There's also no fundamental reason for the state to institute any form of estate tax; on the contrary, I specified it goes against our usual federal regime of taxing value as it's moved rather than value at rest. If anything, I'd question why you believe there's some inherent reason or right to have any form of estate tax, let alone to the point one forces liquidation of assets. One form of taxation can be more or less just than another and it's much easier to make the moral case for using force to collect a portion of value moved through government infrastructure (banking system, roads, ports, etc.) than something that remains unsold.
I didn't say taxation is theft and would rather you didn't put words in my mouth. You're assuming I'm against any form of taxation whatsoever on a moral basis, which isn't actually true. I think there are values reasons (most of us actually like the idea of a family business staying in a family, not getting sold to private equity) and moral reasons why we should continue resetting the tax basis of inherited assets. As a compromise position, I think it would be more reasonable for you to suggest removing the stepped-up basis but not counting inheritance as a taxable event.
Seems like splitting hairs to me. If the estate is put into an LLC or similar then the death of a member doesn't involve movement of money. If the estate is owned by an individual and then inherited by their beneficiary then money moved from the deceased to the living. The Family is not a legal unit; the beneficiary doesn't have direct benefit of ownership while the owner of the estate lives.
By this logic, if I sell you a car, no money moved, because both the car and the money are still owned by the both of us. Or at least, if you're brother takes your car, you can't ask the state to give it back to you, as the car didn't really move, it's still in the family.
A family is not a single entity under any law in any country I know of. Certainly not in the USA or anywhere in Europe.
Are you going to drive me to work everyday after the transaction?
The difference is the kids have been spending estate money and have access to all the assets the estate controls. It make no sense that would change because a member of the family died.
I didn't say taxation is theft and would rather you didn't put words in my mouth. You're assuming I'm against any form of taxation whatsoever on a moral basis, which isn't actually true. I think there are values reasons (most of us actually like the idea of a family business staying in a family, not getting sold to private equity) and moral reasons why we should continue resetting the tax basis of inherited assets. As a compromise position, I think it would be more reasonable for you to suggest removing the stepped-up basis but not counting inheritance as a taxable event.