joanie-f, Dukie, so sorry to hear about your loss of your Dad. My heartfelt condolences.
joanie-f, you nail the single most egregious thing about inheritance taxation in the above italics, IMHO. Yet hardly anybody ever questions this. Somehow or other, we are conditioned to believe that the idea of social engineering in the name of (somebody's strange idea of) "social justice" is just a dandy thing. At least, we don't bother to object.
But think about it!!! In the first place, what is the basis of the assumption that to run wealth through the hands of politicians serves "social justice" any better than to leave that wealth in private hands -- subject to private decision making and market forces? An heir could invest his inheritance profitably, creating economic opportunities for others beyond himself -- jobs. Or he could squander his inheritance altogether -- which has the same effect.
What I want to know is: Who really owns the inherited property? The decedent's estate? The heir? or the government? The surest test of title is who has the power of conversion of the underlying property. If the government -- federal or state -- can force the conversion -- i.e., the sale -- of property to satisfy a tax lien -- and can set the rate of tax unilaterally, and impose it unequally -- then doesn't the government effectively own it? I mean, they might let you keep a bit of what you thought was yours. And isn't that nice.
Then you've got to wonder -- where is the constitutional authority for the government to treat people differently? I thought we were a system of equal justice under law, not a system of equal results. The government has absolutely zero authority to be in the so-called "social justice" business, which means classifying citizens into groups, advantaging some and disadvantaging others. But the government cannot be in the business of picking winners and losers, and trying to deliver certain outcomes. It's in the "means business," not the "ends business."
Whatta nightmare! Why do we put up with it? Just wondering. All my best, bb.
So much of the focus of domestic/social government policy in modern America (as opposed to the vision that the founders had, and for which they sacrificed mightily) is based on an extremely convoluted notion of equality.
We all know that the founders' concept of equality amounted to the simple (and yet so meaningful) idea that all men are created equal, and are endowed with certain unalienable rights. There is where their notion of equality ended (and wisely and brilliantly so).
We were created equal, and all possess the right to live, to exercise freedom of choice, and to pursue (within moral bounds) whatever it is that we define as personal happiness. Nowhere in the founders' vision was there the concept of grotesque, restrictive government interference aimed at maintaining an eternally level playing field for all Americans, no matter the amount of sacrifice or work (or resulting achievement) they (do or do not) expend. Nowhere did the founders envision (as a matter of fact, they painstakingly declared an enemy of the people) a 'Robin Hood' system of governance which seeks economic parity among its citizens by taking from the haves and distributing the legislatively-stolen bounty to the have nots. Penalizing the citizen's (and his progeny's) ability to accumulate wealth, and experience economic independence through his own achievement, by redistributing that wealth to his less ambitious, or less adventuresome, countrymen has become the American way. Mom and apple pie have been replaced by Big Brother and trough-feeding.
So many facets of the abomination known as the IRS code, the countless federal and state entitlement programs, and taxes (on inheritance, principal, or property) such as the one we have been discussing here are aimed at nothing but parity through government-inspired social engineering. And sadder even than the unconstitutionality of such a concept is the long-term effect that such government meddling has on the work ethic, business entrepreneur-ship, propensity to save, and desire to achieve and excel of the average American citizen.
Of course there will always be those who are willing to venture, to work, and to achieve. It's just the innate nature of those who know and appreciate the sense of accomplishment of a job well done, or the satisfaction of investing (sometimes a lifetime of) time and effort in a worthwhile endeavor. That person's achievement will not be thwarted by government dictates. But the fact that his government does not allow him to reap the fruits of his own labor is an abomination....and an abomination of the kind that the founders warned us so strongly against committing, lest we run the risk of inviting the kind of social/economic/moral decay that has sometimes heralded the fall of once-mighty empires.