Get Rid of the Estate Tax Completely, But Use the Original Cost Basis for Valuation

It makes sense my assets should flow freely to the next of kin, or whomever I designate.

The estate tax is fundamentally immoral, in my opinion: assets that I have accumulated over my life with after-tax dollars should be able to freely change hands when I die. Why should an asset that I bequeath suddenly be treated like income for the person who inherits it? I just don't see how that makes sense, and it can force my heirs to make undesirable moves, such as selling assets into a weak market to raise the money to cover the estate tax.

However, another the part of estate law that is equally illogical is how the cost basis changes to the value of an asset at the time of the inheritance.

For example, if I buy a house today for $250K and leave it to my next of kin in 30 years fully paid off and worth $500K he can sell it immediately and pay zero capital gains tax on the sale because the IRS allows him to report that the house cost him $500K, not $250K.

This is fundamentally illogical -- why should the cost basis change if I originally only paid $250K? My next of kin didn't buy the house from me, he simply inherited it.

Currently, estates smaller than $5.34 million are exempt from federal estate tax, which means that my next of kin could inherit my house for free and sell it for free, too, but if I sell it before I die the sale is subject to tax. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.

So, while I support elimination of the estate tax for estates of any size, I strongly believe that the cost basis for any assets in estates of all sizes should reflect the value at which the assets were originally acquired, not the value when they are inherited.

Anthem Protests by Players Not A Free Speech Issue

A good coach is always on the side of his player.

I understand why NFL players choose to kneel during the National Anthem, and it is not because they do not love America. To the contrary, it is BECAUSE they love America that they do it. America is a great country that is rich with great opportunity. It also has a very dark history, the vestiges of which live on. That is why, in the wake of the #BlackLivesMatter movement that successfully focused attention on racial profiling and the use of excessive force, athletes want to keep the spotlight focused on these lingering problems so that we can engage as a nation in a discussion about how to police effectively without unneccesary hurt and insult.

That being said, if the team owners and the league want them to stand for the national anthem, then they must stand for the national anthem. Standing for the national anthem is a part of their job, just as wearing the uniform that they are given to wear and adhering to a lengthy code of conduct is part of their job.

Can you imagine if a worker at Chik Fil A comes to work with a big anti-abortion pin on her shirt and refuses to take it off? Should they or should they not be fired? Do they have a free speech right to use the exposure that they get as cashier to lobby on behalf of their personal beliefs? No, they do not.

That is why I have been puzzled by the constant vacillation on the part of the owners and the league with regard to the issue of players kneeling. It's really not that complicated; the player is either doing his job and following the rules or he is not. It is not his place to co-opt the anthem to express his own political beliefs or anything else, for that matter.

However, in my opinion, these players are not unpatriotic. It is unpatriotic to turn a blind eye to behavior that runs afoul of our constitutional and civil rights as Americans. It is unpatriotic to not strive to make America a better place, which is exactly what they are trying to do by kneeling down during the anthem.