I can certainly understand how Leona Helmsley leaving $8 billion to her dogs is outrageous, but this NYT op-ed by Boston College Professor Ray D. Maddoff really must be read to be believed:

The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy from the federal government. The government, in effect, makes itself a partner in every charitable bequest … We should not give a blank check to support the whims of the wealthy. There should be a limit — a dollar amount or a percentage of the estate — on the estate tax charitable deduction. People could still give to charity as they like, but after a point they would be giving after-tax dollars. The deduction should be lower for bequests to private foundations than for money given directly to good causes. We should also stop subsidizing immortality. Private foundations should be required to spend more of their assets on charitable work, even if it threatens their perpetual existence.

So the government “subsidizes” charitable bequests by not confiscating a portion of the money that was a private citizen’s to begin with and they already paid taxes on as they earned it? That’s a pretty creative definition of subsidy, no? Also, “The deduction should be lower for bequests to private foundations than for money given directly to good causes”? What government agency will determine what “a good cause” is?

Overall, I think Madoff may have unintentionally made the case that the billions are better off being spent on Helmsley’s dogs than with the government.

(Via Jon Henke)