Pennsylvania's Inheritance Tax ... it's illogical, unconstitutional and should be abolished

Pittsburgh Tribune Review ^ | March 24, 2002 | C.J. Durkin

[Dukie]

With the calendar page soon turning to April, we once more visit the days when we pause and reflect, mostly in head shaking disbelief, at the amount of our labor is which is appropriated by way of income taxes. While the sage once remarked on the certainty of death and taxes, he may not have appreciated the linkage of these phenomenon in the form of Pennsylvania

[inquest]

Re: the 4th amendment. Another hang-up for me is that states have been levying property taxes (which necessarily involve inspection) since before the Constitution was even written, and said document even gave the federal government the power to levy such taxes under certain circumstances. So I'm hesitant to automatically assume that the 4th amendment, which, along with the rest of the first 10, was pushed for by the states, actually condemned one of the mainstays of their revenue systems. My working hypothesis, then, is that the 4th amendment is only a prohibition on arbitrary executive action, not legislative acts. Care to know what you think.

[Dukie]

Oh, my goodness ! I assure you that I'll not make a similar error in table seating arrangements at any FR banquets.

Knowing you rub shoulders with the powerful, perhaps you'll ask them when we can expect action to rescind this travesty.

[AGreatPer]

"Knowing you rub shoulders with the powerful, perhaps you'll ask them when we can expect action to rescind this travesty."

I copied the article and will bring it up with George Gekas when I have coffie with him tomorrow or Friday. We BS a lot. The other day we were discussing the high increase in gas. Sure enough, he is making waves on the subject today.

Also, I'll see Santorums aid next week and again will bring it up. This sounds like something some politician should want to put their teeth into.

[Petronski]

Oh, c'mon Keystoners, we're only stealing 4.5% now, not 6% like before. You should be happy we're stealing so much less.

[Dukie]

Hello betty & thanks for your thought provoking insights. In regard to the question of who owns the estate, I believe that tax leins are senior to other claims against the property, so that points to a pretty clear answer.

On line 13 - fittingly enough - of the inheritance tax form, the bureaucrats responsible for collections even give you the opportunity to make "governmental bequests" which reduce the base on which the tax is calculated. Makes one long for a return to the good old days of tar and feathers.

[Dukie]

Thanks for carrying the torch, AGP. Perhaps their word to our state house associates will carry some weight in getting the folks in Harrisburg to start the wheels turning. I'm sending this off to the Commonwealth foundation, too.

[Dukie]

And it's such a pro family tax, too ! If you leave anything to your mistresses and illegitimate offspring, they charge them 15% !

[Dukie]

Perhaps you meant to say judicial action. IMHO Amendment 4 cannot be construed to pertain only to the executive since it references warrants which are issued by the judiciary. Under the reasoning of the last sentence in your post :the 4th amendment is only a prohibition on arbitrary executive action, not legislative acts. one gets into a loop where checks and balances are bypassed , surely contrary to the intent of the framers.

[Dukie]

I must leave for awhile, please continue & thanks for your comments.

[inquest]

Yes, you're right. It protects against judicial and executive action - the judicial from issuing warrants for the wrong reason, and the executive from arbitrarily searching without warrants at all, or at least without probable cause, in cases where there's no time to consult a judge.

But my point is that when the executive branch is carrying out acts of legislation - such as tax inspection - it may not violate the "unreasonable search" standard, as the founders intended it to mean.

[joanie-f]

From another thread of yesterday:

Chris and I both lost our beloved Dads within a couple of weeks time at the end of last year. And we were both designated executors of our Dads' estates. We not only compared notes regarding the loss of the two men who were the greatest influences in our lives, but we also compared notes as to how the state of Pennsylvania profits through its unconstitutional (both state and federal) inheritance tax.

Chris's article in the Trib-Review really encapsulates the obscenity known as the Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax, in that the tax defies the uniformity on the same class of subjects clause of the PA Constitution. The tax also smacks of social engineering in that its historical foundation is an attempt to move concentrations of wealth in future generations so as to create, through government dictate, more economic parity. The fourth and fifth amendments to the US Constitution are also assaulted through this tax, since provisions in it come very close to (if not define) unreasonable search and seizure, and the requirement to self-incrimination.

Chris hits all bases in his article. It would be nice if some of our state legislators would read it, and take it to heart. They need not wait for the courts to declare the tax unconstitutional (not that such a logical step is even in the works). A simple repeal is in order. But, being the realists that we are, Chris and I are not holding our mutual breaths awaiting that particular turn of events....yet he is being about as pro-active in this regard as a citizen of the commonwealth can be, having done much research into the subject, and written so eloquently regarding his findings.

[Dukie]

Good morning, joanie and thank you for adding your encouraging thoughts amplifying on our earlier off-forum conversations about this matter.

Our local group here in the western part of the state convened last night for its' monthly meeting and this article was a starting point for several discussions concerning failures of elected officials - both executives and legislators - to make matters of constitutionality the essential prerequisite of every exercise of the power with which they are entrusted. The reason of course lies in human nature, that the scope of power tends to increase and stray ever further from its moorings until checked and contained by the grantors of its authority.

As you and so many eloquent posters here on FR have written, education is the key to a popular restoration of government faithful to constitutional principles. Given the woeful public "education" in which many of our countrymen have been schooled, a brilliant suggestion was advanced that in order to reach those we sometimes disparage as "sheep", we undertake creating a primer along the lines of the famous black & yellow volumes to be entitled "Liberty for Dummies." Much like the apostles proclaiming the Gospel, engaging fellow citizens in thoughtful discussions on the topics of liberty is the key in trnsforming that docile flock into rams.

I always look forward to your inspiring posts and comments.

[Dukie]

Good morning inquest.

As we saw in the questions surrounding the matter of trunk searches during traffic stops, the issue of reasonable versus unreasonable becomes a matter for the judiciary. We have to be vigilant in the protection of rights.

[inquest]

the issue of reasonable versus unreasonable becomes a matter for the judiciary.

I don't know if I can quite accept that. I know they've claimed that power for themselves, just as they've claimed lots of powers for themselves. But I've always understood "unreasonable" in this case to simply mean arbitrary searches and seizures that would be illegal for any private citizen to commit against his neighbor. I put not my trust in the judiciary to "modify" it any further than that.

I agree with the "vigilant" part, though.