In my opinion, this post is exactly right (well, except for the part where it entirely eludes me why the state legislature has anything to say about hospital visitation policies…)
Oh, wait. Here is an entirely beside-the-point rant. In the case of anyone I know over fifty, or unable to communicate, hospital stays have been nothing but wars for survival. “Hi, nurse; before you go off and neglect other elderly patience or find your next “angel-of-mercy” opportunity could you please put the IV back in place that you pulled out a minute ago.” Or “When a patient can’t talk I’m not sure why the book says that medical best practices would dictate studiously avoiding eye contact at all times.” Maybe things are better in Virginia than rural Oklahoma, but I could see a real malignant motivation for hospitals to want to reduce the number of visitors…
And now back to our regularly scheduled post.
There’s nothing wrong with friends visiting one another. We should provide for this regardless of the agendas of samesex politics. Another example where it would be good to really lobby for this is the kleptomaniacal estate tax laws.
Orman says she “has a relationship with life,” so Solomon presses her, and Suze then reveals that her “life partner” is Kathy Travis and, “We’re going on seven years. I have never been with a man in my whole life. I’m still a 55-year-old virgin.”
Orman says they’d like to get married, and both “have millions of dollars in our name. It’s killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa.”
I’m going to resist the temptation to rant about the abuse of the word “virgin” which Orman visits upon it (makes a good case for Dawn Eden’s advocacy of “chastity” as a better word) and address the other outrage. People shouldn’t have their hard-earned (or lucked out) inheritance taken away from them. It is evil. People should be allowed to name their heirs.
People talk about the difference between “economic conservatism” and “social conservatism” and how they conflict. But in this case a failure to implement “economic conservaitism” is generating bad will and more political opposition to “social conservatism.”
No one has to endorse the nature of Orman’s relationship with Travis. But let them keep their money and share it with each other if they want to.
There are plenty of other areas where there is no choice but to fight. Lets not create more battlefields for no reason.
Anyone can name anyone as their heir. It’s just that above a certain amount, it gets taxed. Spouses are exempt from that tax.
What’s any more evil about taxing an estate than taxing income, sales, use, real property, etc.? It’s all “hard-earned” or “lucked-out” value.
Thanks for clarifying the situation.
I’m a big believer in income tax. I guess the estate could be viewed as the income of the recipient, but I think when the IRS allows for the possibility of an untaxed gift ($10,000 as the limit?) it acknowledges my feelings about this. I can see viewing the estate as coming to the heir as income, but it seems a lot more like gift.
And it’s hard to believe that taking 50% helps the economy when it could be left alone to be used in other ways that both help the economy and are themselves taxed. You might know the history of this tax, but it seems more like a visceral desire to grab a pile of money rather than a thought-out policy. And because it seems that way it provokes a visceral reaction.
But, I agree, there is no great principle here other than my point that it would be good to make alterations that reduced complaints.
The argument I’ve generally heard used in favor of the IT is that it is “not good for society” for too much money to be in the hands of too few people.
It’s a flat out, statist, redistributionist argument. Even if it’s arguably true that it “is not good” for so much money to be so distributed, taking the next step to “so the goverment gets it” is what creates resentment.
And the objection to taxing inheritance is that it’s money that’s already been taxed in one form or another. The government’s already had it’s cut of that very same money, so it’s really a naked money grab to claim they’re entitled to a cut of it simply because it changes hands yet again.
Don’t forget the principle of “no taxation without representation.” Since the dead are not generally encouraged to vote, except in Chicago and Philadelphia, it seems only right not to tax them.
Jim’s post is incorrect. “Heirs” by definition are not declared by the decedent; they are stipulated by the statute of intestate succession in the state in which the decedent dies. One may only declare devisees and/or legatees (via a will or trust). And even when no wealth passes through intestate succession, the statute remains a source of legal standing in probate matters.
I’m opposed to gay marriage. Nevertheless, I fear that we will lose on this issue if we fail to address some of the peculiar burdens that our property and tax laws currently place on same-sex partners. Such laws, after all, are neutral regarding normative morality; they are simply designed to effectuate intent. So let’s amend these laws such that they account for the intent of same-sex partners (i.e., treat them as married for limited tax and probate purposes).
This approach extends a degree of basic fairness to same-sex couples. It also deprives them of their most persuasive arguments in favor of gay marriage. I care that the state not grant social legitimacy to same-sex relationships. I will lose no sleep, however, over how the courts probate such folks’ wills.
I don’t know Rob. I’d rather just make it a matter of will rather than recognizing some sort of “union” beyond a desire to pass on the estate. If you follow that last link you’ll see that some unions are having really bad consequences.
Maybe I’m not understanding you or too paranoid, but that’s my gut reaction.
“Devisee” rather than “heir.” Whatever. The point was that, in a will, you can name anyone you want to receive your property after your death. Orman was not complaining about not being able to leave all of her property to her partner in her will, she was complaining that the partner was going to have to pay a lot of tax on what was left via a will, a tax that a spouse would be exempt from paying.
Gina’s article [your last link] brings up a good point: Few states’ family codes have been amended to surrogate parenthood. Her last paragraph explains that this hole in the law is not limited to same-sex relationships. The laws are also ambiguous on step-child claims, etc. Estate lawyers are making big bucks setting up complicated trusts for divorcees.
I also agree with you in feeling some reluctance about setting up any kind of legal regime that looks like a civil union. Yet I think we can help ourselves out a bit by amending intent-effectuating provisions in the probate and tax codes to account for same-sex partnerships.
The “heir” issue is actually important. Because the intestate succession statute confers standing to contest a will, the statutory heirs (i.e., parents or siblings) can force the decedent’s same-sex partner to undergo years of litigation before receiving the valid devise (minus extensive litigation costs). For married couples, the statutory heir and the devisee are usually the same person (i.e., the spouse). I see no reason to preserve these kinds of inequities in the law, especially in statutes the intent-efffectuating provisions were not designed to have a punitive application.
I’m willing to fight with the gay rights folks over marriage; I’m inclined to compromise on these technical issues of property and tax law. A “die on every hill” approach is rarely an effective way to fight a battle.