Thoughts, ideas, arguments?

Pull the Tube
A R.I.N.O. shoots a rhino.

By Ned Rice

It's a classic American archetype: father and son gazing upon the fruit of a lifetime of toil, each contemplating mortality and the legacy each generation bequeaths the next. With a deep sigh of contentment the man murmurs, "Just think, son. Someday almost half of this will be yours." Well, that's the way it was between 1916, when the estate tax was made permanent, until 2001 when Congress decided to phase it out. It's been observed that death and taxes are life's only two certainties, to which I would add a third: feeble Whoopi Goldberg "specials" on HBO. But even if death and taxes are unavoidable, does that mean that death itself should be taxable? I think not. Which is why I support the effort currently underway to permanently repeal the so-called, "so-called death tax."

And I say that even though it's another of life's certainties that I will never personally benefit from its repeal.

Defenders of the death tax usually focus on three arguments, summarized as follows: It's not really your money; Uncle Sam really needs it; rich people are evil. A person pushing the first argument says things like "Abolishing the death tax would cost the federal government $745 billion over the next decade!" That statement presumes that these projected, yet-to-be-collected taxes (on income that doesn't yet exist) already belong to the federal government which will then have to magically "give them back" to the bad mean rich people. An exchange which would require, at the very minimum, lots of cash and a working time machine. Or to put it another way, it's like asking someone to please give you $100, having them hand you $80, then telling your friends, "That big jerk just cost me 20 bucks!" No, genius, he just gave you 80 bucks. Of his own hard-earned money.

The main thing the "Uncle Sam needs it" argument has going for it is that it was actually true for brief periods of time a century or two ago. Modest, temporary estate taxes were necessary to fund this country's revolutionary and civil wars. But a restored estate tax today would generate a mere $18 billion a year, a veritable drop in the $2 trillion-filled bucket the IRS cheerfully wrings out of us working types each and every year. $18 billion dollars wouldn't even cover the paperwork for health care, Medicaid, Social Security, or any other reforms that actually require more federal spending, to say nothing of programs that don't, like education and AMTRAK. There's probably 18 billion in loose change under George Soros's couch cushions. Ted Kennedy pocketed more than 18 billion the last time he redeemed his bottles and cans. Congress spills more than $18 billion every time they...well, you get the idea.

Which brings us to the "rich people are evil" angle so favored by proponents of the death tax, especially those who've already inherited their money like John Kerry. In 1906 Teddy Roosevelt — who not only shot a rhino but was apparently, at least on this issue, a R.I.N.O. himself — proposed a permanent estate tax for the express purpose of breaking up rich family dynasties very much like the one that produced, uh...him.

Riding rather roughly over the feelings of the economic over-achievers of his day, Teddy called for an inheritance tax whose "primary objective should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes, which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate". He also referred to America's most successful as "the wealthy criminal class," which as far as I can tell is the only indication that he knew the Kennedy family personally. I guess the old Bull Moose had never heard of the good works of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and...uh...I don't know...the Chubb Group? You know, organizations through which the bad mean rich people have cheerfully donated hundreds of their billions to the world's less fortunate without having to filter it through Washington's leaky feeding trough first? If they'd had bumper stickers in his day (or, for that matter, bumpers), a political opponent of Roosevelt's might have had one that read, "Speak Softly And Carry A Big Tax Burden."

Possibly annoyed that all he'd inherited from his cousin was Teddy's niece Eleanor, Franklin D. Roosevelt (like Teddy, a Harvard-educated son of wealth and privilege) ratcheted up the class envy a few years later with these words:

Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security...Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government." (italics added).


To which I can only add, Mr. New Deal Architect: The only thing we have to fear is irony itself.

As to arguments in favor of permanently repealing the death tax, allow me to introduce one of my own: it's unconstitutional. Granted I don't know much about history or the Constitution, and I don't have a law degree. But Paul Krugman doesn't either and that's never stopped him, so here goes: The Constitution grants Congress the power to collect taxes with which to pay our country's debts and to provide for the common defense and general welfare. As we've seen, an estate tax — even at rates as high as the current one — would have a negligible effect on both debt retirement and general operational revenues. Moreover, it could be argued to great effect that even my living, breathing copy of the Constitution in no way authorizes a tax whose primary, if not sole purpose is not to promote fiscal soundness but rather the deliberate, systematic obliteration of America's great financial dynasties.

You heard me right: They want to take away half of Oprah's money when it's her time and girrrrrrrrrrrrrrl, that just ain't right.

But the death tax provides for the general welfare, you say? How does forcing Bill Gates's heirs to sell Microsoft (upon his demise) to the highest bidders promote America's general welfare? When the new owners take Microsoft's manufacturing jobs back home with them to Asia? A measly 18 billion a year makes that cost effective? How does de-funding every charity in this country, as the return of the death tax would help to do, promote the general welfare — particularly that of the people who are still on Welfare? Sorry, but I'm the old-fashioned sort who still believes that if it's not specifically cited in the actual words of the Constitution as something the federal government can do, then they're not permitted to do it, period. But just to be on the safe side, I'll double check. Maybe I overlooked it. Who knows? The power of the federal government to seize half of a man's assets upon his death might be another yet-to-be-discovered penumbra, tucked into the Constitution somewhere between the privacy-based right to abortion and that new right to sodomy they just found. Hey, I'll let you know if I find it.

Estate taxes are pure robbery. I want to government to trim down spending, not find new ways to "raise money".
Thanks for posting that.

Well, isn't all taxation theft to some extent? How are estate taxes worse than other taxes?

I'm definitely a guy that wants taxes as low as possible, especially on the federal level. However, if I was forced to levy some non-proportional tax, I'd probably go with the estate tax.

I don't even know where to begin with this article, so I think I just won't. Suffice it to say that the piece is so slanted that it's hard for any of the somewhat legitimate arguments for permanent repeal of the estate tax to be taken seriously from this author. He is the first conservative I've ever seen bash Teddy Roosevelt, and as if he needed to admit this to us, he indeed doesn't know anything about the constitution or law.

Rich people are not evil. Excessive wealth IS.

Why?

Let me ask you this. Conservatives often talk about the lazy people sitting on their ass and collecting welfare, living off the hard work of others. What about the lazy people sitting on their yacht collecting beneficial interest from a trust set up three generations ago? We never hear anything about them. How are they contributing to society? They are not only living off the hard work of others, they are living off the past pillage of the hard work of others. Even if their ancestors somehow made their fortunes NOT on the backs of real working people (although I'm not sure how that's possible), the heirs have done nothing to deserve the wealth.

Let's say instead of inheriting 20 million dollars, you inherit 10 million dollars. Are you going to be hurting? Hell no. Are you going to have to work for a living? Not any more than if you inherited twice that. Even if it did make the difference between your ability to be idle or to work, could you have any sympathy?

All inherited wealth is found money as far as I'm concerned. 90% of people never inherit much of anything, and only a tiny percentage of people actually inherit enough to be affected by the estate tax. So what if the 18 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket of the federal budget? It's 18 billion dollars that could be used better than to be sat upon by people who are ALREADY INHERITING THAT MUCH. Am I the only one who wanted to reach through the screen and strangle the author for lumping EDUCATION into the same category as AMTRAK as things that don't require more funding? Put that 18 billion into education every year and see how much our schools and the quality of teachers can be improved.

The fact that the ultra-rich have convinced the majority of Americans that this is a matter of principle is the saddest trick they've pulled on us, much sadder than WMD's..

Am I to believe that John Kerry doesn't care about his daughters' inheritances or that Republicans are trying to cash in on their parents' death?

I'd have to say that I agree with a good chunk of what you said. Like I said, I'm not a huge anti-estate tax hawk either, as I do agree that it's a form of unnearned wealth.

I just wanted a bit of expansion on the short statement regarding excessive wealth. My matters of principle are along the lines of small but effective government, regardless of where the revenue is coming from.

Yes, but a necessary item in order to have things like..roads and police and military.
It's another "layer" of taxation. You were taxed on your income, you were taxed on your investments, you were taxed on your dividends..then you're taxed on your grand sum at the end? What's the justification for having it, rather than trying to justify why NOT to have it?


I wouldn't. I can't think of any non-proportional tax that I would support. I don't believe in penalizing the most successful people in our society.

I just find it amusing that the very people that bitch about taxes are the ones who support a war that is pretty much draining our fiscal resources.

Hypocracy anyone?

There is no new "layer". The dead person isn't being taxed again. Its new income to the person inheriting the money so why shouldn’t it be taxed like any other form of income? Generally I’m all for lower taxes but if there is going to be taxes collected I can’t for the life of me figure out why inheritances shouldn’t be taxed.

The purpose of taxing shouldnt be to squeeze as much from every dollar thats out there- the purpose is to fund the government- regardless of how many times that dollar changes hands.

taxes are used way to much as a penalty in this country, and its the mind set like yours that cause that to happen.

In general terms, I would think the difference is that the public is paying for welfare boy to be lazy. The richer is being lazy because his family has afforded him such pleasures. The public isn't paying for the richer's do-nothing-lifestyle.

If the purpose of taxes is to fund the government then why are we shedding taxes like a sheepdog on a hot day when we're multi-trillion dollars in debt?

Taxes aren't a penalty. This is the land of opportunity, when you make money it's because of the opportunities afforded you by this country. You pay taxes to keep the country that gave you those opportunities functioning. If more opportunities allowed you to make more money then you pay a little more in taxes.

"To whom much is given, much is required." It seems that lately in this country, it's been, to whom much is given, much more is due and no more is required.

Fuck it all then! Let's tax more things! Food at the grocery store? Nah, tax it. It's a good source of income and we can use the taxes for agricultural things. College tuition? Tax it. College is a luxury for the rich anyway. Credit card bills? Tax em! Why not? It's a sin tax just like cigarettes!

No no no. My point is there are many different types of income. There are wages from jobs, interest income, divide income, gambling income etc etc etc. I'm saying an inheritance is just another type of income to the person inheriting it so why shouldn’t it be taxed like all other income is taxed?

Did you happen to read that part where I wrote, "Generally I’m all for lower taxes ...."?

An inheritance is not earned income though. It's a gift. Should we start taxing the $20's that grandma throws in the birthday card for junior?

It may be new income to a different person, but it's the same money taxed over and over again. If, say, you have a dollar bill and give it from one person to another and tax each transfer, before long the tax becomes more than the dollar itself. While the beneficiary of the income may change over time, the income itself never changes. This is why you can't lump it all in under the heading "income."

My point made more clear and concise