Surprise, surprise, the current government is once again acting deceptively. Albo is talking out the side of his mouth, trying to get around the fact he's introducing more death taxes by stealth. 

It's not the first time. He did it to superannuation, now he's doing it to trusts. Next up, the family home? He says that won't happen - kind of - but he's told us before when it suits him that he won't do things he ends up doing. 

Negative gearing, capital gains taxes, super taxes and changes to stage three income taxes are amongst the long list of broken promises. The PM's word is utterly meaningless these days, including when he now denies he's introducing death taxes.

Paying tax when you're dead is better than paying it when you're still alive. That is the simple case for death duties in a single sentence. However, because politicians are addicted to spending our money, they don't advocate for death taxes to replace living taxes such as income tax. 

Instead, they want death taxes in addition to existing living taxes, and as we now see with Anthony Albanese and Labor, they don't even have the courage to admit the newly imposed taxes are what they really are: stealth death taxes.

The old line about taxation is that it's the art of plucking the goose with the least amount of hissing. Death duties take that principle to its logical conclusion: dead geese don't hiss.

Which is why death taxes are not inherently bad policy. Properly designed, they make sense. They tax wealth at the point when the person who accumulated it no longer needs it. 

They are less damaging than taxes on work, employment, investment or mobility. They can also help address the growing divide between those who inherit wealth and those who never will, helping to address inequality.

Much of the world has death taxes. Australia used to, as a state based tax. Until Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen scrapped them and all the oldies moved north, forcing other premiers to do the same. 

Ever since that time there has been speculation about a federal death tax, but the major parties tend to rule it out as quickly as the speculation starts.

The tax is regarded as political poison, especially if it might result in tax being paid on the inherited family home.

The case for death taxes only works if there is an honest bargain. If governments want to tax people when they die, they should tax them less while they are alive.

Lower income tax. Lower taxes that punish enterprise and effort. Then, in exchange, impose a modest, transparent, nationally consistent tax on large estates.

That would be a defensible debate to have. Many people would still oppose it, and fair enough. Death duties are politically toxic for a reason. Families do not like the state reaching into the estate of a loved one at a time of grieving.

What is indefensible is pretending not to introduce death taxes while building them through the side door, which is precisely where Labor is heading now. Not with a clean estate duty, and not with an honest discussion about inherited wealth. Not with a promise to reduce taxes paid during life in return. Jim Chalmers won't even index income taxes to inflation, preferring to garner more of our wages via bracket creep each year.

But Albo and his Treasurer are seeking to tax inheritance, via sneaky shifts in how taxes are applied to superannuation, trusts and estate-planning structures.

Superannuation already contains one quiet death tax. When super is paid to financially independent adult children, the taxable taxed component can be hit with 15 per cent tax plus the Medicare levy, effectively 17 per cent. Die with money in super and, depending on who receives it, the state can take a slice.

Voters aren't stupid. If a tax is triggered by death, or bites because wealth is transferred after death, the politics of it are obvious: it's a death tax.

The same now applies to trusts courtesy of last week's Budget. Labor can describe changes to discretionary and testamentary trusts as integrity measures. But when estate-planning structures are swept into the net, the politics changes. A tax aimed at trusts created by wills, or used to distribute inherited wealth, will look like a death tax... because that is what it is.

But the denials continue, meaning that the public is being subjected to more lies and more deliberate deception by this government.

That is the wrong way to do reform, particularly for a government already renowned for breaking promises. Once voters believe a party says one thing before an election and does another afterwards, every technical change looks like a trick. Every integrity measure looks like a revenue grab. Future assurances can no longer be trusted.

There is a better way. Have the courage to say Australia taxes income too heavily and inherited wealth too lightly. It's true. Say the revenue death taxes generate will entirely be used to reduce income taxes, so that Australians pay less tax while they are alive and more after they are dead.

Then have the fight.

The Coalition will complain, but so what. Estate planners will warn about complexity, and the ultra-wealthy will probably find ways around the new tax. So what? They already do now in all manner of ways. Death taxes can be justified, stealth death taxes can't.