Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aisling207 t1_jbhft7l wrote

My point was that even the Fed recognizes that taxing all estates/inheritances regardless of size is unfair. You are arguing for a regressive tax. A widow/er who would lose their income or right to be buried with a previous spouse by remarrying should not be forced to sell their house to pay the state if their partner dies. A person without children should not be penalized for wanting to provide for the time and expenses of an unrelated caregiver.

1

psychcaptain t1_jbhg399 wrote

A widow only loses the benefits if they get married before age 60.

Do you know a lot of 50 year Widows living off their dead spouses Social Security Benefits?

We aren't talking about 75 year Meredith, we are talking about 50 year Sandra's, who should get a job.

And if they are disabled at 50, and getting DIB, they also keep their Spouses benefits.

−1

Aisling207 t1_jbhi6f2 wrote

Look, it’s really not your business to tell anyone to get a job. But realistically, yes, we ARE talking about 75 year old Meredith, who relies on a pension and cannot remarry, but who met a nice person she’d like to be with, but would lose that pension and the ability to be buried with her first spouse if she remarried. She and her partner own a house together. Or maybe she and her sister own the house. If that person dies, she owes PA a big check, which forces her to sell. Plus she has to turn over part of her bank accounts.

We really aren’t talking about Real Housewives of Altoona or Paris Hilton or whatever.

1