Skip to main content

View Diary: House Republicans finally let a poor person speak on poverty, but won't hear what she's saying (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The difference is that someone chose to give funds (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zitherhamster

    to one person, while government compelled taxpayers to pay for the other.  Congress is responsible for one decision but not the other.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 11:35:51 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Baloney. Inheritance law is written by Congress, (19+ / 0-)

      and it was the Waltons et al. who got lobbied to get the "death tax" repealed.  Same as it's the government who says you can't employ eight-year-olds.  Same as it's governments which could decide to raise the minimum wage.

      Meanwhile, the government is giving away money to the Wall Street banksters who crashed the economy via ZIRP.  

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 12:12:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually no. TAX law is written by congress. (4+ / 0-)

        Inheritance law is written by the state of residence of the deceased, or the state where the deceased had any property. State law determines whether and how much your spouse gets vs. your children, or whether it goes to grandparents, nieces & nephews, etc. THAT is inheritance law.

        The feds only levy a tax against the deceased estate, assuming it is large enough in value.  The feds have no say over who inherits what.

        Even a single lamp dispels the darkness. --Gandhi

        by My Philosophy on Fri Jul 11, 2014 at 02:33:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually no. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thanatokephaloides

          State law, and most have adopted the Uniform Probate Code or a version of it, only determines who gets what in the event a person dies intestate, i.e. without a will. Otherwise, the decedent's will governs inheritance.

          While the Feds don't have a direct say over who inherits what, the tax laws, which are written by lobbyists and enacted by Congress, significantly affect who inherits what by favoring various beneficiaries in various ways.

          Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

          by edg on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 03:39:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's more a caveat than an "actually no" (0+ / 0-)

            Nothing you said contradicts what I said. And state law determines whether or not one has a valid will. Again, state law is determinative on the matter, not federal law (which was the contention of the post I was responding too).

            Thanks for elaborating on how the feds can structure tax law to affect inheritance, but that is still a manifestation of the fed's taxation power, not jurisdiction over inheritance (which was my point).

            Even a single lamp dispels the darkness. --Gandhi

            by My Philosophy on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 05:38:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No. (0+ / 0-)

              Your comment was an incorrect assessment of state law.

              Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

              by edg on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 01:13:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I still fail to see how. (0+ / 0-)

                You want to hang your hat on intestate vs testate distinctions when the original comment I responded to was about inheritance vs tax law and incorrectly attributed the former to the feds when it is a state power?

                As you said, in your comment, feds can tax to affect how things are done, but that doesn't change that states regulate who inherits what--if at all. States are not required to even allow wills to determine estate distribution in the first place. That they have all passed a version of the uniform probate code is of little to no consequence to the argument. By the same token, they could repeal the UPC and disallow all inheritance (by will or otherwise) , and everything becomes seized by the state at death (which is usually the default if there are no heirs to inherit). That's not politically feasible, obviously, but they still could. At least, I learned that point in law school, even if you missed that day in estate class (assuming you are an estate attorney, as I am). The fact remains that that is a matter determined in state legislatures, not congress, which can only affect inheritance through the taxation power. Which was my point in responding to the original comment. You have yet to say anything that changes that.

                You are quibbling over a distinction without a difference, from where I'm sitting.

                Even a single lamp dispels the darkness. --Gandhi

                by My Philosophy on Tue Jul 15, 2014 at 12:29:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  But the Congressman isn't talking about (6+ / 0-)

      the taxation aspect, he's talking about "dependence" as though it's an overriding concern, when in fact it's only a concern when undeserving people are under consideration.

      Even if Congress has no jurisdiction over trust funds (cough), the Congressman has plenty of opportunities as well as a moral obligation to speak out against such a serious social problem.  If he really believed that dependence were a serious social problem.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site