The bequest of a trust theory does not condition the payment of taxes for living on your property or any where else for that matter, nor receipt of any benefit beyond mere access to it provisions of protection.
Payment of taxes is a pure obligation of the status as a beneficiary of the trust to adhere to its provisions and support its existence through a financial participation.
You may renounce your status giving up access to its provisions of protection on your own unilateral decision at any time.
Well, I see you think you've found a novel argument. You haven't. I predict that the argument will go back and forth over this issue, though.
If someone wants to give me a gift, that is their right. And I have the right to either accept the gift, or to reject it. The same is true with respect to a debt (a negative gift, so to speak).
A trust is a valid example of the sort of gift that a parent may give to his or her children, or to all his or her heirs in perpetuity. The giver of such a trust has the right to set the conditions under which the heirs may make withdrawals from the trust--and those conditions may rightfully include fees that must be paid in order to withraw from the trust, or interest that must be paid on funds borrowed from the trust, or an equity interest that must be granted in the enterprises into which funds obtained from the trust may be invested. So far, your analogy holds up well.
But what if the person who set up the trust had no right to do so, or had no right to give what the trust documents say are the property of the trust? This is where I think we will differ.
We can clarify the situation if we go back in time to 1789, thus removing the issue of heirs entirely. For if what the Constitution purports to do be not moral in 1789, then it is not moral now, and talk of trusts and heirs is moot and non-sequitur.
By what right did a supermajority of citizens in 1789 give themselves the power to tax everyone who might ever be under the power of the US Government? I have no right to tax whomever I choose, so I cannot grant this right to others. And if I have not this right, and you have not this right, where did the voters in 1789 get this right, so that they could grant it to Congress in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?
I assert they had not the power to grant this right to Congress, because they didn't have any such right themselves. Back to you.
By what right did a supermajority of citizens in 1789 give themselves the power to tax everyone who might ever be under the power of the US Government?
By the fact that the trust they created was out of their own rights, properties, and wealth. The same as any parent may create at trust out of what that which they own.
They had the right to obligate themselves to the provisions of the trust, which they did. They had the right to pass that trust on to their Posterity, and to make whatever provisions for those who voluntarily applied for and accepted membership (i.e. naturalization).
The conditions of membership in that trust include the financial support of it.
One is not forced to remain within the jurisdiction of that trust, one if free to unitlaterally renounce their beneficiary status (citizenship) and depart.
I have no right to tax whomever I choose, so I cannot grant this right to others.
You have the right to obligate yourself to the financial support of any instution or person you wish. You have the right to create a trust and expect that its provisions will be honored by those who are beneficiaries under that trust.
You may not force any individual to remain under the trust, but then the Constitution does not demand that either.
I assert they had not the power to grant this right to Congress, because they didn't have any such right themselves.
Your assertion misses the point, They had the right to create a trust obligating themselves, and selecting from themselves those representatives(a Congress) to maintain and exercise the provisions of that trust in their behalf. They had the right to pass that trust to suceeding genertions.
The only right they did not have, is a right to force anyone to remain beneficiaries. Thus the each citizen retains the right to renounce that citizenship and depart.
This is what it comes down to. It is disgusting that those who challenge you here can not understand this.
The founding fathers wrote probably the greatest document ever. However, they were short-sighted, made some errors and were naive enough to think that the vague wording of some parts would not be abused by future generations.