The only person I’ve read articulating a position similar to mine is actor Jeremy Irons. I don’t want to marry my sister (and my husband is very happy to hear that); all I want to do, in principle, is accumulate as much property during my lifetime as I can and upon my death, leave  my estate to my sister unencumbered by the payment of Federal estate taxes.

My husband and I do not have children so over the years we’ve discussed what living & financial arrangements I might establish should he die before I do. One arrangement we’ve discussed is entering into a private contract with my sister. She is divorced from her husband. Upon my death and in my will, I’d make a provision for my sister to inherit my estate. However, unless my sister and I are “married” or my estate is less than $5 million dollars, she’d be forced to pay Federal estate taxes as the named beneficiary of my property.

Is it too much to ask of the Political Class that they have the ability to recognize Federal estate tax implications when they see them? All I want to do is have the freedom to accumulate as much property as I can, live with my sister and upon my death leave my estate to her unencumbered by the payment of Federal estate taxes without being forced to “marry” her.

Do we not have courageous men and women willing and able to recognize & articulate an argument in support of abolishing the Federal estate tax instead of stifling the freedom to privately contract & forcing two sisters into a “marriage” they don’t want in order to avoid the payment of those estate taxes?  Marriage is between one man and one woman; Progressive Democrats and Liberal Republicans want to change the definition. Tell them NO.