All Comments for: Death Tax Resurrected | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > April

Christianity Today, April, 2009 |

Death Tax Resurrected

Churches and nonprofits poised to benefit from estate gifts.

Rob Moll | posted 3/31/2009 09:28AM

Fiscal conservatives working at churches face a dilemma: the estate tax violates their free-market principles, but its reinstatement may be a boon to their employers.

The law, as it stands, is creating ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 37 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

Matt R.

Posted: April 07, 2009 2:35 PM


...or just hand your heirs shoeboxes full of cash. No taxes on what the IRS doesn't know about....

Pilgrim

Posted: April 07, 2009 2:25 PM

"The person who spent his life pursuing financial success--at times at the expense of his family" should be aware of the great potential for anxiety and regret, along with his or her great sacrifices. As for me, I'd rather not deal with the burdens of wealth and fame. Data shows that the poorer households are among the more generous. It is harder to be generous when you are obsessed with holding onto what you've amassed. Still there are some remarkably generous people with wealth. I'd rather not have the government dictating how enormous sums of peoples' money are spent, however. But thanks to big government spending, we're all going to be paying a very heavy price, whatever our income.

Andy C

Posted: April 06, 2009 8:42 PM

This quote, "Once people have met their basic needs, said Tiemstra, "equality is at least as important as prosperity." just shows how this person thinks. Why should you work hard just so someone else doesn't have to? Your assets are yours and you should be able to do what you want with them. Now, if you donated 55% of your assets to a church or charity, and the other 45% was not taxed (regardless of the size of the portfolio; ie above 3.5 mil) then i would support it. I just think that charities and private citizens can put assets to work much better and more efficiently than the government.

Duane W. - Greenville, SC

Posted: April 04, 2009 10:21 AM

Our family has experienced one setback after another. We are always broke and in debt, not because of overspending or charging things on credit cards. We don't. Our problems are based on misfortunes, medical and others. Yet, the Lord is our Helper and He knows exactly what we need and will supply in His perfect time. God is always sufficient. I said all that to say this - regardless of how broke or in debt we are, it is still categorically wrong to take from the rich or well off to pay or bail out anyone else. Leave them alone. If God is ready to supply our need, He, and He alone will lay it upon the heart of those more fortunate them ourselves to help us. If our needs are not being met, we need to turn to God and His word and see where we are wrong. It most likely is personal sin, especially the kind that no one else knows about. Let's get back to our Bible first and our Constitution second, and let it stop right there. Anything above that is out and out theft by the government.

Dave Jones

Posted: April 03, 2009 11:05 AM

Years ago a million dollars was a lot of money, but now it is almost as much as a house and a small business. So if a parent wants his sole child to get the Family house and business, too bad. And even dividing up an estate between several children doesn’t help since the tax is on the whole estate, not what each child gets. Yet the super rich, can escape these taxes. They setup trusts that put their wealth into funds that while the child can’t touch, he children get money every year, just for breathing. Just look at the Kennedy’s. Houses are in a trust, that the family can use, but not houses that they can sell.

Stephen Ray Hale

Posted: April 03, 2009 2:45 AM

I wonder if the good economist Tiemstra realizes that God considers anyone giving ten percent of his increase to the king makes the rancher or farmer a slave to the King (1 Samuel). Even in Egypt during the famine the abject slaves of the Pharaoh (the ones who sold their land and then themselves into slavery) when redistributed on what used to be their land paid only twenty percent to the Pharaoh, even after been given the grain to plant. Rendering unto Caesare for FREE men MUST be 9.99 percent and under, and in America, we MUST be free in that was the way our father's left us when they founded the Republic. The rest is God's. I think "brother" Tiemstra does not know his Bible at all...so sorry for Calvin College.

Craig A.

Posted: April 02, 2009 4:34 PM

What the estate tax really does is encourage current consumption. If you consume a lot now, you aren't punitively taxed. If you die, and have saved your wealth, and invested it wisely, it will be heavily taxed. Which would you rather do? Economics is about incentives, and the estate tax provides incentives to leave less for others, and reduces capital investments. Arther Laffer stated as much in the Wall Street Journal. Sure, there will be idealistic folks who will leave things to their church, but are they the majority? Last, who is this guy from Calvin College? Why is the goal equality, i.e. income redistribution, instead of making sure everyone's quality of life increases. Where has this mindset ever led to an increase in quality of life? Don't we want everyone to do well, and then be responsible, instead of being punitive and guided by class envy. It's depressing to know that there are so may socialists at Christian institutions.

JustSomeKingdomDude

Posted: April 02, 2009 11:33 AM


Oh no! Caesar wants more money! What shall we do? Oh, the sky is falling! The wolf is in the henhouse! Reasonable government services? Now That's Rich!!

Nance

Posted: April 01, 2009 7:38 PM

The professor is making assumptions without considering that there's a reason why people save their money. Many people (probably most in the taxable category) who never made more than poor and eventually, middle class incomes EVER, but worked all their lives, if they live to be in their 80's or 90's, would be considered weathly by these standards, even though they've never actually lived off much money after charitable giving and savings, and taxes, of course. Therefore, their elderly children, who in an extremely high percentage of cases, have given 24 hr care for years, would only have a very modest income from a taxable estate of this size, BEFORE the tax. After this tax, it would put these caregivers under the poverty line. You might want to figure out how much of a principle would be needed to live off of with conservative investments ("safe ones") that typically produce less than 2 percent in dividends. Divide it among two heirs, and see what principal would be.

Mike C

Posted: April 01, 2009 12:38 PM


Perhaps David Leedy should consider the Jubilee from Leviticus 25, a total economic reset every fifty years.

Dianne A

Posted: April 01, 2009 5:21 AM

Death tax? Guess politics has co-opted faith, again. Clean up your language - your bias is showing. Martha - I don't see God's plain statement exempting Christians, or their inheritors, from paying Federal, State, City, and County taxes. I do see "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." In fact, the grasping, greedy concerns raised here do not seem indicative at all of people who have stored up their treasure in heaven. Martha and CT included!

David Leedy

Posted: April 01, 2009 3:43 AM

I would like to know what advantage Prof. Tiemstra sees in a 55% estate tax? It seems, given the context, that be believes such taxation will promote economic equality. I take issue with the view that economic "equality is at least as important as prosperity" and that hefty estate taxation is consistent with Scripture. First, I see no Scriptural basis for this. Yes, we all have equal intrinsic value before God and equal standing before the cross. But where does Scripture teach that we must all be equal in terms of worldly wealth? Second, his view amounts to what many have termed 'legal plunder.' What individuals are prohibited by law from doing (stealing another man's property), government can do legally. An aggressive estate tax is simply a way for government to legally plunder the citizens of our country. Third, taxation will not promote economic equality in the long run. It will only destroy wealth for all, including those less fortunate.

Reg	Posted: March 31, 2009 10:58 PM

Why do Americans have such a problem with a very biblical idea of the redistribution of wealth at the appropriate time. In the Old Testament the Year of Jubilee was about the rich returning to the poor the means to create wealth, namely the land. So why should a person today not have to pay back to society from the wealth that they have been blessed with. This is a biblical principal. (Just as making money has biblical support). So the question should not be about inheritance taxes, rather it should be how do Christians look at giving the poor a chance to grow and develop. Let us stop think about only ourselves and our own family and to think about the larger community we belong to.

Gregory Peterson

Posted: March 31, 2009 7:29 PM

There are reasons, some of which are discussed here, on why abolishing estate taxes could actually be harmful to free markets, rather than as a central tenet for free market philosophy. Less wealth and treasures, cultural as well as monetary, circulating because they're locked up in dynastic minded families, means less free competition, after all, as well as fewer places to access capital to start businesses or to acquire the necessary education ambitious people need. With the invention of representative democracies and corporations, do societies really need dynasties and those 'old money' families and ultra wealthy individuals to accumulate wealth for the large, infrastructure projects that are needed for vigorous, wealth building innovation and competition? Such as, building lot's of state universities and colleges so that most anyone who wants to earn a higher education can get one, instead of a having a couple of elite universities for the old money fe

Roger

Posted: March 31, 2009 6:40 PM


Death tax? Free market principals? How about responsibility? How about reading Matthew 5 & 6? I for one am tired of greed posing as Christianity.

Charitas

Posted: March 31, 2009 6:17 PM

"Kramer said wealthy individuals will have an incentive to give to charitable causes beyond the level of the exemption" ... more often these days taxes are discussed in terms of "incentive". This is a deterministic concept (Determinism - Hegel, Marx, Pavlov, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler et al). Taxes should only levied to acquire reasonable payment for government services, never for behavior modification.

Clarence Cossey

Posted: March 31, 2009 5:33 PM


So should we hold on to everything we can get until our last breath or find ways to use, give, share while we are still alive.

Trig	Posted: March 31, 2009 5:18 PM

I agree with CatherineF. The money has already been taxed, why can the government tax it again? I have seen the tax played out where a farm and its implements cost 3 million (a small farm), but the son whose entire life has been geared to taking it over now must sell because he can't pay the taxes on it. Yes, they should plan ahead and all that and pass it on earlier, but then there are taxes for receiving a gift, or it has to be fair market value, etc. It sure looks like the government is against any kind passing on of wealth or trade. One million dollars isn't a lot anymore. It's a house and a very small business in many cases. At least where house values haven't plummented :)

alison

Posted: March 31, 2009 4:11 PM

I don't know anyone who makes enough money or has saved enough money that they will ever qualify for death taxes. Almost everyone I know is one paycheck away from homelessness. But remember, if death taxes (inheritance taxes, estate taxes, whatever) are done away with, that money will have to be recouped through other taxes. I am not a lawyer, but if you have a farm that would qualify you for death taxes, you should talk to an estate planning lawyer and they will tell you what you need to do.

Dave N.

Posted: March 31, 2009 3:27 PM

A lot of consideration for neo-conservative rhetoric ("death" tax) and very little about about the Gospel and laying up treasure in heaven. If you still have accumulated wealth of over $1 million at death (there's nothing about the spousal exemption in the article) you have some serious soul-searching to do. There really shouldn't need to be government incentives to donate your money prior to death, but we've seen what happens when there's not.

CatheineF

Posted: March 31, 2009 2:57 PM

I don't see how taking 45% or 50% of someone's money is scriptural. As a matter of fact, after reasonable taxes have been paid the first time, I can see no reason for further taxation nor for the confiscation of any individual's money for any reason no matter how wealthy they are. John Tiemstra's comment, "Once people have met their basic needs, equality is at least as important as prosperity," is nothing less than the same socialist drivel we've been handed on a platter and forced to eat. The money people earn is theirs to keep and theirs to give out as they see fit. Phooey on this financial equality propeganda. It's garbage. I, nor anyone else, is entitled to anyone's money unless they choose to give it. Taxing those who have died is a slap in the face for everyone concerned.

Pam C.

Posted: March 31, 2009 2:55 PM


This morning's Wall Street Journal reported that a footnote on page 127 of the budget says "The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters" and adds "...estates will be taxed at up to 45%, with an exemption level of of $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple)." Where do your figures of $1 million and 55% come from?

Oran D

Posted: March 31, 2009 2:43 PM

Heavy taxation at any level punishes the person who spent his life pursuing financial success--at times at the expense of quality time with his family. The attainment of wealth requires sacrifices, and great sacrifices should produce great rewards. For any government, group, or individual to think they have the right to take 45% or greater of someone's life achievement just because the achievement was great---that's stealing and coveting your neighbor's wealth. No where is the right to steal from your neighbor approved in Scripture. Fair taxation is one thing, theft is another. The wealthy should pay a fair percentage, so should everyone, even the poorest. Ten cents on the dollar is fair whether you have one dollar or a trillion. If we eliminated all the craziness involved in our convoluted taxation system and tax ten cents everytime a dollar changes hands, we would have a surplus compared to the deficits we face today.

TM	Posted: March 31, 2009 2:36 PM


"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25). I was reminded of this quote as I saw all the comments of people getting their undies in a bunch over the estate tax. Many Christians can talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, they apparently love money above all things.

Will A

Posted: March 31, 2009 2:32 PM

In these times of huge federal budget deficits totally eliminating the estate tax on all estates regardless of their size is simply irresponsible.Former President Bush & a GOP controlled congress acted irresponsibly when eliminating all estate taxes for one year-2010. This is known to tax professionals as the "Throw Mama From The Train" year, and it is really ill advised. The only negative consequence of this won't be the federal governments loss of tax revenue revenue because of this decision. Mark my words, there are some wealthy people alive today that will be murdered next year by greedy heirs who want to inherit estates without having to pay taxes on them. Hopefully, sounder logic will prevail & a change in the tax law will occur before then. The estate tax should continue to exist, but with a higher exemption on amounts subject to taxation.With our current financial crisis, it make no sense to let Paris Hilton inherit more money than ten generations could spend tax free.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment