Aug. 23, 2005 - Estate Taxes - WSJ Letter to the Editor

U. S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (D - NJ) had a letter to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal on August 22 regarding estate taxes.  His argument for keeping the current unjust system in place can be summarized as follows:

1.  Only the super rich pay any estate taxes.  Their kids are going to inherit millions even with a steep estate tax.  It's no big deal for the government to take 50% of the parent's wealth when they die even though this money was already taxed when it was earned.

 

2.  The children and grandchildren of the rich receive significant benefits anyway from having grown up in a wealthy family.  That shouldn't continue after the parent's die.

 

3.  There are others in this country who are poor and who have significant needs like healthcare and education.  The money from the estate tax can help these people.

Senator Lautenberg uses his own wealth ($100 million) and family as an example and rhetorically asks, "Don't you feel sorry for me?"

Below is my response to Senator Lautenberg in a letter to the editor.

"I do feel sorry for you Sen. Lautenberg.  I feel sorry for you because you cannot see the real choice on the estate tax issue -- freedom.  A free society does not coerce money from its citizens by double taxation just because they die with wealth." 

 

"While alive, the wealthy are free to spend their hard-earned money as they see fit.  Some will spend it selfishly and others will be generous.  Why not in death?"

 

"Sen. Lautenberg, you make a big deal about your success and vast fortune.  In your distorted thinking, however, it would nearly be criminal for your heirs to receive your wealth without first surrendering at least half of it to the government.  But why wait until you die for the government to get its cut since the need is so great right now?  Let the government take your money today and put it to good use since you aren't.  Better yet, since you are 'on the side of working families,' why don't you start right now and give your money away before you die?  Your $100 million would go a long way toward helping the uninsured children, poor college students, and middle class families for whom you claim so much compassion."

 

"By hanging onto your wealth now, are you not making a choice 'at the expense of those who truly need help?'  Yes, and you are free to make that choice.  A free society let's people see the need and respond from the heart (or not)."

 

"Ah, but therein is the problem with your hypocritical politics.  You are 'proud to cast my vote' to take over half of others' money from their children and grandchildren and deny them that same freedom of choice upon death.  Yet you are not so eager to dole out your own wealth in such staggering quantities while you are alive.  Like a good liberal, you prefer to fund your conscience through other people's wallets."