I saw this article today at Political Animal. Now I can see where Amy is coming from but I do have a problem with the idea of any sort of inheritance tax. Quite frankly I don't see the reason why the government feels an entitlement to tax the accumulated wealth of a person just because they die and pass it on to someone else. Death comes to us all (unless you believe this), and I think I am correct in saying that it is never an easy thing, so why should a government make it harder by insisting that we deal with monetary issues in a time of grieving?
Amy's point in her article is a swipe at the priorities of the US government, which I can understand:
House Republicans voted overwhelmingly to permanently repeal the estate tax--at a cost, let's remember, of nearly $300 billion over the next decade.
So, to sum up: Actual prescription drug relief? There's no money. Armor to protect our troops? There's no money. The funds to back up the mandated reforms of No Child Left Behind? There's no money. Doing away with a tax on super rich kids? Plenty o' cash to spare.
However, what right does the government have to this money? The government takes taxes to pay for projects and programmes that are deemed neccesary (which is a different argument), they do not have a divine right to grab cash form whatever source they can find to pay for their spending. Yes, I think this perhaps could have waited and I think that the way governments waste money is shameful and deprives important programmes from getting the money they need. However at some point you do have to step up and point out that taking money in inheritance tax is not right and that the government needs to find better ways of finding the cash it needs.
I propose starting with cutting the salaries of our elected individuals and their expense accounts...