In response to my daughter Georgia's recent question:

hey there
can you explain to me this guy's logic - (see quote that follows) - as to why this story, in his opinion, solidifies the argument for inheritance taxes? I mean, what would be gained if the $12 mil was taxed?

"A Dog's Life. (Or Why Leona Proves We Need Inheritance Taxes.)
Posted by EJ_Dionne at 8/29/2007 12:46 PM
Lucky dog! The Associated Press reports: "Leona Helmsley's dog will continue to live an opulent life, and then be buried alongside her in a mausoleum. But two of Helmsley's grandchildren got nothing from the late luxury hotelier and real estate billionaire's estate. Helmsley left her beloved white Maltese, named Trouble, a $12 million trust fund (my emphasis), according to her will, which was made public Tuesday in surrogate court." Or, as The New York Daily News put it: "Billionaire Leona Helmsley's pampered pooch will go on living in the lap of luxury." This news comes a day after we learn that the number of Americans without health insurance has gone up by roughly 2.2 million. What do you make of Leona's canine genrosity? Isn't this another reason why we should not repeal inheritance taxes? (again, my emphasis) Join the dog fight. (PS, I like dogs just fine and have one myself.)"

My response:
That is E.J.Dionne writing. He is a very liberal columnist. It sounds like his argument is basically what many liberals think: that "the people" are not smart enough to make their own choices, especially when it comes to "the greater good" (as defined, of course, by the liberals), so they, through government regulation - coercion - should decide how best to use our money. In this case, he wants to tax the wealth earned by someone now deceased (and hence defenseless) to spend the money on his preferred cause, in this case "Americans without health insurance." Not only does he want to take someone's accumulated and formerly taxed earnings after death and redistribute it as he sees fit, he is also proposing to intervene in private decisions as to how to spend one's money.

If someone has decided not to buy health insurance, he is putting himself at risk. It is not the government's job to second-guess him, however stupid his decision may be or seem to others-than-himself to be. If children are not being protected because their parents do not buy health insurance, perhaps there should be a nationwide insurance pool, run privately, like the system the federal government offers its employees. Everyone would have to buy some form of insurance, as we do automobile insurance, and those below the poverty line might receive a subsidy.

But the government should not buy the insurance. And it is no justification for death taxes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with death taxes. There is no discernible logical link here between death taxes and health insurance subsidies.

1. Taxing the dead is just easier than taxing someone who can protest the treatment; 2. the target is an unsympathetic figure in this case and a wealthy person in general, i.e. part of a minority the majority may envy and not object to attacking; and 3. the liberal's inclination is to add taxes to taxes to more taxes, rather than budgeting revenue already flowing in, so any tax vehicle will do.
Bored yet?
love, me