Well, the Bush cuts to the Estate Tax are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress does not act.  The House voted to keep the rate at 45% and make that permanent.  Barring passing this into Law or any other action, 2010 would be a good year to pass away as there will not be an estate tax.  However, again with no action, 2011 will see rates back to pre-2001 levels of 55%.  Though the House passed the Bill, the Senate, embroiled in it’s own quagmire of healthcare debate, would also have to approve and send to the President.

My question is simple:  why does the government think that when a person dies nearly ½ of that estate belongs to the state?  For example, the following quote tells exactly how our current legislators look at this problem, “Some Democrats in both chambers would prefer to see higher estate tax rates, arguing that the pre-2001 rates were fair and provided the government with much-needed revenue. Making the current rates permanent would cost the government an estimated $234 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.” (Washington Post, 12/4/09)  “Cost the government”?  That in and of itself indicates that the government believes your estate is theirs!  And, what is fair about giving more than half your estate to the federal government as opposed to allowing your heirs to keep it?  This is one way family farms and property revert to the government when a citizen dies.  Generational estates lost because of a death in the family.  Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.), has it right when he says, “death should not be a taxable event.”  And it shouldn’t!

We are taxed now on everything (property, wages, goods, etc.), so, how is it that the little bit of money you dont pay in taxes belongs to the government?  This is unconscionable and asinine.  Dying is not something that the government should profit on.  Let’s bring in new legislators that know what is right and what is wrong.  And, it is wrong to tax (at any rate) an estate upon one’s death.

But, this particular issues goes even further.  The vote was almost entirely on party lines (225-200).  There were 26 Democrats that did stand up for what is moral by voting against this Bill.  However, in such a partisan environment, party-lines often have the vote of a bill predetermined before any debate.  In such an environment, why even have debate?  It appears it is only trivial anyhow.  Here is what a spokesman to Sen. Reid said (also quoted in the Post article) in response to the accumulation of bills in the Senate, “So far, they've (the Republicans) taken every opportunity they can to stall important legislation and slow down progress on a number of key issues"  No doubt he was referring to healthcare.  The country is in a crisis like it has not seen for over 70-years and the elected officials in Congress are still playing the partisan games.  Some Representatives have stated that the ugly partisan 'blame-game' will reach new levels of low in this term of Congress. With this kind of behavior and lack of action, it is no wonder why there is a growing movement of voters that plan to oust ALL currently elected officials in Washington. 

When elected, I will stridently fight to eliminate this immoral tax.  As an independently-minded conservative, I will not be bullied by party-line votes.  No longer should good hard-working Americans run the risk of losing property and inheritance upon the death of a loved one.  Citizens should be very vocal about this and no longer accept the tripe that some legislators say is a duty of the estate.  If you live in a different District than Texas' 4th, then demand of your Representatives that repealing the estate tax is the only moral tax that should be “levied” upon a death!

In Liberty,

Jim Prindle