Congratulations, It's a Boy! - A Gay Man Adopts a Son

Editors note:

For a number of reasons most of the readers of this blog are familiar with Dan Mitchell. One reason is because we frequently feature his videos and essays here. Another is because he is on TV almost daily engaging in debate with some leftist economist or being interviewed about tax policy or the like. 

The most likely reason is that he is a guest contributor to this blog and most of you wouldn't dream of missing a post on this site. 

Okay, as usual, I engaged in some creative description (deception?) to make this blog seem more impressive than it actually is. The truth is Dan has given us express permission to republish his posts whenever we want. So we do that on a semi-regular basis. I try not to post too many of them because they always make my posts seem amateurish by comparison.

Dan's offerings are always interesting and educational but sometimes he hits it out of the park. The following essay is one of those home runs. Be sure to check out his blog, International Liberty. You'll be more well informed and generally happier if you do.

A Clever Example of Tax Avoidance, but a Quandary for Leftists and Social Conservatives

June 29, 2013 by Dan Mitchell

I generally believe that social conservatives and libertarians are natural allies. As I wrote last year, this is “because there is wide and deep agreement on the principle of individual responsibility. They may focus on different ill effects, but both camps understand that big government is a threat to a virtuous and productive citizenry.”

I even promoted a “Fusionist” principle based on a very good column by Tim Carney, and I suspect a large majority of libertarians and social conservatives would agree with the statement.

But that doesn’t mean social conservatives and libertarians are the same. There’s some fascinating research on the underlying differences between people of different ideologies, and I suspect the following story might be an example of where the two camps might diverge.

But notice I wrote “might” rather than “will.” I’ll be very curious to see how various readers react to this story about a gay couple that is taking an unusual step to minimize an unfair and punitive tax imposed by the government of Pennsylvania.

John met Gregory at a gay bar in Pittsburgh nearly 45 years ago and immediately fell in love. …Now, as lifelong partners facing the financial and emotional insecurities of old age, they have legally changed their relationship and are father and son — John, 65, has adopted Gregory, 73. The couple was worried about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax. “If we just live together and Gregory willed me his assets and property and anything else, I would be liable for a 15 percent tax on the value of the estate,” said John. “By adoption, that decreases to 4 percent. It’s a huge difference.” …the couple had considered marrying in another state, but because their primary residence was in Pennsylvania, which does not recognize same-sex marriage, they would still be subjected to the inheritance law.

The Judge who approved the adoption obviously wasn’t too troubled by this unusual method of tax avoidance.

The judge did turn to John and said, “I am really curious, why are you adopting [Gregory]?” “I said, ‘Because it’s our only legal option to protect ourselves from Pennsylvania’s inheritance taxes,’” said John. “He got it immediately.” The judge agreed to sign the adoption papers on the spot and handed it to the clerk. Then he turned and looked at John, “Congratulations, it’s a boy.”

So what’s your take on this issue? For some groups, it’s easy to predict how they’ll react to this story.

1. If you have the statist mindset of England’s political elite or if you work at a bureaucracy such as the OECD, you’ll think this is morally wrong. Not because you object to homosexuality, but because you think tax avoidance is very bad and you believe the state should have more money.

2. If you’re a libertarian, you’re cheering for John and Gregory. Even if you don’t personally approve of homosexuality, you don’t think the state should interfere with the private actions of consenting adults and you like the idea of people keeping more of the money they earn.

3. If you’re a public finance economist, you think any form of death tax is a very perverse form of double taxation and you like just about anything that reduces this onerous penalty on saving and investment.

But there are some groups that will be conflicted.

1. Social conservatives don’t like big government and bad tax policy, but they also don’t approve of homosexuality. And, in this case, it’s now technically incestuous homosexuality! If I had to guess, most social conservatives will argue that the court should not have granted the adoption. We’ll see if there are some good comments on this post.

2. Leftists also will be conflicted. They like the death tax and they want the government to have more money, but they also believe in identity politics and wouldn’t want to offend one of their constituent groups.  I’m guessing identity politics would trump greed, but I suspect their ideal approach would be to tax all inheritances at 15 percent.

In my fantasy world, needless to say, there’s no death tax and the entire issue disappears.

According to an Online Survey, Gary Johnson Is the Presidential Candidate Closest to My Views

 By Dan Mitchell

About one year ago, I took an online quiz put together by the folks at Reason and discovered that Ron Paul was closest to my views.

Not that I was terribly surprised, though I confess that I don’t remember if Gary Johnson was part of the quiz. And, if so, whether there were any differences between him and Ron Paul.

Speaking of Gary Johnson, I just took a quiz at the ISideWith website and it tells me that Gary Johnson shares 97 percent of my views.

That’s not a big shock, but I was surprised that the poll says I’m more Republican than Libertarian.

Methinks the people who put together the poll must be high on crystal meth. Yes, I’m probably a bit more conservative than the average libertarian on issues like terrorism and immigration, but I’m a far, far stronger advocate of limited government than the average GOPer.

But I gather the poll probably matches your views with the rhetoric of various candidates and parties, not their actual records.

And the gap between Republican rhetoric and Republican performance probably explains why just about every prominent libertarian is ignoring the GOP and voting for Gary Johnson, according to this survey by Reason. Unless, of course, they think voting is a waste of time.

P.S. In the for-what-it’s-worth department, the ISideWith people report that Gary Johnson’s views attract majority or plurality support from voters in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Nevada.

P.P.S. Mitt Romney’s views don’t have majority support in any state.

P.P.P.S. Since the United States is supposed to be a constitutional republic rather than a majoritarian democracy, I don’t like any group of voters having the power to muck up my life.

Dan Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He blogs at International Liberty. His posts are republished here from time to time with his express permission. He gives this site a touch of class.

What Libertarians Do

Nuff said.

Click to enlarge

The Passing of a True American Patriot

The word "patriot" gets used a lot nowadays. In my mind it may be overused. But I think I know a real one when I see one. Dave Padden was a real one.

I first met Dave back in the early 80s when I joined the Beverly Country Club and ended up on his team in a four man event. He was our "Captain" and he lived up to it. Even though whatever that team didn't achieve has long since slipped from my memory, I will never forget an incident that happened on the ninth green.

Dave had a putt to tap in which would have kept our team at par for that hole. The putt was literally less than an inch long. One of those that "hung on the lip" for birdie and caused groans as the rest of us turned and left the green while Dave was left the task of pushing the par putt the last few millimeters into the hole as a formality.

But as I slowed down to let Dave catch up so we could walk together through the tunnel under eighty seventh street and past the clubhouse to the tenth tee, I caught a look on his face that seemed odd to me. Dave said, "I missed it." At first I didn't grasp what he meant, thinking he was talking about the birdie putt. Then Dave said, "we made five, I got careless and I whiffed the tap in."

Absolutely no one in the world except Dave knew that. It was then that I knew I had just met a man of true integrity. He wasn't the world's first honest man and he won't be the last, but no matter what the temptation to keep quiet might have been for some people, I could tell it never occurred to Dave for even a millisecond. It just wasn't in his nature.

I later learned that it was his whole philosophy of life to take the consequences of life and move on. He believed in individual liberty and personal responsibility in all things, big and small, everywhere and always. I admired him greatly and even though as the years rolled by and I moved along from that club and only saw him occasionally at events held by the Cato Institute (where he was an original board member) and the Heartland Institute (where he was the founder), I never forgot that incident or his example of leadership.

I don't know much about the rest of his personal life except what I read or what was told to me about him, but that one personal snapshot was all I actually needed to know.

As far as his public life was concerned, I believe that more people have have been converted (or restored) to the ideals of liberty and freedom by his individual efforts than any other person I have been personally acquainted with.  As a true American patriot, the man was a giant. And as a fellow human being, he should be a role model to us all.

A memorial to Dave's life from the Heartland Institute follows.

David H. Padden, Rest in Peace

David H. Padden, founder and chairman emeritus of The Heartland Institute, died of a heart attack while at his Chicago home on Sunday, October 2. He was 84. Padden was a pioneer of the libertarian movement in the United States, serving as a founding member of the boards of numerous libertarian think tanks and advocacy groups and continuing to serve on Heartland’s board until his death. Organizations that benefitted from his leadership and financial generosity include the Acton Institute, Bionomics Institute, Cato Institute, Center for Libertarian Studies, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Council for a Competitive Economy, FreedomWorks, Free To Choose Media, Foundation for Economic Education, the Libertarian Party, and Loop Libertarian League. Padden was a lifelong resident of Chicago. He received his B.A. from Loyola University Chicago in 1949 and an MBA from the Harvard Business School in 1951. After 15 years running businesses that performed heavy construction work for various state, county, and municipal governments, in 1963 he purchased a bond firm specializing in financing local municipal improvements, renamed it Padden & Company, and was president and CEO for many years. He also launched an equipment leasing company, Padco. Scott Hodge, now president of the Tax Foundation, proposed the creation of The Heartland Institute during a monthly meeting of Padden’s Loop Libertarian League. Hodge soon departed to attend college in Minnesota, but Padden liked the idea, recruited donors and a board of directors, and tapped Joseph Bast to be the new organization’s first executive director. Padden served as chairman of the board from 1984 to 1994, at which time he became director and chairman emeritus. “For nearly 30 years, Dave Padden was my teacher, mentor, best critic, strongest backer, and closest friend,” said Bast, who was named president and CEO of Heartland in 1994. “Dave and I had lunch once a week for 10 years, and frequently after that. Everything I know about running a business, about character and dedication to a cause, and about the freedom philosophy I owe to him. “Dave Padden was one of those rare individuals who truly changed the world,” Bast said. “The organizations he helped create and financed have changed public policies on subjects as diverse as environmental protection, ethics, health care, and taxes, in every case expanding individual liberty and limiting the power of government. Without Dave Padden, America today would be less prosperous and less free.”

“Dave Padden was one

of those rare individuals who truly changed the

world. The organizations he helped create and financed have changed

public policies on subjects as diverse as environmental protection, ethics, health care, and taxes, in every case expanding individual liberty and limiting the power of government. Without Dave Padden, America today would be less prosperous and less free."

- Joseph Bast, president, The Heartland Institute

Matthew and Paul - A Morality Debate

Normally the above title might be a Sunday sermon topic, not the lead-in to a remarkable U-Tube video of a politician being interviewed by a "journalist" on a lightly watched cable TV station. No, this is not a bible story or a sermon. I'll leave that to the professionals in the pulpits. It's "above my pay grade" as the President once said in dodging a question.

Instead, it is my observations on the above noted "interview" which actually turned out to be a debate between a leftist TV personality, Chris Matthews, and a libertarian MD turned U.S. Representative, Ron Paul of Texas.

If you just watch it once quickly it seems like a typical political interview, each side promoting their own philosophy. One extolling the virtues of big government intervention while the other champions individual liberty as the best route for solutions to societal problems. That is until you realize that each side is sparring for a moral high ground which transcends policy arguments.

Matthews uses his usual style to start things off. Namely, using the pretense of friendly banter even while ridiculing the intelligence of his "guest". He rather skillfully seems to embrace a historical person (Barry Goldwater, who presumably his guest also embraces) in order to show a common bond between them. However, once that is past, he claims it was only a youthful dalliance on his part before he grew up, got smart and grew a heart. He then asks Dr. Paul why he never got similarly smart and empathetic even though, he too grew older. I have to admit, Matthews has raised insult to an art form. (Keep in mind, even bad paintings are regarded as art by some.)

After the stage was set, both parties settled down to a dialog which I found fascinating. Matthews was clearly trying to discredit his guest and tie him to unpopular notions and historical figures, all to no avail in my mind. But then again, I do have a philosophical horse in this race.

In the end, I'm sure most people saw what they wanted to see and no minds were changed. But if you really never knew who Ron Paul was, (other than his portrayal by both Democrats and Republicans as some kind of kook who rambles on endlessly about the evils of the Federal Reserve) now you will at least have some actual idea of why both political parties in this country are terrified that the common sense American values he champions have caught on with a "Tea Party" movement which, so far, no one seems to be able to pigeon hole.

In my opinion, they have much to be fearful about. At least I hope so, because the realisation of the immorality of taking things (at gunpoint if necessary) from one group and giving them to another, (to whom they do not rightfully belong) might finally become the undoing of the kleptocracy this country has drifted into, even with all the best intentions.

A hat tip to Wes Messamore at The Humble libertarian for the video below.



Previously posted short clip of a similar interview of Dr. Milton Friedman on this blog.