2 ms·

It was stated that $5 million puts one in the upper echelons of society. This is a true statement. It is also true that a calamity can wipe out that amount of

It was stated that $5 million puts one in the upper echelons of society. This is a true statement. It is also true that a calamity can wipe out that amount of money. I do not believe the issues are related in that I don't think it makes for good public policy to make the taxation threshold for estate taxes to be at the calamity-proof level. It appears to be possible from what you've said about your grandmother's situation that even if her inheritance was not taxed at all she would have still ended up using up all of her savings on care. If your point wasn't that you believed she should have been able to pass along the millions to her children while receiving care at the expense of society then I don't see how it was relevant.

humanrebar 12y ago
It's not my grandmother. I just thought the downvotes were uncalled for. And I think your threshold for what's a reasonable estate is both arbitrary and too low. $5 million sounds like a lot, but give it a decade. Many family businesses are already valued over $5 million. Should functioning businesses be liquidated because the founder died? Soon, family homes in places like NYC, SF, and DC will be within spitting distance of $5 million. Should the family have to get a new mortgage or move because grandma died? Besides, I don't have confidence that the general fund of the federal government would better spend that money than someone seeking health and indirectly pouring money into better medical science and technology.