Better to simply abandon conservatism, (and the canard of taxation as punishment) altogether.

From a report to Congress:

Evidence suggests, however, that only a small fraction of estates with small or
family business interests have paid the estate tax (about 3.5% for businesses in
general, and 5% for farmers, compared to 2% for all estates). Recent estimates
suggest that only a tiny fraction of family owned businesses (less than ½ of 1%) are subject to the estate tax but do not have readily available resources to pay the tax. Thus, while the estate tax may be a burden on those families, the problem is confined to a small group.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-7805:1

Cheers!
JzB the librull trombonist

There are literally hundreds of valid points in support of and against estate tax and yet he manages to make NONE of them…

But as a side note, are you suggesting that those small sole proprietor businesses who are hardest hit by this tax (seeing as they, unlike corporations, pass down the business and all the capital investment in it rather than just income and personal property) should be punished because the "moved your job to Indonesia"? Last time I checked, not a lot of small businesses had enough capital to a) buy foreign holdings b) ship goods to the U.S. and c) hire all the lawyers needed to deal with the legal mess caused by a and b. Or wait… maybe you want to punish them because their children are being handed millions in assets that they will then use to create jobs and buy products in the U.S.

Now obviously, anyone who "owns" a corporation (i.e. their stock, not capital investment) would by happy to be rid of the estate tax, allowing their kids keep all of their "unearned income". One can certainly argue that making the rich who own (basically) only liquid assets pay most of it at death provides social benefit by making the kids create new wealth. Isn't it silly, though, to make family businesses either keep up to half of their assets liquid (and thus not creating jobs, and not creating demand for goods because they can't spend it) or requiring the the whole or part of the family business be liquidated each generation to pay off a large tax?

I would think that just letting those businesses be would be much more economically optimal. Its a simple fix too. You just make an exception for property necessary for the family business. Sure there would be legal loop-holes, but saving so much economic growth while still punishing the job exporters you so love to hate would be worth it.

I think that is called a reSTATEment.

Cheers!
JzB the amateur philologist