I'd spin the same point another way. Estate tax isn't "redistribution" - look at it as what it literally is: an income tax break for heirs.
There's no concept of "family income," so when someone dies and hands off $10 million, it's clearly $10 million of INCOME to the receiving party. The estate tax laws give these heirs a huge break on taxing this INCOME. Since it's a tax break, it should be called as such. After all, if someone in my family hands me $100,000 (and, uh, that ain't possible, BTW), I have to put it on my tax returns as income - so why is it 'fair' that someone handed $10 million as 'inheritance' is absolved of that same responsibility?!?
Hence - 'tax break for heirs.'
And when the inheritance is things - like farms or buildings or cars, then we should probably deal with them in a more lenient fashion. Maybe give the heir the option of paying a percentage of the last 5 years of the object's value or paying a percentage of the object's actual price when sold. Thus, family businesses and farms can really stay that way, while those who just want to grind their parents' bones into cash as fast as possible have a way out, too.
If that's too much for people to handle, then consider it a 'war against concentration of wealth.' "Redistribution" is used by the author, intentionally or unconsciously, more as a dog whistle invictive than anything.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment