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.

There really are not practical ways for the vast majority of people to avoid the inheritance tax.

Oh, cool, I see we’ve moved into the ASSumption phase here. News flash: not all Silent Generation and Baby Boomers voted GOP. Not all of them lived in PA for their entire voting/working lives.

Social security is one thing. Pensions are absolutely lost upon remarriage. And the thing is, half of one’s expenses don’t disappear when one spouse dies. Some expenses decrease, but not all, and often not by half. And some widowed spouses are caring for minor children.

But, whatever. The fact is that one half of an unmarried couple, whether it is a romantic couple, relatives or roommates should not have to lose their home to pay the state when someone dies.

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.

I’m very familiar with pensions, including civil service, military, and private company pensions, as well as social security, thanks to helping several older relatives deal with their reduced pensions and social security benefits upon the death of a spouse. I honestly have no idea what you mean by “double dipping” or “last resort.” Do you know any retirees or widows?

Perhaps you think everyone should have an IRA or 401(k)? Well, many current retirees spent their main working years before those were the main way to save for retirement. And many people spent years out of the workforce caring for children or elderly relatives (for no pay).

It’s easy to be unsympathetic to hypothetical situations. When you actually see people struggling, it gets real.

So, substantially less than $1 billion.

You have that completely backwards. A Roth IRA has already had federal taxes withheld and withdrawals are not taxed. 401(k)s contributions and gains are not taxed by the Feds until withdrawal.

And no one is “giving” anyone “more” by abolishing inheritance tax.

So a widow trying to scrape by on a pension they’d lose if they remarry is gaming the system? I guess widows should retreat into perpetual mourning and never find another relationship to satisfy your “sympathy” requirements. Good grief. Literally.

Oh, boy.

I never said “unmarried for tax reasons,” I pointed out that many widows/widowers will lose all of their pension and social security benefits if they remarry. That’s not about taxes, it’s about survival.

The Fed absolutely does tax 401(k) benefits.

Found families are taxed at 15% by PA. Lineal descendants are taxed at 4.5%, siblings at 12%. So yes, they are absolutely treated differently.

That’s a very uninformed comment. Some people would lose pension and/or social security benefits that they need to live on if they remarry. Or the ability to be buried with a military vet former spouse.

The money has already been taxed. If the Feds don’t tax it, why should PA? Plus it unfairly punishes unmarried couples and found family.

The person who pays the tax is the person who inherits. If one half of an unmarried couple dies, the other owes PA 15% of their partner’s share of their home and bank accounts.

Which makes it a tax that falls disproportionately on those without the means to afford those options.

And most people won’t do those because they lose control of their assets.

It applies to everyone, not just wealthy people. And it disproportionally affects unmarried people and people without children.

Except it applies to everyone, even if the estate is $1.

Not true. A living trust avoids probate, but does not shield assets from inheritance tax.

I’d love to see a source on that estimate. As for lawyers’ fees, that’s bs; you can’t avoid it. And there’s no amount exempt; you pay it if your estate is $10 or $10 million.

I don’t know why the PA death tax doesn’t get more attention!