make its finances appear less shaky than they really were. This practice was a type of repurchase agreement that temporarily removed securities from the company’s balance sheet. However, unlike typical repurchase agreements, these deals were described by Lehman as the outright sale of securities and created “a materially misleading picture of the firm’s financial condition in late 2007 and 2008

    “Do you think they were the only ones to do this and that it’s not going on now?”

    :0 What question?

  • Kenn Jacobine


    Are you an office holder, because you totally ignored my question? 🙂

    Tax cuts are not new money. A tax cut is less money the gov’t extorts from the people. The problem with the deficit was that Reagan and Bush lacked the courage to cut spending – not just individual welfare, but corporate and military welfare as well.

    I own stock in a successful small community bank which is struggling right now because of the bailouts. It didn’t participate in sub-prime but with the trickle down effects of gov’t policies it might not make it now. JP, Goldman and those big banks will but not Mountain 1st. Is this what is good for America?

    By the way, even though I own stock in a bank, I still advocate abolishing the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and all the other schemes and perks of the banksters.

  • Keynesianism – the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes who advocated government monetary and fiscal programs intended to stimulate business activity and increase employment
    economic theory – (economics) a theory of commercial activities (such as the production and consumption of goods)

    Of course, I wonder what John K would have thought of Reaganomics and Bush tax cuts on borrowed paper that didn’t even exist.

    Yes, the banks should have been left to fail.

    :0 We don’t need , banks, cars, schools, hospitals …

  • Kenn Jacobine


    Logically speaking, please explain to me how more of the same that got us into this mess and putting everybody deeper in debt is going to cure the economy. Plus, this was tried in the 30’s for the first time and the recession turned into a depression and lasted for the longest time period up to that point in our history.

    It is warm and cozy to think that just more spending (printing of fiat money) will solve our problems. The politicians want you to believe that so they can’t be accused of doing nothing while millions suffer. The fact is that the suffering is their fault in the first place and their huge Keynesian spending to address it will only deepen and prolong the initial suffering more.

    They did not have the courage to do the right thing – when the crisis hit they should have let things collapse. The economy would have been rid of all the malinvestment caused by gov’t spending and cheap credit. It would have been real painful but shortlived. I am afraid we are in for a long depression instead.

  • Few realize Keynes was an economic genius, well ahead of his time. Prior to Keynes, classical economic theory, as espoused by Ricardo, was the theory de rigueur. Even Marshall didn’t depart very from Ricardo’s basic tenets.

    I am not bringing Marx into the fray: it would be sacrilegious.

  • John Wilson

    Keynesianism has not failed at all, but some people have distorted it for political reasons and caused problems. Actually, most people haven’t the foggiest idea of what Keynes said, and just react to the idea of the government spending borrowed money in bad times. they (conveniently) forget that he also required that governments SAVE during good times. Oh well.

    The basic idea is to dampen the boom-bust cycle of capital driven economies, which are unstable.

    More interesting about Keynes are the mathematical models he expounded which remain valid today.

  • Paul Krugman is correct, we need a much larger initial amount in order to stimulate this economy.

    :)you can listen to his Back Story interview in this link.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    It’s just that Keynesianism is a failed policy. It prolonged the Great Depression by about 15 years and Austrian economics proponents have maintained all along that it will way prolong this depression given how much Obama and the Fed have invested.

    Mark my words, we are in for a long depression. The only bright spots from time to time, increased car buying, housing sales, GDP up, have been temporary because of the stimuli. It hasn’t and won’t cure what’s ailing the economy. It will only contribute to more misallocation of resources. These are the things that got us into this mess in the first place. Anyone who believe that more of the same (government spending and cheap credit) will restore our economy to full health hasn’t been paying attention. Of course, Paul Krugman is covering his butt because he knows we are headed for a double dip – now he is saying Uncle Scam has not spent enough. The government has invested trillions! 🙂

  • Kenn,

    You got my little joke? ha ha

    I must say Obamanomics doesn’t appear to be working.


    could it be all that noin and stalin your all doing? How much is enough? Big business has the capital to hire…they don’t want to…the banks have our money…they wont loan it back…oil, gas and coal are desperate to hold on to our energy future…they don’t want green energy…Al Gore might make money…

    :)I don’t want to chew your eyes out so I’ll stop.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    I have been in the land of the fleeced and home of the broke for about 7 weeks now. With a lot of the folks I have talked to, I must say Obamanomics doesn’t appear to be working. And I do not avoid taxes – I have found a legal way not to have to pay them.

  • Oh, your here! I figured you were off avoiding taxes…:)

  • Kenn Jacobine

    It is all welfare and should be abolished. The problem is that once Uncle Scam violated the Constitution everyone was eager to get their piece. Notice how no one ever refers to a government check as a handout. Instead they are now known as “entitlements”. Under natural law, which is what our government is based upon the only thing we are entitled to is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 90 percent of government checks are illegal and against natural law and that is why Washington is broke, many states are broke, and we are currently in the Great Depression of the 21st Century.

  • Sorry, I just watched Bill Maher…he always fires me up!

  • Yes, John Wilson, it’s called corporate welfare and we have all had enough of these socialist banks and business owners! This wealth sharing would be a great thing for the country if it benefited everyone.

  • John Wilson

    Taxes? Every business in America benefits from indirect tax subsidies and government projects. And the people who benefit most are the rich people who own those businesses.

  • You want to talk about taxes, Arch?

    The under-paid workers are taxed before their paychecks ever get cut. However, the company they work for is given huge writ- offs so that when all is done, they are in some cases completely-free of a tax burden. thanks to Reagen and those who followed

    I say, to the employers, return the money shaved off of the paychecks!!!

    so the saying goes – “Only the little people pay taxes.” Leona Helmsley

  • YES

    Now, pay your damn taxes and quit bitching!


  • Arch Conservative

    “People pay their taxes and in exchange they are provided with collective services afforded to all taxpayers.”

    More like……..

    The government takes what it wants from people, uses it to payoff special interests that helped during the campaigns and to grease the wheels for future campaigns and uses what’s leftover to provide useless subpar services that don’t even come close to holding as much value as the money that was originally confiscated from the citizenry.

    Have you ever considered changing you name to Pollyanna jeannie?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    John Caporale,

    So glad to have you on the thread. Feel free to pile on with everyone else.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    No tribute. I am a Phillies fan and despise anything New York. However, I always cheer when anybody beats “The Man”

  • Kenn,

    Is this article a tribute to George? If it is, then I give my condolences…


  • Jeannie,

    You’re back to your provocative self. I like that, and we’ve been missing that while you were on your sabbatical. I honestly think that Pablo misreads you. Not that Dave is vicious – I certainly wouldn’t accuse him of that – but you certainly are not.

  • Kenn Jacobine


    I know you weren’t be insulting. As to democracy – it is a terrible system of governing and the founders knew it. That is why we have federalism, the Electoral College, and why the state legislatures chose U.S. senators. The ironic thing is that two of these three features have been gutted and we have only retained the bad one.

  • Hello Pablo,

    The far-right pay taxes? Oh, you mean the far-right that don’t own businesses and churches.

    I meant no derogatory or smugness in my comment to Kenn. Actually Pablo, I really enjoyed debating with Kenn in the past and my comment was more of a little chuckle towards him than an insult.

    Thanks for clarifying this, Pablo, I wouldn’t want Kenn to think I insulted him.

    However, I did not enjoy your interaction with me back then…still I’ll give you one more chance. 🙂

  • pablo

    10 jeanie Danna you said:

    “People pay their taxes and in exchange they are provided with collective services afforded to all taxpayers. If this is such a foreign concept, then maybe you should reside outside of the country…oh that’s right, You do.”

    This comment sounds eerily similar to ones that those on the far right used to say. “Amerika love it or leave it”.

    I am not surprised however jeannie, for all your bleeding heart naive talk about this and that in the political realm, you finally utter a truism that shows your red white and blue colors oh so particularly well.

    Indeed a comment like that is truly meant to be deragatory and smug, and most certainly does nothing to encourage civil discussion. You and Nalle are more birds of a feather Jeannie that you can ever imagine, and I see it so very clearly.

  • It’s just very Italian cynicism. Keen has proven his roots to be Italian. The resentment of taxes and stretched logic are genetic.

  • Ken,

    None of the property in these United States really belongs to people who slaughtered others in-order to acquire it.

    All this talk of Communism if we pay our taxes is BS and you know it.

    Like it or not, this is how Democracy in action should work. People pay their taxes and in exchange they are provided with collective services afforded to all taxpayers. If this is such a foreign concept, then maybe you should reside outside of the country…oh that’s right, You do.

    :)hello again

  • John Wilson

    I’m astonished to read: “…states can nullify rulings of the Supreme Court.”

    What? Where is that allowed?

    There are various squabbling areas of States Rights and ‘pre-emption’, but states have NO right to nullify SCOTUS rulings, as near as I can see.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    The point was that no one entity has a monopoly on interpreting the document.

  • If they did that would be a conflict of interest in that the feds could always (and usually do) interpret the document to their advantage.

    And the states don’t?

  • Kenn Jacobine


    The founders didn’t necessarily believe that the feds had a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution. If they did that would be a conflict of interest in that the feds could always (and usually do) interpret the document to their advantage.

    Thus we have a federal system whereby the states also have the right to interpret the Constitution. At the state level this can be done in two ways. First, voters can elect state officials that will not uphold Court rulings – i.e. elect officials that do not favor as a policy of confiscating private property and giving it to private developers. Second, out and out nullification of acts of Congress or rulings of the Court. I favor both as means to protect individual and states’ rights under the Constitution

    The beauty of federalism is that states can nullify rulings of the Supreme Court.

  • Cannonshop

    #4 WELL said, John. very well put. Both parties seem very interested in “Group” rights, and neither is particularly respectful of the rights of Individual Citizens, though I have to credit the Republicans for being less effective in infringing those rights than the Democrats.

  • John Wilson

    One of the distressing failures of modern rightism is the failure to provide real solutions to these private property incursions to individual citizens. They seem to have spent their effort assiduously defending corporate property rights instead, while throwing a few 2nd amendment morsels to people, as if that made up the whole of personal rights.

  • Logic and Kenn are fickle friends at the best of times, but they seem to have had a worse than usual falling-out.

    Conflating property laws with communism on the basis of the feeble evidence presented here is rather like arguing that a dog is a crocodile because both animals eat meat.

  • Doug Hunter

    I disagree, I can’t think of a better time to tax someone than after they’re dead. It pushes us more towards meritocracy as each generation must prove themselves to remain at the pinnacle and it provides opportunity. Important taxes are paid, nothing is lost, and the kids still have 9 figures of net worth. If Steinbrenner must sell the team, someone else has a great opportunity to buy or share in ownership and not a job is lost. As far as I can see it’s a win all around.

  • Cannonshop

    Kenn…WHAT property rights? didn’t you read the Kelo decision?