18 Families Bankroll Estate Tax Repeal Campaign
The 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax (aka the Paris Hilton Tax) on heirs of the super wealthy has been financed and coordinated by just 18 families, according to a new report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy.
The families include “the candy magnate Mars family, Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, Kochs of Koch Industries and Dorrance family of the Campbell’s Soup Co.” Together, they are worth a total of $185.5 billion. The estate tax repeal would “collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.”
Bending to the will of these families, House and Senate conservatives are proposing to permanently repeal the estate tax — or seek a “compromise” that is nearly as bad — even though such a move would cost over three quarters of a trillion dollars in the next decade. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has promised a vote on repeal in May.
Meanwhile, a new poll finds that 57 percent favor reforming or leaving alone the estate tax; only 23 percent back repealing it. And for good reason: Americans are about four times as likely to be hit by lightning than to have to pay estate taxes on small businesses or farms.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Is an accompanying photo of that skank really necessary? Bleeech.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:21 pmThe framers of our constitution did not want an American Royalty. That is why they wanted an estate tax, to prevent the kind of inbred ruling class that was prevelant in Europe. It only takes a glance at the tabloids to see the American Royalty they were so worried about. The in-breeding may yet be proved, if IQ is any measure.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:24 pmActually, I thnought the estate tax was brought about because families such as the Rockefellers (sp?), JP Morgan, the standard oil family, and there was one more family that I cannot think of at the moment, held the majority of the wealth and there was concern over the concentration of wealth in too few families for generations.
That is what I learned in my Anti-trust class anyway.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:32 pmThat’s Hot.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:33 pm“That is why they wanted an estate tax”
I see no reference to an estate tax in the constitution.
Being able to gift your assets to your children upon your death without the taxman taking a chunk of it is something we’ll all agree on - unless we’re talking about the superwealthy.
Putting things like the estate tax into the tax code are politically good because you can 1. bash rich people and 2. there aren’t many people rich enough for this to target.
The issue is, as Nico notes, that people with a vested interest in some narrow issue will advocate for it extensively.
Sugar producers do this, for example. Lifting the protection they receive (which hurts all sugar consuming americans and third-world countries who would be potential exporters) is not something that is palpatable to them. So they give lots of money. And these sugar producers are dominated by giant ‘estates’ in the US - not family farmers.
I’d favor a progressive tax on inheritances. Since most of the tax code is progressive (although there are regressive elements) it’d be in the ’spirit’ of things. Somehow I don’t think us ordinary folks would be that happy though - even if we know the rich folks are losing a larger percentage.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:36 pmLoves it!
April 25th, 2006 at 4:37 pm“#
Actually, I thnought the estate tax was brought about because families such as the Rockefellers (sp?), JP Morgan, the standard oil family, and there was one more family that I cannot think of at the moment, held the majority of the wealth and there was concern over the concentration of wealth in too few families for generations.
That is what I learned in my Anti-trust class anyway. ”
That’s the same impression I got in my anti-trust courses.
I just wanted to note that Hilton is not going to get anything near a billion dollar inheritance. She used (and helped create) the image that she was, but in reality she’s going to make more off her TV/ads/design/general whoring of herself than she will when dad and mom die.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:40 pmThe estate tax should be kept in place (if anyone’s wondering, I will be directly affected through my wife’s family.) One way of thinking of this is that families that have become super wealthy are partly in the position they are because of the U.S. infrastructure and economy. These folks owe something back to the country that helped them get where they are. Otherwise, the Waltons could just have easily tried to start Wal-Mart in a country with a far lower tax burden. They instead started and kept the operation here.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:44 pmThe frame the Right uses is a very good one. They call it the Death Tax. You will be hearing this tax called that a lot from now till the vote. Very few would have to pay the inheritance tax but we’ll all surely die. This frame may be what slants the outcome in thier direction.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:44 pmThe estate tax is progressive….sort of. It reaches the top rate (currently 46%) rather quickly. There is an exclusion amount. An estate of 2,000,000 is currently exempt from Estate taxes. Estate taxes are not inheritance taxes. Inheritance taxes are imposed on the individual who receives the funds. An estate tax is imposed on the estate.
There are also generation skipping taxes…..but that is for another day! :)
April 25th, 2006 at 4:44 pmThe estate tax should be reformed such that the initial exemption is raised to what it would have been had it been indexed for inflation starting in, say, circa 1970. The rate should also then be brought down to the highest marginal income tax rate (the estate tax rate is 55%, which to me is too hight). To compensate somewhat, all assets based onto heirs would have their tax basis set to zero (whereas now the tax basis is stepped up to FMV at the time of death).
April 25th, 2006 at 4:45 pmI take that back, Jules is right the rate is now down to ~46%.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:47 pm18 Families Bankroll Estate Tax Repeal Campaign…
To no one’s surprise, they also happen to be the richest 18 families in America……
April 25th, 2006 at 4:48 pmHardy Haberman makes a good point. The framers of our constitution wanted fareness but if we look closely everything has moved to one side. I feel that if this is allowed to continue, the Middle Class will cease to exist simply because they can’t afford to pay for everything. Why this may have happened is because money rules, espeially when you have a badly corupt Federal Government all the way down to local Governments. Usually when behavior is fully out of control, that is when “many†things surface to be very obvious. Currently, things are so obvious that it appears that we are beyond “many†to more like “allâ€.
I used to hear that you could buy “anything†you wanted in Chicago, but now it’s more like you can buy “anything” from our Federal Government, just bring money and they’ll come running!
April 25th, 2006 at 4:49 pmI stand corrected, the estate tax was first levied in 1916. The founding fathers were adamant that political power should not be hereditary.
For more nifo check out the book Wealth and Our Commonwealth
April 25th, 2006 at 4:49 pmConsidering that the value in estates consist mostly of invested money, wouldn’t we get a better return over the long run if we left that money alone to work by being invested in companies instead of wasting it by letting the government spend it?
April 25th, 2006 at 4:53 pm#16 - that would defeat the purpose of the estate tax. When it was created it was thought that it would be better to circulate it within the “public domain” rather than languish in trusts.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:56 pmAlright now - first the FOX Spring Break boobie shots and now the Paris Hilton boobie shot… don’t we women get something better than Jabba the Exxon Hut or The Six Flags geezer? How about a sexy shot of Johnny Depp or Matthew McConaughey for the girls at T.P.? I mean that photo of Paris really isn’t necessary either.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:57 pmI am a hetero guy, and I don’t think we needed the photo of Paris Hilton either. I am just not into girls who look like 12 year old boys. I will leave that for DHS officials.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:00 pmIt was the Walmart heir, Elizabeth Paige Laurie, that cheated in school, and hired someone to do her work (she was too busy partying). The parents were so proud of her, they donated funds to another University and wanted it named after her. I know she finally gave back her degree after she was caught, but I haven’t heard what happened to the stadium naming. I wish our Representatives could do what is right for the country, and not because they received a sweaty fistful of money and other gifts.
Then there was the heir of Max Factor, who drugged women and rapped them, when he was surfing. When he was caught, he took off and became a fugitive, until he was caught again.
Oprah had this whole show on “drop-out” nation. We aren’t spending enough money on schools so kids are dropping out. Well, what was Paris Hilton’s excuse. She finally got her GED (hopefully she studied and didn’t just pay for it), but it wasn’t as if her family could not have afforded the best schools of any sort.
I’m with Bill Gate’s father and Warren Buffett. Each generation should stand on its own, and contribute to society.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#16— It is also a tax on non-earned income. The people receiving the money have not added anything of value to society in return for this money. They are simply fortunately to be born to the right family. Having them pay something to the society which has allowed them to be wealthy isn’t a burden on any of them. It’s simply a matter of greed….nothing especially complex about wanting to keep $billions of dollars you didn’t earn.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pmConsidering that the value in estates consist mostly of invested money, wouldn’t we get a better return over the long run if we left that money alone to work by being invested in companies instead of wasting it by letting the government spend it?
Comment by Tracy — April 25, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
Companies that will incorporate outside the US to dodge paying taxes, you mean? Think Enron. Next you’ll be arguing for investing Social Security funds in these tax-dodging companies!
April 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm#18 - Paris Hilton boobie shot Where?
I’d go for a sexy shot of/at Viggo Mortenson. Mmmm.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:06 pmPut up a picture of any NBA team, NFL team, or MLB team.
The people on those teams are paid tens of millions of dollars.
Maybe a picture of Tiger Woods too.
It is super wealthy people that want a repeal of the estate tax; not somebody who has a million or two dollars. You know, those well-heeled gazillionaires that fly private jets, have private yachts that cost 52 million dollars and feed consumerism.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:07 pmI am against the Estate Tax myself (I know, I know shocking Tundra do tell us why!). Also there is no way I will ever be effected by it.
The argument that normally comes with it is: These folks owe something back to the country that helped them get where they are. (Stealing from 8 there)
If I invented a widget and began manufacturing it. I pay taxes for the fuels I use, the products I need, the land my buildings are on, the advertising, on every phone call I make Every employee I have pays taxes ((Provided I can keep my little company in America thanks Nafta)). I pay taxes on the payroll to myself. Now we are saying and because you were so good at it and turned a bigger profit, give us more money. To me it just seems like a success penalty (Trust me I am no Paris Hilton fan either mainlt cause she lacks child rearing hips :)
April 25th, 2006 at 5:12 pmI’d go for a sexy shot of/at Viggo Mortenson. Mmmm.
Comment by Zookeeper — April 25, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
She’s pointing at what I think is one of her boobies. She might have some if she’d eat on occasion.
Viggo works as well. We could go with him. Especially when he was in G.I. Jane.
I’m starting to get hungry….
April 25th, 2006 at 5:13 pm(Trust me I am no Paris Hilton fan either mainlt cause she lacks child rearing hips :)
Comment by Tundra — April 25, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Seriously, how many more children do you need? I think you’ve exceeded your quota already. :)
April 25th, 2006 at 5:15 pmNo Tundra. You’re dead. We’re not asking you to pay shit.
We’re asking your lazy ass trust-fund children to pay taxes on their lucky ducky genepool lottery winnings.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:16 pmWe’re asking your lazy ass trust-fund children to pay taxes on their lucky ducky genepool lottery winnings.
So if you were born into alot of money you would be a Lazy ass or if you earned alot your kids would be?
April 25th, 2006 at 5:31 pm27
Seriously, how many more children do you need? I think you’ve exceeded your quota already. :)
Well, only one is really mine. I married a single mother so no I don’t have the teens anymore, they went with her :)
April 25th, 2006 at 5:33 pmThe estate tax repeal would “collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.â€
For the eighteen families, this would represent about $4b per family. Not bad at all.
I disagree that the estate tax is a success penalty: The heirs contributed little or nothing to this massive accumulation of capital.
Like I’ve said before, one of the problems in many poor countries is precisely the huge accumulation of capital in a few hands (ThinkProgress had a thread not long ago on Equatorial Guinea’s strongman and his hold on that country’s economy). The people who have their hands in the money pit are not exactly keen on sharing it. The estate tax allows for the funding of public works, low-income housing, and many other things that help alleviate the plight of the poor.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:46 pm#16
“Having them pay something to the society which has allowed them to be wealthy isn’t a burden on any of them.”
So, AGAIN you think that sociey would get a better return on their investment by letting the government spend it instead of letting that money work in the market by being invested in private companies? You would favor the government as your vehicle of choice to provide for society a decent return/ benefit?
April 25th, 2006 at 5:51 pmgrrrrr…snap….grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
April 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pmTinkerbell is pissed…
So if you were born into alot of money you would be a Lazy ass or if you earned alot your kids would be?
You would be if you expected something for nothing, like it was a god-given right for you to have compete access to the largesse your parents bestowed upon. One most people couldn’t spend in a lifetime. One that you had not worked one day for.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:54 pm#22
“Companies that will incorporate outside the US to dodge paying taxes, you mean?”
No.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:55 pmTracy you are not getting it. The reason the estate tax was enacted was to avoid having the majority of the wealth tied up in just a few families. It has nothing to do with who could make better use of the money.
As Gregor wrote: “The heirs contributed little or nothing to this massive accumulation of capital. “
April 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm34
You would be if you expected something for nothing, like it was a god-given right for you to have compete access to the largesse your parents bestowed upon. One most people couldn’t spend in a lifetime. One that you had not worked one day for.
So if it was you or your kids would you qualify? Personally I do not know any of their kids and wouldn’t say that they are all bad apples. Heck I wouldn’t go as far to say that none of them spend large amounts of time and resources helping charities etc.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pmI think the issue with any tax revenue is the way that is spent. Tracy do you think the current revenues from the treasury, specifically income taxes, are spent properly? So are you saying investment income should be taxed differently than earned income? I’d be all for a flat 5% investment income if all the revenue went to the Dept. of Education. What would you qualify as discretionary income, random wars to protect Petromonarchies?
April 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pmI could be very wrong about this, but I was under the impression that one of the reasons for continuing to have an estate tax is because the super-rich families had ways of avoiding paying taxes on much of that money while they were alive (you know, all kinds of “tax-deferred” savings). So the estate tax became a way of catching up with them once they could no longer be around to shelter the money from taxes. But I admit that I may have heard that wrong.
Something interesting that I’ve heard (and yes, I have denounced polls before), it was estimated that around 19% of the population thought they were in the “top 1%” of income earners. So even though Democrats told people that certain taxes they proposed would only affect people in the top 1% of income, nineteen times as many people thought it would apply to them. They should really give out raw numbers instead of percentages if they want to convince people.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:00 pm‘EFF ME! That is an s- load of money for just 18 families!! I can’t believe it is possible that just 18 mother-scratchin’ families could have such a terrible impact on the rest of our nation.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:00 pmThis is not a majority-rule gov’ment if you ask me. BUSH TAX-CUTS MUST GO!!!
36
The reason the estate tax was enacted was to avoid having the majority of the wealth tied up in just a few families.
It’s like saying instead of discriminating against you because of your race, national origin, sexual orientation or gender we are going to discriminate against your last name. You are asking them to do something you do not ask anyone else strictly because of how/who they were born/to.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:02 pm#17
If there wasn’t an estate tax that money wouldn’t “languish” in trusts because there wouldn’t be a need to use them to pay the estate tax in the first place. People who have inherited estates don’t take the money an put it under their pillow and use at their leisure. It usually remains in money market accounts or other investment vehicles to circulate thru the “public domain” as you say. The public domain isn’t just the government treasury and that sure isn’t, BY FAR, the most efficient domain for it to be circulating anyway.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:08 pmTundra - actually that is pretty close to true. The estate tax hits a very, very, very small percentage of the population so congess has not really messed with it in the past. That is until this administration. They and their “base” will be hit so they want to eliminate it.
Personally, I have no problem with the estate tax. There are ways to establish trusts and legal ways to remove assets to pass along funds to future generations. These people will never be crying poor, so I have a very difficult time feeling sorry for them.
Besides, even Bill Gates, arguably the person whose estate will be hit the hardest agress we should keep the estate tax in place.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:12 pmHere we go again… those rich folks just won’t give up until the own the planet. There is never enough money for them. We pay taxes and they don’t because they pay Congressmen and Congresswomen.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:14 pmthe BEST part of this post was the way it formatted on my computer: the picture of the uberskank hilton had the text “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist” DIRECTLY under it. True, true…………….
April 25th, 2006 at 6:20 pmJust interesting reading on Bill Gates. Love him or hate him he does contribute quite a bit.
(It’s an old link but the point remains)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/gates1.html
Gates has always said that, like Carnegie, he will give away most of his fortune before he dies. He plans to make sure his children are well taken care of but doesn’t want to leave them the burden of tremendous wealth.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:27 pm#25 tundra - “If I invented a widget and began manufacturing it. I pay taxes for the fuels I use, the products I need, the land my buildings are on, the advertising, on every phone call I make…”
don’t forget - you also get to deduct those as expenses…tax breaks…
April 25th, 2006 at 6:31 pmNot Name Tundra but your right to give huge sums of money to the likes of the Walton and Hilton children………forming an American aristocracy, which would cause political changes over generations because of the vast accumilation of wealth into larger gfroups of related families who would at some time gain a large control over the economic system….instead break it up each generation a bit and give every generation a better chance…common good you know
April 25th, 2006 at 6:32 pmlet them estate babys spend their own money and leave our tax income alone.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:35 pm47
don’t forget - you also get to deduct those as expenses…tax breaks…
Ahhh, I like taking that away better. If trucking companies had to pay the same taxes on gas and couldn’t deduct it the price would go down (The price of transportation would go up as well noted) but then corporations wouldn’t get all of the breaks they do now and would be on the same footing as individuals. Same for “Cost of doing business breaks” I don’t get a break for using my phone as an individual why should a company?
Quit allowing the corporations all of the free rides and leave the individual stuff alone.
I haven’t thought it out too much there are most likely huge holes here but thanks for the thinking point for me Katy (Keeps the mind going)!
April 25th, 2006 at 6:40 pmTundra, you should try moving to a ‘fairer’ country, where .03% of the people control 96% of the wealth (to inhumane effect, I might add).
April 25th, 2006 at 6:42 pm#36
“The reason the estate tax was enacted was to avoid having the majority of the wealth tied up in just a few families.”
Times have changed since the estate tax was enacted and FAR more famlies are affected today then back then evidenced by the fact that the minimum limit at only $2 million. Remember that almost all small businesses (those the create most of the job in the U.S.) which are usually sole proprietorships, are many times created and run by those that would probably be affected by the current estate tax.
“It has nothing to do with who could make better use of the money.”
That may not be it’s intent, but it is a tool used by government to ATTEMPT to redistribute wealth. The federal governement has a very POOR record for doing this.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:44 pmI love it when my husband and I have to work like the devil to survive but the rich can live off their dividends. Do the rich spend enough to help our economy? No.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pm#52 They have a better record than Pam Am, TWA, Penn Central, Chrysler, GM, Delphi, Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, REA, and a whole host of other large corporations that couldn’t think, but before Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 the federal government did a fairly good job at keeping the books somewhere in balance, but now they are following the example I have already stated…..
April 25th, 2006 at 6:52 pmTracy - there are a lot of sections in the code to help alleviate the “pain” on small business. In addition, any small busiiness with assets greater than $2mil beter have a succession plan. For example, there are key man policies on the owner/president/CEO whatever they would like to call themselves to either assist the company in purchasing the shares from the family upon death (keeps the business a going concern with others running it). These are owned by the business itself. Many, if not all, sole proprietorships end with the first generation. The majority of the heirs just want the money. Insurance can be purchased so the estate does not have to have a “fire sale” of the business as the taxes need to be paid within 9 months of death.
There are special code sections for farms and other business use land so a family does not need to sell this.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:54 pmTimes have changed since the estate tax was enacted and FAR more famlies are affected today then back then evidenced by the fact that the minimum limit at only $2 million.
Comment by Tracy — April 25, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
From the IRS’ website:
Q: What is the Estate Tax?
(…)
After the net amount is computed, the value of lifetime taxable gifts (beginning with gifts made in 1977) is added to this number and the tax is computed. The tax is then reduced by the available unified credit. Presently, the amount of this credit reduces the computed tax so that only total taxable estates and lifetime gifts that exceed $1,000,000 will actually have to pay tax. In its current form, the estate tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans.
Estate Tax Questions
From factcheck.org:
Contrary to ad’s claim that “your family” might be crippled, the vast majority of families actually are not affected by the estate tax. In fact, less than 3 percent of deceased adults in 2002 had estates subject to the tax, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and figures from the IRS.
April 25th, 2006 at 6:56 pmAnd though the ad focuses on family farms and businesses, the truth is that very few actually pay the estate tax. (…)
The fact is that repealing the estate tax entirely, as the ad advocates, would benefit mostly non-farmers and non-business-owners.
Misleading ads exaggerate what the tax costs farmers, small businesses and “your family.”
Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly-traded securities, small amounts of other easily-valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly-held property) with a total value under $1,000,000 do not require the filing of an estate tax return. The amount was $1,500,000 in 2004 and 2005. For 2006 through 2008, the amount is raised to $2,000,000.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:00 pmThanks Gregor - that info at #57 came from his link to the IRS website. I do not have this crap memorized.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:02 pm#38
“Tracy do you think the current revenues from the treasury, specifically income taxes, are spent properly?”
Income tax revenue, like ALL other tax revenue, is put into the general revenue fund. There are no earmark rules for federal income tax revenues. I think that the U.S. government wastes so much money each year, that if taxes like the estate tax for example were abolished, and the IRS tax code simplified from it’s current 6 MILLION word format, we could probably reduces everyone’s taxes by almost 1/3.
“So are you saying investment income should be taxed differently than earned income?”
It already is.
“I’d be all for a flat 5% investment income if all the revenue went to the Dept. of Education.”
I would be all for a flat federal income tax of say 15% with no deductions.
“What would you qualify as discretionary income, random wars to protect Petromonarchies?”
Definitely!…however, the funding of the U.S. military is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:04 pm54
but before Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 the federal government did a fairly good job at keeping the books somewhere in balance,
Don’t forget NAFTA here (Can’t let any of them off). It didn’t help keep working families in fair wage jobs.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:05 pminherited corporate wealth is far and away the greatest present threat to our american political system.
for the last twenty-five years, the virtually unlimited amount of money available to individuals with inherited corporate wealth has funded repeated destructive assaults on our public discourse, our judicial system, our presidency, and, i would guess we will learn in time, on our congress.
consider:
– the creation of right wing “think” tanks (more aptly intellectual septic tanks) like cato institute, hoover institute, american enterprise institute, who have created and laundered right-wing propaganda into our public discourse
– the 6 year attack (1992-1996) on pres clinton that lead to his impeachment, only the second in our history, and totally unjustified as a constitutional necessity
–the creation and grossly misnamed “federalist society” with its silent agenda of recruiting and patiently promoting extreme rigtht-wing judges for the purpose of at least paralyzing, if not taking over, the federal judicial system
– the attack on the estate tax documented here at think progress by public citizen and united for a fair economy.
inherited corporate wealth has sought to undermine our political system, our constitution, and our political leadership for twenty five dangerous years.
if the 200+ year only american government is to survive into the future is must find ways to deal with this powerful and insidious enemy of our democracy.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:07 pmTundra - how can you say that after all the jobs Bushs administration created? Oh yeah, cause they were all at Wal-Mart!
April 25th, 2006 at 7:07 pmTundra I was talking about the handling of funds and the fact it has been only since the repug revolution our government has spent like a drunken sailor while borrowing like a junkie……..seem the repugs like it that way.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:11 pm62
Tundra - how can you say that after all the jobs Bushs administration created? Oh yeah, cause they were all at Wal-Mart!
Bush is as much of a putz as the rest of them. I personally don’t trust any politician who can sit there with mass cash in the bank having the nerve to tell me that they know how to better spend my money. Hmmmmm before you tax me get rid of your own little fortune. Get rid of your little New York Penhouses, Your Dallas Ranches, your beautiful cars and huge book deals. Then start telling me how you need more of my modest income to help someone else.
Why limit the estate tax to 2 million? why not move it across the board?
April 25th, 2006 at 7:16 pmwell, seeing paris makes it a bit more difficult to do anything she wouldn’t like…
April 25th, 2006 at 7:16 pmquiet everyone, and let Paris finish what she’s doing… I see an “accidental” nipple slip about to happen…
April 25th, 2006 at 8:00 pm“Americans are about four times as likely to be hit by lightning than to have to pay estate taxes”
Now THATS a statistic!! We can take them on like the Social Security Scam they tried to cram down our throats.
You’d only have to repeat that stat, and people would say “Hmm, you know, that’s f-ed up!”
Like Bill Mahar says “Who’s against taxing dead rich people?!?! How do the Republicans get away with this stuff?”
April 25th, 2006 at 9:21 pmaddendum to previous comments above.
to add another concern:
the number of individuals who have access to the deep, deep pools of of individual inherited corporate wealth
is only going to increase in the coming years.
why?
because of enormous payments to some large corporation ceo’s and other high officials,
and.
to exceptional athletes.
for every famous name at present - “coors”, “walton”,
there will now be hundreds MORE who have the financial means and the motive to suborn the american constitution and political system.
certainly,
it is appropriate to appreciate inherited corporate wealth which benefits society,
say,
the getty museum (j. paul getty)
the ford foundation (guess who)
the carnegie endowment for peace (old andy’s money)
the kennedy and roosevelt for their contributions of human capital
the bill and melanie gates foundation (for disease eradication?- i work from memory).
but for every one of these these,
there is at least one self-serving,
i-got-mine-sucker-now-you-get-yours
ICW (inherited corporate wealth) individual
who is willing to put money, lots of money,
into one or another silent political scheme
to benefit himself/herself
at the expense of hundreds of millions of his/her fellow citizens.
the appropriate response seems to me to be:
if you benefit,
you are not permitted to destroy!
the “policy” question is, how to work that out.
one simple solution is that there be no tolerance for the passing on of large sum of money from one generation to another.
personally,
i’m for that solution.
how much money does one, plus one’s children and grand-children, need to live well?
one hundred million?
ok.
you can keep that much.
one hundred fifty million?
ok.
you can keep that much.
beyond that;
you must spend the money in your lifetime for public benefit or forfeit it.
this is a first, rough draft of thinking.
anybody got other ideas?
the key point is:
no matter how remarkably constructed the american constitution and the american political system is,
it is highly vulnerable to sabotage
by very large, individually controlled sums of inherited corporate wealth.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:37 pmIf the Congress helps billionaires to avoid paying the estate taxes, then our nation will go further into the hole and average Americans will end up being taxed more to make up for the loss of revenue! The wealthy have to pay their share of taxes or like the French we might have to guillitine them!
April 25th, 2006 at 9:55 pmThere should never have been an estate tax for any wealth/property under a couple million dollars, but billionaires should have to pay it > PERIOD. The Congress is very sneaky so make sure the new law does not penalize average Americans inherited wealth, while letting the ultra rich off with a free ride?!
April 25th, 2006 at 10:02 pmCongress is basically a millionaire club especially the senate…….can we say self serving?
April 25th, 2006 at 10:21 pmMany, many wild comments on this thread …
These folks owe something back to the country that helped them get where they are.
Here’s the first jewel of a comment. They “owe something” … how’s that exactly? You have exaclty the same opportunities as they do … I suppose then that you “owe” something upon your death as well … I know, let’s just tax everyone 50% or so when they die … after all, the country did facilitate ALL those earnings.
The framers of our constitution wanted fareness but if we look closely everything has moved to one side. I feel that if this is allowed to continue, the Middle Class will cease to exist simply because they can’t afford to pay for everything.
This one is great as well. Despite your fears to the contrary, the middle class has been expanding, especially among minorities. Appearantly, people will believe a statement more readily if one says the “framers” agree with it.
It is also a tax on non-earned income.
Uhm, hello … it’s called an estate tax … the tax is on the estate … how do you suppose the estate gained all that capital … they earned it through investments, salary, etc. The effect is certainly on the inheritors, but the tax is most certainly on “earned income” … your statement more closely resembles a capital gains tax when one wins the lottery.
We’re asking your lazy ass trust-fund children to pay taxes on their lucky ducky genepool lottery winnings.
This comment seems rooted in jealousy … “my family is not effected so screw those that are”. And of course, all rich kids are “lazy asses”. QED.
The estate tax allows for the funding of public works, low-income housing, and many other things that help alleviate the plight of the poor.
C’mon Gregor … you’re not one who’s given to tossing around non-sequiters, so why start now? The potential use for the money speaks nothing to the reality … I suppose you’d be OK with the funds going to pay for cruise missles or a nuclear bunker buster as well?
So the estate tax became a way of catching up with them once they could no longer be around to shelter the money from taxes.
Wayne … the rich certainly are creative at avoiding income taxes to a degree … that was one of the reasons the AMT was originally created (and of course there are ways around that as well). However, extreme wealth is often born out of investments of myriad types … situations where taxation is much more difficult to avoid. The tax code does not let people comingle different types of income (capital gains, passive income, and earned income) and losses.
Folks the estate tax/death tax is a classic double dip. While I can understand the sentiment of “tough tarts” they have plenty of freakin money, do we really want to penalize success in this manner? Also note that after 2010 (I’m sure many here have heard of those on life support with instructions to pull the plug on 1/1/10 … no estate tax in 2010), the threashold returns to 1million for indivduals and 2 million for couples … consider the baby boomers just now entering retirement … the number of people with a 2 million dollar estate is about to explode … what was once a staggering amount of money is becoming more common (even in 401Ks) especially given the returns throughout the 90s. I won’t weep for the uber-rich if the estate tax is never repealed, but that doesn’t mean the tax is fair …
Cheers.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:34 pmyou’re not one who’s given to tossing around non-sequiters, so why start now? The potential use for the money speaks nothing to the reality … I suppose you’d be OK with the funds going to pay for cruise missles or a nuclear bunker buster as well?
Comment by Giacomo — April 25, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
I can see why you would get that impression. I was trying to say that tax monies are used to build infrastructure, which directly improves the nation’s quality of life. Tax monies not only pay for roads, public schools, sewage, etc., and other projects that help us all have a high standard of living, but also are used to subsidise low-income housing, homeless shelters, and many other services that have a direct impact on the quality of life of the very poor. Repealing the estate tax would definitely cripple the government’s ability to fund, provide these services. Better?
As for the missiles, well, obviously not. I would rather cut the pork in defense projects.
Folks the estate tax/death tax is a classic double dip. While I can understand the sentiment of “tough tarts†they have plenty of freakin money, do we really want to penalize success in this manner?
I disagree that the estate tax is double taxation. Here is a nice explanation from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Why the Estate Tax is not “Double Taxation”.
I also disagree that this is a penalisation of success. The heirs have to pay the tax, not the people who actually made the money. Here is more on that from that same Center: The Estate Tax: Myth and Realities
(…)what was once a staggering amount of money is becoming more common (even in 401Ks) especially given the returns throughout the 90s. I won’t weep for the uber-rich if the estate tax is never repealed, but that doesn’t mean the tax is fair …
I agree that purchasing power has declined. However, $1mil is still a lot of money -so much, that currently only 2-3% of all filers have to pay the estate tax. Even assuming that the amount of people who will have to pay triples (a huge demographic increase), that would leave 91% of us out.
As for the fairness of the tax, is it fair then that someone who did not have to work for the money should receive such a windfall? Isn’t that, well, un-American?
April 25th, 2006 at 11:18 pmShe looks like a Tramp-o-line.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:54 amFun to Jump on, but you don’t want your friends to see you on it.
After thinking about this for a bit, I have come to a conclusion. The estate tax needs to stay, but it needs to be handled differently. Rather than the funds going to a tax for the government,(where our Traitor in the WH will just give it to Haliburton anyhow) they need to be directly transfered to the All Poor Children Left Behind public education system. Thankfully Bill Gates is taking this task on already having poured over 1Billion of his own money into the public schools nationwide already and counting. Go Bill! I might think you’re a geek and a swarthy businessman…but you are a man unlike the Crook in Chief.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:14 am74
Fun to Jump on, but you don’t want your friends to see you on it.
Do you realize how much my “bimbo value” would go up??
April 26th, 2006 at 3:18 amDo you realize how much my “bimbo value†would go up??
Comment by Tundra — April 26, 2006 @ 3:18 am
I think you mean ‘down’…
April 26th, 2006 at 7:23 amThe Kennedy’s avoided paying $255,000,000.00 in estate tax when Joseph P Kennedy died by moving the money into a pure trust domiciled in Fiji. When Ted pays his taxes so wiil I.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:50 am#78 So you admit that not paying the tax makes you BAD. And, you have 2 milions of dollars? Because if not, you must not pay the tax.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:05 amAnd just tought: the Walton family, of Walmart is one of the great affected by the tax. But republicans argue that, if they don’t get taxed finally, they will invest the money in the USA… let’s see: the greater share of products for sale in Walmart are purchased to China, so the money is invested in China, not the USA. And many, many of the janitors and lower employees (direct or indirect) of Walmart are illegals, because they earn less money and don’t have unions.
Yet, the republicans (the dumber ones, not the rich ones), are against funneling money outside the USA, and against illegal migrants. I see a great incoherency in this approach to a whole political standing.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:11 am#79 After a lifetime of working I have more than 2mill and my heirs will pay the tax if the law requires it. I just have a problem with a pro-estate tax talking head like Ted Kennedy that exempted himself from the law.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:26 amI disagree that the estate tax is double taxation.
I read the article and the author makes some fine points. A couple of points though … 1) Capital Gains WILL be paid on the funds should the inheritor liquidate holdings … the tax basis is the price upon death of the grantor (a huge benefit), but capital gains will still be owed. 2) If the author of the article is going to argue that the effective tax rate would be too low (if the estate tax were changed to 15%), he/she must also concede that 46% to 54% is far too high … especially given that (as he’she does concede) 44% appears to have been taxed already … surely on that 44%, the estate tax is a double dip … no?
I also disagree that this is a penalisation of success. The heirs have to pay the tax, not the people who actually made the money.
From the article you mentioned “It seems fair that people who have prospered the most in this society help to preserve it for future generations through tax revenues that derive from their estates.” This is an opinion … one that is patently unfair … we all prosper more than someone else … under the author’s logic, shouldn’t we all be taxed for the “future generations”. Another quote “Further, the exemption level is scheduled to rise to $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple) in 2009 under current law.” Of course, the author fails to mention that after 2010, it goes back to 1 million and 2 million … the exclusion of this fact is pure spin. While the myth list is informative, what’s been left out is most telling … I also challenge anyone to explain how the fact that the USA would lose tax revenue speaks to the fairness or legality of the estate tax … that may be an accurate argument … but it’s sort of similar to saying “prisoners cost $65,000 a year to incarcerate and only $100,000 once to kill … to save money, let’s kill them as much as possible. A financial argument can’t speak to a moral argument.
I agree that purchasing power has declined. However, $1mil is still a lot of money -so much, that currently only 2-3% of all filers have to pay the estate tax.
That statistic is currently accurate … but the situation I mentioned will present itself within 10 years … the tax will have to be adjusted, at the very least.
As for the fairness of the tax, is it fair then that someone who did not have to work for the money should receive such a windfall?
Fair … perhaps not in the sense that it’s not fair that I was born in the USA and someone else was born in Ethiopia. Should I be penalized for such, of course not … however, should I be gracious with my plenty … most assuredly.
Lastly … I can see why you would get that impression.
And that is why I read what you write … I may disagree with you, but I always know your brain is engaged when you comment or respond … would that there were more like you.
Cheers.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:35 am#55
“Tracy - there are a lot of sections in the code to help alleviate the “pain†on small business.”
Why create the “pain” in the first place?
April 26th, 2006 at 9:47 am“The fact is that repealing the estate tax entirely, as the ad advocates, would benefit mostly non-farmers and non-business-owners.”
It still doesn’t make it right. The fact the the GOVERNMENT thinks it can spend the money and get a better return rather than leaving it alone to circulate thru the free market it total BS. You know and I know that those alot of those tax dollars will be wasted thru inefficiency. A big issue here is what would be the best solution to get a better return on those dollars and the answer is not the government being in control.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:03 am#61
“the creation of right wing “think†tanks (more aptly intellectual septic tanks) like cato institute, hoover institute, american enterprise institute, who have created and laundered right-wing propaganda into our public discourse”
As if left wing intellectuals didn’t already have a monopoly with their propaganda considering they control academia. LOL! These “think tanks” were nothing more than a counter balance to already left wing heavily weighted public discourse.
“…for the purpose of at least paralyzing, if not taking over, the federal judicial system”
Something had to be done about the judicial system trumping and re-writing the laws made by legislative branch. Liberals cry about this because the judicial branch has been their last bastion for policy implimentation considering they can’t pass their agenda thru the legislature, because to do that would require winning elections.
“if the 200+ year only american government is to survive into the future is must find ways to deal with this powerful and insidious enemy of our democracy.”
The insidious enemy of our democracy is more government control of our lives thur more taxes and regulations.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:27 amre: #85
“As if left wing intellectuals didn’t already have a monopoly with their propaganda considering they control academia.”
NOTE TO TRACY’S MOM AND DAD:
your child needs to learn not to put so much into its mouth a once.
and to (es)chew more carefully.
otherwise, we worry it might choke
(well, ok. maybe it is a he or as she, but how are we to know?)
April 26th, 2006 at 10:52 amWe have the finest Democracy ™ money can buy!
April 26th, 2006 at 11:13 am#86
NOTE to orionATL…please go to college and you just might get it.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:41 amWHY is a pic of Paris Hilton used on this thread? Just curious because in the pic she looks like a slut who is about to show her breast or something?! She is a blonde bimbo and I could care less that she is or will be a billionaire > someday she will be old and ugly too!
April 26th, 2006 at 11:43 am44% appears to have been taxed already … surely on that 44%, the estate tax is a double dip … no?
Comment by Giacomo — April 26, 2006 @ 9:35 am
Yes, I agree. At some point it does become “double dip” -but it still provides no logical, cogent ground for an all-out repeal of the estate tax.
While the myth list is informative, what’s been left out is most telling … I also challenge anyone to explain how the fact that the USA would lose tax revenue speaks to the fairness or legality of the estate tax … that may be an accurate argument … (…)
I liked the article and thought it would be a good read for anyone interested in the subject, even though I do not agree with it 100%. Specially when the author mixes fairness with financials; doing that can get “sticky” as you pointed out.
While I try to separate what’s fair or moral from what’s financially sound in my arguments regarding this topic, I do defend the estate tax because it does contribute to the well-being of the nation (which is, at the end, a moral argument). I do not know if it is fair that the wealthy pay more; I do know they can afford it, and that (as I mentioned) a portion of that money goes into building infrastructure that benefits us all. If I had to summarise it, I would say that this is a case of working towards the greater good.
That statistic is currently accurate … but the situation I mentioned will present itself within 10 years … the tax will have to be adjusted, at the very least.
At some point yes, just like the AMT. But what do you mean by “explode” then? That the amount of people who have to pay the estate tax triples? Quadruples? As I said, even if it triples, that still would leave at least 91% of Americans out.
Should I be penalized for such, of course not … however, should I be gracious with my plenty … most assuredly.
Why do you still call it a penalty? Does it hurt you so much to part with money, knowing it would benefit others? If it is a matter of perception, how about you see this as a compelling nudge towards being generous? (Keep in mind it is your heirs who are compelled, not you).
Finally, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:59 pmI appreciate the desire for a good discussion, but please, don’t feed the trolls.
April 26th, 2006 at 2:14 pmHeya Gregor,
Why do you still call it a penalty? Does it hurt you so much to part with money, knowing it would benefit others?
If I said I want you to stop at a house down the street where 2 poor children live and give them a $10 bill, you may do it, you may not. Would it really hurt you, I’m guessing not. Should I be able to demand you do it? I don’t think so. Send them some literature on charities etc but don’t make them do it.
If it is a matter of perception, how about you see this as a compelling nudge towards being generous?
I would personally call it a hearty push. To me it’s just principal, sure it would help. On the same token most people can afford an extra $5 a week to a charity of my choice with no big problems. Why not require it of them?
We won’t agree, but this thread is dead so I can have the last word muwahahahahaha
April 26th, 2006 at 4:20 pm“”Why do you still call it a penalty? Does it hurt you so much to part with money, knowing it would benefit others?”"”"
Since when does giving money to the government benefit others? The government doesn’t know what to do with money. I know what to do with money, my heirs know what to do with money.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:27 pmI appreciate the desire for a good discussion, but please, don’t feed the trolls.
Yeah … God forbid someone actually argue the merits of their opinion … the horror! “Troll -deliberately provoking arguments on newsgroups or bulletin boards, with no other intent than to gain attention for the sake of attention.” Please note that it is NOT when a person with an opposing opinion voices said opinion to stimulate their own and others thought …
If I had to summarise it, I would say that this is a case of working towards the greater good.
I can agree with that statement … however, the government foisting itself on a minority group is most oftened associated with discriminatory practices … this may be bo different.
As I said, even if it triples, that still would leave at least 91% of Americans out.
9% to 10% would be around 10 million or more households … not a small number.
Does it hurt you so much to part with money, knowing it would benefit others? If it is a matter of perception, how about you see this as a compelling nudge towards being generous?
I think we both agree that unfair taxation is a moral issue (e.g. the Sheriff of Nottingham style taxation) … what must be decided is if “fairness” or legailty of a tax is purely predicated upon one’s ability to pay. I assume some here would say yes. Consider the situation where I need money to pay for my child’s cancer treatments … I rob (at gunpoint) a person who has 100 million dollars demanding $100,000 from him/her … do I have legitimate need for the money, yes … does he/she bear undue burden in the loss of the money, no … would anyone say that I acted morally, I should hope not. Forcing someone who has an ability to pay isn’t “fairer” because they have the ability to pay … the estate tax is forced wealth redistribution … in that sense, I feel it’s wrong.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:57 pmGiacomo
If I had 100 million and you needed 100k for cancer treatment I would write you a check.
I don’t have 100 million but I do have about 3. I didn’t inherit a nickle, I come from a humble background and worked my whole life much to the exclusion of everything else. I never got married, never had children. I got my jollies from making money. Now the Democrats want to punish me for being fiscally responsible. If you truly believe that the govt knows what to do with those billions that they confiscate every year from dead peoples estates, ask them for 100k for cancer treatment,,,I think we know what they will say.
btw If I were required to give 47% of my estate to causes that “I” think are worthwhile( afterall it is my money), I may look at the death tax a little differently.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:15 pmA quote from the above article:
April 26th, 2006 at 5:22 pm” The estate tax repeal would “collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.—
It wouldn’t net them a dime. It’s their money to begin with. They will only break even.
On the same token most people can afford an extra $5 a week to a charity of my choice with no big problems. Why not require it of them?
Comment by Tundra — April 26, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
The estate tax is not paid by the person who paid the money but by their heirs… it is not the same thing. It’s kind of like the heirs winning the lottery: They didn’t have to work towards accumulating all that capital.
I don’t think so…. HA!
April 26th, 2006 at 5:29 pmOn the same token most people can afford an extra $5 a week to a charity of my choice with no big problems. Why not require it of them?
Comment by Tundra — April 26, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
The estate tax is not paid by the person who paid the money but by their heirs… it is not the same thing. It’s kind of like winning the lottery: They didn’t have to work towards accumulating all that capital.
We won’t agree, but this thread is dead so I can have the last word muwahahahahaha
I don’t think so…. HA!
April 26th, 2006 at 5:30 pmSince when does giving money to the government benefit others? The government doesn’t know what to do with money. I know what to do with money, my heirs know what to do with money.
Comment by Edso — April 26, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
Tax monies are used to build roads, public schools, pay teachers, build the sewage & potable water systems, lay down the electricity network, build & maintain dams and levees, fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, provide the veterans’ benefit system, fund the construction of seaports and airports, insure for home loans & student loans (when not actually providing these loans), fund public universities & subsidise private ones, etc, etc, etc.
Sounds like a lot of benefits to a lot of people me…
April 26th, 2006 at 5:31 pm(…)the estate tax is forced wealth redistribution … in that sense, I feel it’s wrong.
Comment by Giacomo — April 26, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
All taxes are forced wealth redistribution, because they take money from someone(s) and put it towards building infrastructure (physical and legal) that benefits us all…
April 26th, 2006 at 5:32 pmGregor Samsa
I pay $3000.00 a month for a life insurance policy that will pay the taxes on my estate whenI die. What do you mean when you say that the heirs pay the tax. I’m paying it now…every month.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:36 pmI’m paying it now…every month.
Comment by Edso — April 26, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
You are still not paying it. Those are savings that will be used towards paying the estate tax after your, well, decease.
And may I remind you, your strategy is optional… great foresight, tough…
April 26th, 2006 at 5:47 pmIt’s been good chating with you folks. God bless America.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:59 pmPoor Little Billionaires
http://simbaud.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 04/ poor-little-billionaires.html
April 28th, 2006 at 3:11 ami find it amusing that u ppl who take paychecks from wealthy business owners seem to find no problems turning right around and saying they r evil and that they owe the country something. how the **** do u think they got all that money? by starting a business and creating jobs for u. they already monetarily support their millions of employees…what the hell else do u want from them? let them keep their damn money.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:07 pmIts easy for the Buffets and Gates of the world to say “take my money - please!” - 1/2 of Billions is still billions! And this type of program doesn’t stop “american royalty” - for references see Family: Bush or Family: Kennedy. There are still a hell of a lot of rich Rockefellers and Morgans out there today.
For the rest of us, with considerably less (although still plenty), 1/2 of our wealth, split between multiple heirs and charitable donations, leave a just a little bit. By the time my kids get theirs, they will (hopefully) already be contributing to society, and they won’t be able to live off their inheritance. That is the case for most people.
My wealth has been taxed multiple times - income tax, capital gains tax, property tax (that’s right, your house value factors into your wealth for the estate tax). Why should the government get it a 4th time?
And why is the government better at setting social policy? For everyone who believes in this, do you believe is government-mandated morality programs? School vouchers? Religious-based schools funded by the government? Its a slippery slope, isn’t it? The 60’s and 70’s showed us that government programs really don’t work to set social policy. Why is this okay?
June 5th, 2006 at 5:26 pm[…] Funny you should mention Wal-Mart. The Walton family is the wealthiest in America, and among those — including the Hiltons and Marses — lobbying hardest for estate-tax repeal. Paris Hilton pays the estate tax, not the owners of "corner lunch counters." […]
June 8th, 2006 at 5:57 pmThank you! AMazing you were able to answer my question.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:29 pm[…] If the tax had been repealed, it would have cost the treasury hundreds of billions over the next decade. Since most Americans will never inherit estates large enough to be covered by the tax, it’s not very surprising that the effort to repeal it is bankrolled mostly by 18 of America’s wealthiest families, none of whom are farmers or small businessmen. Given the fact that a repeal of the tax would benefit only the wealthiest Americans, it will shock no-one to learn that Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of repeal, and Democrats voted overwhelmingly to preserve the tax. Here’s a list of the crossover votes (Democrats voting for repeal, and Republicans voting against): […]
June 9th, 2006 at 11:39 am[…] Congratulations Paris Hilton. Yesterday the House voted to cut the estate tax, exempting from taxation “individual estates up to $5 million and couple’s estates up to $10 million.” […]
June 23rd, 2006 at 9:06 am[…] Related is the fact that Buffett believes that the estate tax should not go away. Republicans have been trying to repeal the estate tax for years. When you consider that Bush’s estate will be taxed over $20Billion after his passing, and Cheyney’s estate will be hit with a $40Billion+ tax, it is no wonder they try to paint it as the “Death Tax” that will hurt american farm owners (even though they’ve never been able to find a family farm that’s been affected by the tax). I think it was Feingold who said, fine, lets just make the cut-off $100Million. That bill was shot down in a heart-beat by Republicans. ThinkProgress.org (the Paris Hilton tax) and Public Citizen said it best (these articles concerning how these 18 families have been paying billions to convince us, through commercials, that the estate tax is bad): [The Report] reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion. […]
July 3rd, 2006 at 2:13 pmThe estate tax screwed me out of everything my father worked for and a 4th wife of a year and 3 months with a prenump that gave her nothing upon his death, got a crooked attorney to come in and make a will 7 days befor he died and he was in the hospital for confusion 3 days prior. The wife and attorney said he was giving everything to her to avoid the tax and that is a lie. We were never even told about the 10 to 15 years time you have to pay it. Now I am in a battle over all this and I am an only child with four kids who stands to loose everything to some evil people who used this tax and took advantage of a dying man. I don’t even have a right to my baby pictures. It is sick… Even if your no paris, you don’t know the feeling till your in the shoes of the tax that hurt’s who is a rightful heir. If a re-marriage accur’s.. Who protect’s the children? When the tax goes to a non parent with no ties..
December 20th, 2006 at 11:20 pm#112
Your story is sad, but you haven’t logically connected the actions of “a 4th wife” and “a crooked attorney” to the blame that you want to place on the estate tax.
#100
Gregor, you are right on. So many posters here totally missed the point by whining about a particular use to which the government will or will not put tax revenues.
I’m about as libertarian as they come, and I think the federal government’s size should be drastically reduced along with the tax burden they place on us all.
Unfortunately, that will not occur simply by repealing or reducing a tax that is almost exclusively paid by the wealthy. Unless such a repeal were coupled with a persistent net decrease in federal spending (and I think we all know how likely that is), the overall outcome will be to “increase revenues” to make up for the loss of this particular source of funding.
Even estate tax detractors understand that it is one of the most progressive forms of taxation. Elminate it, and the compensation for the “lost revenue” will come in the form of effective rate increases (or effective exemption decreases) on taxes that are less progressive.
In summary, any argument that boils down to “taxes are unfair” doesn’t support repeal of the estate tax any more than it would support repeal of income taxes or sales taxes or any other kind of tax. If we want to pay less tax overall, we have to find a way to request or demand less goverment than we currently “enjoy.”
January 12th, 2007 at 4:57 pm[…] are. They’re paying millions to “lawmakers” so they’ll vote to repeal the Paris Hilton Tax. No Comments Leave a Commenttrackback addressThere was an error with your comment, please try […]
March 21st, 2007 at 8:20 pm