-
That Is What We Do
May 14, 2013 | 108 comments
-
Shame Old Shame Old From Obama
April 19, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Cut Out the Chase
April 5, 2013 | 83 comments
-
All in the Family
March 26, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Israel in the Tank for Obama
March 21, 2013 | 112 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Uncle Sam Makes a Killing
The death tax creates its own death panels.
Come, children, it is time to say goodbye to old Grandma. So sad, really, to see her in this condition the last few months. Lying there with all those tubes, hardly stirring, occasionally muttering some hoarse unintelligible syllable.
She cannot be enjoying life very much, not after the wonderfully active life she led, from her days as a WAC in World War II to flying around the world as a stewardess for the old PANAM. She met Grandpa on a redeye from Los Angeles to New York in 1951, when he was an assistant football coach in UCLA. Together they built up a business warehousing and leasing heavy construction equipment; after Grandpa died in 1995, she was worth about seven million.
The seven went up to about twenty at one point, but what with Wall Street taking a hit and the high costs of her care, there are about fifteen million left. If she dies before Dec. 31, all of that will go to the family. If she dies Jan. 1 or thereafter, the government will take 35 percent of everything over five million.
So you see, kids, there is no way Grandma would want to live another few days into the new year and cost us all over three million smackers. All those years of hard work by her and Grandpa don’t deserve to be sucked up by Uncle Sam and his insatiable need for cash to fatten the bureaucracy. You know she will not suffer, it only takes a minute or so with the pillow over her mouth. Right, Grandma?
You see, she is shaking her head and making those funny croaking sounds. That means she agrees with what we are saying.
OKAY, THIS IS FANCIFUL. Those are fictional details I threw together, but the point is no less valid. Our representatives in Washington, D.C. are about to use the votes we gave them with our votes to sign a death warrant. They will condemn to death any frail elderly people worth more than five million dollars who are within range of the tender ministrations of their heirs, particularly if they are dependent invalids.
To raise the Death Tax from zero to 35 percent in one swoop will fell many oldsters in the next two weeks; that is, among those who have not already been picked off during the buildup to this thing. People are frequently revealed at their most petty and churlish when negotiating matters of inheritance. How many potential legatees in this country are so upright as to trade 35 percent of a sizable estate for a brief period of life for their superannuated legator, perhaps already senile, comatose, or paralyzed?
This is utterly serious with no amusing aspect whatsoever. My friend who is an administrator at a nursing home has put his staff on high alert to monitor visitors closely. In particular, any relative who does not have a history of dropping by will be accompanied by a shadow employee. A wealthy friend in his seventies, still active and making money, jokes that he is afraid to go to sleep at night: I wish I had the heart to laugh along.
There was a lot of hostility to millionaires among the Democrat members of Congress pushing for the tax increase. The feeblest among them had no advocate and they will bear the brunt of that wrath.
The 35 percent rate is less than the old standard of 55 percent, so the Republicans get to play hero over the twenty points. But in real terms, in real life, in the real world where real people live, they have issued a license to kill. I know this not from logic but from wisdom, and with age we learn that wisdom trumps logic every time.
This is a heartless move; thoughtless, soulless, mindless, careless, hapless, reckless, feckless, heedless, needless. The entire notion of taxing an estate is an atrocity, as Megyn Kelly tried to argue with Anthony Weiner in a feisty exchange on FOX News last week. Weiner, the clone of Charles Schumer, got his own seat by inheritance when his mentor moved from the House to the Senate.
Any decent society, if impelled to issue such a levy, would have the sensitivity to grow it by inches, zero to five percent one year, five to ten the next year, ten to fifteen the third year. By speeding the vehicle from zero to 35, they are throwing many powerless pedestrians under the bus. It is a shameful betrayal but cleverly concealed behind the hoax that the tax deal cut is really a tax cut deal. President Obama showed in his press conference on the subject that he does not suffer fools gladly, but clearly he and his cronies do fool sufferers gladly.
About the Author
Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jay D. Homnick
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/15/uncle-sam-makes-a-killing
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 12.15.10 @ 6:34AM
This entire concept of "double taxation is beyond despicable, its outright "theft by government" If it weren't bad enough that taxes are forced upon us to take care of the lazy, criminal and corrupt wheelers and dealers of big gov, they have sold their souls to the devil himself and now they come up with an excuse to screw the "earners and payers" once again because they must pay for all the corruptness they have created all in the name of 'social justice. Screw the bipartisan bullcrap, anyone who votes for this criminal activity deserves to be fired, tarred and feathered right down Penn, Ave for the entire country to witness and maybe throw in a prison sentence for good measure for the next ones to realize when we say we are coming for them, WE MEAN IT. Fricken traitors.
Appleby| 12.15.10 @ 7:19AM
I have family members with children circling like vultures -- having been left plenty by their late father, they are eying what he left their mother and at least one of them might be thinking right along these very lines.
Fortunately my own family has no money save that which we live on, and as I have a little experience with Estate law, I as executrix will wield a mighty sword. But I have no doubt that in families with less scruples and more envy and jealousy, such thoughts are jostling the sugarplums this Christmas season.
Melvin| 12.15.10 @ 7:44AM
Money, indeed does have a way of changing family members perspective on each other.
I supposed it could be called a fools errand in thinking that the more money I make, the more happy I will be, for some this is true because if it wasn't many of us wouldn't have a job.
But I have seen people and more so families get downright vindictive and vicious for thinking that they will get something for nothing even before the body is cold.
But for the government to demand any percentage of inheritable from anyone is tantamount to a crime.
Under what authority or auspicious does the government feel that it just can walk right in and start stealing someones life. Yes, the deceased is stone cold dead, but the remaining is a testament to that person's life, and the government does not have a right to appropriate such life for the support of government corruption.
Should the millionaires be allowed to keep theirs? Yes, and why should they not? Just leaves more for the family to destroy each other over.
My God, I don't know what or whom I should loathe first, government or death?
David W| 12.15.10 @ 10:20AM
Government. Death is natural (circle of life crap you know). Death is not biased - it treats all the same (though how one dies differs). There is no evil intent on the part of Death. And deserves no loathing.
Government on the other hand is biased (even more so now), treats those who have worked and struggled like dogs, treats those who are the children of those hard workers as less than dogs (they don't deserve that ill gotten wealth). And with certain people in office now, Government has become, in my honest opinion, evil.
Ned| 12.15.10 @ 10:40AM
Apropos nothing at all - who's the oldest Kennedy these days?
Bob K.| 12.15.10 @ 7:50AM
It always was an Inheritance Tax. It has always been described that way in PA which has one of the lowest rates in the USA.
It has been unfairly managed by the Feds for years. As a result both Democrats and Republicans demagogue it! One calls it a tax break for the wealthy, the other calls it a Death Tax! That is why congress has never indexed it to inflation and as a result middle class families with businesses get hit the hardest. It has never been a problem for those 3rd and 4th generation winners of Life's Lottery, like the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Forbes's; you can add dozens more names yourself. It hurts most those new money makers and their heirs.
There is no reason that there can't be a very large exemption (Say the 1st $20 million per heir) for these heirs before the tax rates take effect and get progressively larger as the inheritance reaches certain levels.
Think Paris Hilton if you disagree!
Brian| 12.15.10 @ 9:22AM
Bob, you miss the point. If it is criminal to take the first dollar, it is criminal to take the last dollar. Of course some people don't "deserve" as much as they will inherit. But the government and their fellow citizens have no right to dictate how much of this inheritance (that has already had a gauntlet of taxes paid on it) should pass tax free to heirs.
If I'm on the street and decide to take your wallet because I think you have too much, it's stealing. Just because my friends and neighbors also agree that you have too much and give me permission to take your wallet doesn't mean it's not stealing. My friends and neighbors are simply accessories to the crime. Much like the last several generations of legislators have been.
Pelligrino| 12.15.10 @ 10:15AM
Brian,
Well commented. Well said.
"had a gauntlet of taxes (already) paid on it" -- so true. Why is this factor always so overlooked? What income or interest earned, dividends, etc. do any of us have that has not first been subject to taxation?
You said it: It is stealing.
Until we have new GOP/Conservative/Tea Party types (who understand that this is immoral theft) in our US Congress and statehouses, we will have to jettison the thieves.
One by one. But they will surely go.
Thank you for the article, Mr. Homnick. Yes, this could certainly be a very ugly/evil next 16 days if any folks think as the narratior in the first 5 paragraphs above.
Bob K.| 12.15.10 @ 3:27PM
Brian,
If you think it is criminal to take the first dollar then don't pay it.
The same argument could be made by someone who hits a state lottery. Afterall, weren't the proceeds obtained by the state from pretaxed money from some if not most of the people who bought tickets.
The point is is that the states and the government have been treating these inheritances as income for a long time and no amount of arguing otherwise is going to change that with any politician in these days when populism reigns supreme.
Rich people leave New York State to avoid their high tax rate but stay in Pennsylvania and spend their retirement monies there because the rate is low and there will be more money for their heirs.
And then there is this question that nobody will address: Why should money that is inherited be any different than money obtained from toil; from investments; from Bank Interest; or from sheer luck all of which is subject to tax. In reality, it is taxed at a lower rate. And the politicians, whose heirs almost certainly will be taxed on it, have seen to that! The fact that it must be paid in a lump sum to the IRS could be easily remedied if Congress wanted to do it. But they don't.
If you believe all taxes are theft, so be it, but if you act on that and refuse to pay them you know the consequences.
Besides the Inheritance Tax is a great tool to use to encourage class warfare and hatred. As Mr. Homnick well knew when he wrote this curious article and described it as a "Death Tax." As do many extremely wealthy people, who otherwise have no trouble with all the other taxes that the middle class has to pay. As I mentioned above, this is all about populism and class warfare.
Brian| 12.15.10 @ 5:51PM
I certainly don't believe that all taxes are theft. Obviously taxes are necessary to provide legitmate government functions. As a general rule, federal government should do only those things specified by the constitution (and yes, I know we are well past that). Taxes should be simple and equitable. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that governments have depended on these taxes for too long.
The inheritance tax is one that I believe is ineffective as well as immoral. By confiscating wealth from the private sector, the government loses the tax generating capability of the wealth. Think, killing the golden goose. That is the ineffective part and leads to the immorality of it. This confiscation of wealth hurts the very people the government believes it is helping (pick a demographic) when we/they demand that the "wealthy" pay their "fair share". It hurts them by eliminating employers and jobs. It forces heirs to hold fire sales to get cash to pay taxes on businesses that have been in families for generation. Allowing us to keep a portion of it presupposes that the wealth is the government's, not the deceased or their heirs.
You are also exactly right that inheritance taxes are an enormous tool to encourage class warfare and hatred. We can either allow the politicians to continue to play that card or we can eliminate it. That card can only be played until people see the positive results of eliminating the tax. After that, the emperor will have no clothes. That is, until another generation of tax payers forgets about it.
Fighting liberalism is a never ending battle. But just because the battle will go on, doesn't mean we shouldn't fight it. I refuse to surrender to your level of cynicism. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Bob K.| 12.15.10 @ 9:44PM
I'm not being cynical here. I'm being, I think, realistic. It has only been a recent phenomenon when we have seen the argument that Inheritances should be tax free as distinguished from other income. It is only natural that one would want to keep the control of one's wealth within the family like Royalty tried to do in Europe for centuries.
I think we both are correct in pointing out that heirs have to hold, as you so aptly note, "fire sales" to pay this tax, which we both feel is grossly unfair as it hurts mostly the first generation heirs of wealth makers.
"Old Money," that controlled by the "coupon clippers" if you will, is largely immune to this tax because of the protections that were built into the tax code to shield the newer generations of "Old Money" heirs from this type of taxation. This was easier to do when inflation was not as rampant as it has recently been. The best examples we have seen have been in the recent sales of Sports Franchises. The Robbies had to sell their franchise in Miami to pay this tax after Joe Robbie died. The owner of the franchise in Baltimore took his franchise to Indianapolis in order to get money to pay the tax when it would come due. It has happened with others since. As I recall a sports team relocated to Cleveland, (or vice versa) of all places, for this reason. But I may be wrong there. It is also a good reason, if you hit a big 8 figure lottery, not to take it in payments, but in one lump sum so you can set aside money to pay the tax or for sure the payments will go directly to the IRS until the tax is paid!
That the way this tax is administered tax is grossly unfair is unarguable but I don't think that the resolution to it is found in the argument that inheritance is not income and should therefore be exempt from taxes if one keeps it in the family and the Last Will and Testament or lack thereof meets certain tests approved by Lawyers and Judges. It will cause more problems than it solves. It was tried in the 18th and 19th centuries with Real Estate and resulted in the "Rule Against Perpetuity."
Ray| 12.15.10 @ 12:26PM
I've never understood this "inhertance tax," other than being yet another way of govenment to take people's money away from them.
What is the point of this tax, other than to tax someone's gernerosity? Shoud it be punnisable to accuire weatlh and generouskly give it to your heirs? Apprerently lots of people think it is.
As for those "winners of Life's Lottery" that you seem to despise, why should someone be punished for being born and receiving an inheritance? How is one person less deserving than another simply because of which generation their born into? First generation or 100th generation, there is no fundamental difference between them all. If one generation "deserves" an inheritance, then they all do.
Raving Rabbi| 12.20.10 @ 4:05PM
The "inheritance tax" was officially put into place because of the "robber barons" - if these ruthless cornerers of the market would be able to pass their businesses to their equally ruthless children, the families could get richer & richer, more & more powerful, and establish fiefdoms.
By making the children break up and sell off the business to pay the 55% tax, their heirs would still be fabulously wealthy, but would have limited ability to cause mischief on a large, national scale.
This tax is now an anachronism for a number of reasons. Besides stronger anti-trust laws and an exponentially larger national economy, the main reason is this: Business owners simply buy a life insurance policy that will pay their estate taxes! Hence, the complete estate remains in the hands of the children anyway.
Didn't see Wal-Mart get sold off after Sam Walton died, did you? They just sold his pick-up truck to make more space for their limos, and exported his "Made In America" campaign to China. (And no, your Wal-Mart employees aren't thrilled to be "associates" any more, if you've spoken to them lately.)
I'm curious as to how those insurance policies pay out. Will someone who dies leaving 100 million this year actually be leaving about 150 million, or do those policies only pay the taxes if there are any?
rg| 12.15.10 @ 8:08AM
seems an odd way to make a point...here is another...parents built up an estate, heirs worked also to do so....the aging surviving parent is worried, upset and talking of dying before the death tax comes again so she can leave for a better life for heirs...and it is the heirs that tell her not to worry and consider such a thing for it is money vs. life and life is the importance...at least that is my, our reality.
Ned| 12.15.10 @ 10:44AM
rg - you are right, of course, and that's a much 'kinder and gentler' vision of the issue... unfortunately we aren't all blessed with common courtesy, let alone the decency and humanity to leave Grandma alone if there's a $1.50 involved. All you need to validate the bleak view is to watch daytime TV for a while, or CSPAN anytime.
rg| 12.15.10 @ 12:02PM
I understand...just that one dresses it with a negative tone and some will just say...see, those people don't deserve what they get...I am trying to say...why can't the point be that decent people that worked hard are getting their efforts stolen from them...I tired of those that forget how we ate ground beef when they ate steak and now what that difference as if we don't deserve it.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.15.10 @ 10:02AM
Jay,
As usual, you stuck the needle in the infected, decayed tooth, and wiggled it mercilessly.
I was gifted a chair hand-made by my grandfather, and eight acres of the farm. (heh, lots of grandchildren).
The chair sits proudly in our guest room, and with its rawhide bottom is a conversation starter with every guest....and I get a whole new memory cascade when I tell about it.
Pelligrino| 12.15.10 @ 10:32AM
What would the George Steinbrenner family be doing right now if he were not yet deceased?
Sorry, I'll just be the jerk -- right now for the sake of discussion -- who asks that kind of question. Because that is a family where this situation would impact, should such a father/benefactor live past midnight on 31 December 2010, yes?
(I know none of the details of the Steinbrenner family. None. I only use this family name because it is so prominent.)
This article from Mr. Homnick should be given nationwide attention over the next week.
I agree with his surmising, his wisdom.
Petronius| 12.15.10 @ 11:08AM
The Liberal pols and the bottom feeding moochers who elect them for so base reasoning as envy have been a political force since the publishing of the Leveler Papers in 1640. Truth be told their class hatred extends to those with so much as nickel more than they have in their own pockets. It is all so much worse than madness and method. The politician harnesses the ill will of the underachiever towards all his betters not just to gain office, but to prevent as many others as he can from accumulating wealth so he can control them according to his own pleasure and desires. The gutter dwelling roob gets some self satisfaction and the pol wields raw power. And it is he who is sated by excising large portions of the estates of his betters by branding the heirs as "undeserving", or "not needing it." He views his sinecure as his security; being "in on the fix", as preferable to any personal fortune as then the gutter dweller would despise him along with the privileged class. And these politicians even know that they are wrong headed but will never change their attitudes for one reason. People who have financial assets must take care of them and foster their growth. That requires the one thing both the politician and his voters are allergic to; Thinking.
ironhorzmn| 12.15.10 @ 2:21PM
How many elderly nursing home suicides will there be by Dec 31?
Their blood is on every Democrat hand.
God damn the Democrat Party.
Speedbump| 12.15.10 @ 2:37PM
Weiner needs to be hung, then have his head put on a pike to serve as a warning to others that we do not have an aristocracy in this country...I, for one, am sick of the inherited senate and house seats by those who consider themselves our betters...if we can't get them out via the ballot box, then off with a few heads!!
DRed| 12.15.10 @ 3:38PM
Huh? He won an election.
And if you're worried about an aristocracy, shouldn't you be in favor of estate taxes?
CalMark| 12.16.10 @ 10:31PM
"And if you're worried about an aristocracy, shouldn't you be in favor of estate taxes?"
So you and your kind will confiscate people's money--when they're dead and helpless--to ensure this doesn't happen. Because people who inherit money can't POSSIBLY deserve it. In your eternal wisdom and decency.
Generous of you.
Al Adab| 12.15.10 @ 2:42PM
When he composed the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Jefferson commented on the inherent natural rights people possess thus, "...they(meaning individuals) cannot by any compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of aquiring and possessing property."
If the Right cannot be divested even by the present owner, by what logic may the government confiscate property (including income) from any person even through due process? Certainly progressive tax rates and estate taxes additionaly treat certain classes with differing standards. How is this not a violation of "Equal protection" under the 14th amendment?
Our government is actively seeking ways by which it can violate the compact of States under the Constitution. When a government becomes destructive of the ends for which it is established, one of which is the protection of property rights, what is the Right retained by the people?
DRed| 12.15.10 @ 3:40PM
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.
Al Adab| 12.15.10 @ 4:06PM
Jefferson was also an outspoken opponant of entail which forced so many to sell off property to settle estates. Not all ideas ever discussed are good ones and Jefferson could, at times, examine options without endorsement.
DRed| 12.15.10 @ 5:02PM
Jefferson opposed entail because it was one of the processes by which European aristocracies maintained themeslves. Jefferson was against the idea of an aristocracy based on inherited wealth. He wanted to help create a society with a leadership based on talent. Opposing entail and a progressive tax rate are both consistent with that belief.
Al Adab| 12.15.10 @ 6:17PM
Fortunately we have escaped the danger of creating an aristocracy (Rockefellers, Kennedys might disagree and they found ways around confiscation) and that allows us latitude in the violation of property rights represented by both progressive income taxes and estate taxes. The federal government simply has no moral or Constitutional power to seperate classes and treat individuals by socio-economic grouping rather than as individuals. The fact remains that confiscation of wealth is nothing less than theft. The ends do not justify the means.
rg| 12.15.10 @ 3:28PM
good...the point from which all must face.
Dustoff| 12.15.10 @ 3:44PM
The point not talked about. Two of the richest men in America has said they would give their monies away after they die. (which the lib's just love) Yet what not said. Their not giving it to the government.
LOL
Nunya| 12.15.10 @ 5:09PM
My former father-in-law lives in Sun City Arizona, and used to relate stories to me of some of his retired friends and acquaintances that were absolutely heartbreaking. Stories of children that hadn't spoken to their parents for over 20 years, only now coming back into their life because of the belief that the parents were going to die soon, and they wanted in on the money. Stories of persons who would get their parents to put them on the checking account, only to drain it. There were dozens of other examples of people's greed, and it's incredibly heartbreaking and disturbing to hear of such things, but they exist--and sadly, this author is spot on.
I thank God that I love my parents and siblings more than I care about money, but maybe that's because I've never been rich? I don't know....
As to the "Inheritance" tax, or "Death" tax, or whatever, it is a tenet of the Progressive belief that nobody should have any more than anyone else (except for those in charge, of course). It's the same philosopy that argues against a flat tax for everyone--because that wouldn't be "fair"--the "rich" would be able to save more of their money, and the "poor" would be hurt. It's all about the re-distribution of wealth, and it's roots are in Marxism.
DRed| 12.15.10 @ 5:27PM
You're completely wrong about the history of death taxes. They've been around (in various forms) for thousands of years. It's not like Marx was the first guy who thought of re-distribution of wealth.
Nunya| 12.16.10 @ 10:04AM
It's still a "Progressive" idea, no matter how long it's been around.
CalMark| 12.16.10 @ 10:33PM
"They've been around (in various forms) for thousands of years."
So have slavery, debasement of women, and child labor. You wanna argue in favor of those, too?
sonny| 12.16.10 @ 1:35AM
Exactly. Talk about a conflict of interest.. I'm surprised Obama and the Socialist Marxist Obamacare Govt., doesn't even try to go into the Human Organ Parts harvesting business, on top of it.. They have done everything else, with all their arrogance and govt. thug audacity so far.. They could care less about what the American People think, let alone care about the Will of the Majority of the American People, let alone any Moral, Ethical, and Legal ramifications, of their unadulterated illegal and unconstitutional acts, thus far..
Obama and Congress, ALL of them, makes me sick, and want to puke on all of them.!!!
They should ALL be charged for Treason against America, the US Constitution, and the American People, and sent to jail for life.!!!
ClaudiaMonteverdi| 12.16.10 @ 2:32PM
OKAY, THIS IS FANCIFUL....Jay says...well, the PanAm stewardess bit got to me...I was just starting to know and like the lady when you cooly euthanased her to make your point..Damn, Have you no shame?
Deeply chagrined,
Claudia
Horny Goat Weed | 12.16.10 @ 5:52PM
Tax is required and its a great thing, thats not debatable, but taxing the dead is where I draw the line, I mean even when the relatives inherit, somewhere along the line it will be taxed when they spend it, so its double taxed in effect and thats just plain greedy. Taxing those who have passed away is just below the belt, end of story.
Bennet Cecil| 12.16.10 @ 5:57PM
Dead people do not vote. What the estate tax does is discourage capitalism and commerce. It punishes hard work and success.
Richard Kle| 12.17.10 @ 3:10PM
So if Granny dies before year end, her family inherits $15 million, but if she dies in January her family inherits only 11.5 million.
What a tragedy!