[Dukie]

Further illustration of the repugnance of "death taxes"

[Dukie]

Thank you for your suggestion and enouragement in this bb.

[Dukie]

Good morning, Joanie.

Bump for a fellow keystone state constitutionalist.

[Portnoy]

Anyone who expects to pay high Inheritance Taxes should check into their local charities, non-profits or community foundations.

Many larger non-profits have excellent planned giving programs that will help support them and also give you a very substantial tax break off of the "Death Taxes".

In fact, if done properly, you may not have to pay hardly any taxes at all. Your favorite Non-profit organization AND you benefit.

[Dales]

I just noticed the author's name. Bump!

[Still Thinking]

I just don't understand it. They pass a law that financially punishes people for dying and the people keep dying anyway! Go figure.

[Russ]

It doesn't surprise me that the statute ignores Article 8, section 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution. The legislature and courts also ignore Article 1, Section 21 which states: "The right of the citizen to bear arms in the defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"

It seems like the Pa. constitution is just another worthless piece of paper.

[Principled]

more income tax insanity.

[Dialup Llama]

PA chased away wage earners long ago. However they have the second largest retirement population behing FLA. They might end up chasing away their greatest remaining financial resource... dying people.

[PA Engineer]

I wish Americans would include the term "Grave Robbers" with "Death Taxes". I see no difference culturally or morally.

[xsmommy]

great job!

[Protagoras]

All taxes are a form of theft. The death tax is the "grave robber" form of that theft.

[goldstategop]

We abolished the "death tax" here in California in 1982.

[Dukie]

A local matter for your consideration

[Dukie]

A local issues bump fyi

[Dukie]

You're a keystone stater aren't you ?

[inquest]

I'm definitely not about to defend death taxes, as they are one of the most repugnant creatures known to man, but I do have to take issue with the author's reliance on the "equal protection" clause of the USC. Of all the provisions within the Constitution, that one has been just about the most abused - and abused in such a way as to cause the most abuse of power. "Protection" of the laws simply means that if someone violates your rights, he will be punished. "Equal" protection means that he will be punished regardless of whether you're black, white, indigo, immigrant, criminal fugitive, whatever. It does not say that all laws must oblige everyone equally. Child labor laws, indecent exposure laws (which vary according to gender), legal qualifications for drivers' and other licenses - all these operate on some people differently than others without serious challenge, and in any case do not conflict with the phrase, "equal protection of the laws".

[inquest]

The reference to the fourth amendment is interesting. It's something that's been rattling around in my brain for a long time: Does it not violate the 4th to have inspections for various types of health and safety codes, such as a building inspection whenever someone wants to sell his house? It seems like challenging it would open up a whole new can o' worms, and yet, I can't see exactly how to justify these practices.

[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.