Surprise surprise!! Guess who opposes the repealing of the estate tax

Ace_Face · February 16, 2001, 8:01pm

I think pretty much by definition the opposite must be true. If I have more of something, I can afford to lose more of it. If I had 12 cars, and one got stolen, I really don’t think I’d be as upset as if I had only one car, and it got taken. This is part of the rationale behind a progressive (but not “confiscatory”) tax rate.

With our current tax rates, nothing prevents the wealthy from staying wealthy (nor should it), or even becoming more wealthy – unless they act like complete idiots with their money.

Tretiak · February 16, 2001, 8:50pm

This is acually very funny. “Commie” and “merit” do not have quite the association in my mind that apparently it does in yours.

Danielinthewolvesden · February 16, 2001, 9:18pm

*Originally posted by Milossarian *

Your notion that this measure could only favor the richest Americans is erroneous.

Where I live there are many lakes, and many homes on the lakeshores that have been a part of families for generations. Many of these families aren’t rich by anyone’s estimation, but their ancestors had the foresight to buy riparian when no one much cared and the prices weren’t appreciably different than real estate elsewhere.

While these homes have stayed in the same families, their values shot up to the point where people buying in the same locations now are required to be rich.

Thus, when an owner of one of these homes dies and wants to leave it to his child or children, the death tax burden from this “windfall for the rich” usually means the not-rich family is forced to sell the home to pay the taxes.

Then a rich person buys the home. I thought we didn’t like rich people? Why, then, are we supporting a death tax that in this case helps them out at the expense of the little guy?

(And if you think this is a farfetched scenario, it probably happens in my locale daily.) **

DAILY?! I rather think it happens not at all. Remember, some of us are tax professionals here- we ain’t gonna be fooled by ULs. The home would have to be worth some million dollars- and have nearly all that in 'equity" (ie no mort to speak of). And there would have to be no “surviving spouse”. And no “estate planning” etc. And- if these homes really are worth say, 2 million- how do those 'not rich" folks pay the Property tax of some $20000? if you are going to tell us these stories- i need to see some cites- and I mean with actual numbers.

And if we DO posit a home- worth 2 million- and the residents have all died (husband, wife, and whatever kids are still living there)- exactly why SHOULD 'second cousin Goerge"- who the owners did not like or trust enuf to include in Estate planning- get a 2 million $ house tax free? Remember- the Kids(or anyone else beloved & trusted) can each be given some 10K of the homes equity tax free every year- and after 40 years & 2 kids that’s some 800K sheltered. So they kids won’t be “sell the family home”- they already OWN much of the family home.

Izzy- come on now- anyone with some million dollars in assets & income to match has to engage in INCOME TAX PLANNING- so we should get rid of the Income tax? Do you really think that Bill Gates files a 1040EZ?

Spiritus_Mundi · February 16, 2001, 9:32pm

Well, Frank, most pros would have teed off with a wood, but it appears Tiger has reached for his iron.

system · February 16, 2001, 9:35pm

Re Buffet et al

This bizarre attack is really quite puzzling. Perhaps you find it impossible to credit reasoned analysis to these folks who may, just may, actually like their offspring?

Shrug.

Warren Buffet is a liberal?

I guess that is one of the joys of knee-jerk [insert political stance], you don’t have to examine the rational argument behind a position.

In any case, Buffet’s stance is precisely the rational analysis of the reason and rational for estate taxes. That so many folks here take a knee-jerk anti-tax stance does not speak well of rational analytical skills here.

minty_green · February 16, 2001, 10:40pm

Tretiak, irony. Irony, Tretiak. I’m sure ya’ll will be best friends now that you’ve met.

ITR_champion · February 16, 2001, 11:18pm

Conservatives, needless to say, would never try such a thing. George W. Bush, for example, would never insist that he was a moral superior just because he wants to divert federal money to “faith-based” charities, right.

Coming right up:
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/02/15/buffett/index.html

It’s been thoroughly established now in this thread that the heirs to millionaires are the only ones who will benefit if the estate tax is repealed.

minty_green · February 16, 2001, 11:27pm

But that’s not true at all, ITR! Surely their chauffeurs will benefit, and their golf instructors and fashion designers as well! You heartless bastard, do you want Donna Karen to starve to death?

VarlosZ · February 16, 2001, 11:39pm

IzzyR

It’s not an “effort to ward off tax reduction.” It is, mostly, a political maneuver to deprive the Republicans of their main argument against the estate tax. From the start of this debate, Republicans have been shouting about loss of family-owned farms and small businesses. As DITWD points out, it’s not the best argument; it is, however, nearly the only one they’ve been using. I guess they don’t think it would sound too good to say, “Please support this tax cut that will reduce federal revenue and help only people who, God knows, don’t need the money.” If Republicans are truly concerned about small businesses, they should wholeheartedly support the legislation you speak of. Since it’s all they’ve been talking about, it must be really important to them, right? Now they have the support of the Democrats! They should be ecstatic: small businesses will be saved!

If, after the bill’s unopposed sail through Congress, Republicans still want to provide a tax shelter for the extremely rich, they can argue for it on its own merits without the issue of poor family farmers getting in the way.

jshore · February 17, 2001, 12:56am

You gotta love the lengths to which conservatives will go to try to rationalize away the possibility of people who actually have enough moral principle to act against their own financial self-interest for the greater good! Check out http://www.responsiblewealth.org — some of the people involved are actually the potential heirs.

Last night, I heard an even more ludicrous rationalization from Phil Graham…Seems that he is arguing something to the effect of “Well, these are a bunch of people who have set up charitable foundations and are just acting in their own self-interest because they worry that eliminating the estate tax will reduce the bequests to their foundations.” Got it, Phil!

Why can’t you folks just face the fact that some rich people actually have consciences and understand what’s involved here.

As for this argument of “Well, if you want to give your money away to the poor, go ahead and do it yourself, but why do you want to force everyone else to”… The answer is that we have set up something here called a “society”, which some of you libertarian types may have missed, and we are fighting to set public policy in that society. The thousands of bucks I could give alone won’t go that far in helping all the poor in this country. They wouldn’t even get a penny apiece. Hell, even if Bill Gates decided to distribute all his wealth, it would only amount to about $300 for every person. This is why we have to make collective decisions about what we are going to do. It is called “democracy” … If you try it, you may grow to enjoy it!

Milossarian · February 17, 2001, 1:15am

Daniel -

You may be right, that these regular people losing longtime family homes isn’t a result of estate taxes, but rather rising property values and their inability to pay the escalating property taxes.

Some reforms have been made in property valuations here to combat this problem, but it hasn’t been fully effective.

If you think the above, however, is an Urban Legend, call the Antrim County, Michigan, Equalization Department (I’d include the number, but the mods would just take it out). Ask then what a foot of frontage on Torch Lake went for in 1920. Then ask them what it goes for now.

Ask them what a 2,000 square foot, two-story home on the lake was valued at in 1920. Then ask them what it’s valued at now.

Then ask them if any folks have been forced to sell longtime family homes because they can’t afford the taxes (again, admittedly, this may not be exclusive to estate taxes).

Then do the same think with the Charlevoix County Equalization Department, only ask about Lake Charlevoix. Or Grand Traverse County, only ask about homes on Grand Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan.

In short, if you want sites, quit acting pompous, accusatory and superior, and start dialing. We don’t have such records on-line up here.

The idea that estates and inheritances are the domain of the ultra-rich is ludicrous.

jshore · February 17, 2001, 1:42am

By the way, here is what the folks at Responsible Wealth have to say about the whole issue of family farms, small businesses, etc.:

**
Don’t you care about small farmers, small business owners, and non-wealthy people who get tangled in the estate tax web?**

Yes, we care very much. That’s why we say mend the estate tax, don’t end it. We think the “cost of estate planning” for many non-wealthy people is too high, that’s why we support raising exemptions and simplifying the estate tax.

We also believe that many of the claims about the estate tax and small farmers and family businesses are greatly exaggerated. These claims are part of a campaign of misinformation waged by the proponents of estate tax repeal. These supporters of repeal have, in recent years, actually blocked attempts at reforms aimed at family farms and small businesses. We encourage people to get the real facts on this matter.

We support reform, not repeal. We believe the proponents have presented this as an all-or-nothing proposition. They have blocked efforts toward reform because they want it all. We are trying to carve out a national discussion about reform, not repeal.

You can read more about their position at http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_Call_Background.html

Milossarian · February 17, 2001, 2:44am

You may find today’s column on the death tax by Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal worth a look.

Measure_for_Measure · February 17, 2001, 3:08am

Not that this proves anything but FWIW, Andrew Carnegie agreed with Gates, Buffet et al: he thought that leaving wealth to one’s offspring was, “injudicious” and “misguided affection”, since “great sums are more for the injury than the good of the recipients”. He applauded the estate tax. Source: Wealth, 6/1889.

RTFirefly · February 17, 2001, 4:19am

In 1954, my grandparents bought a $35,000 house in a neighborhood called Brentwood. In Los Angeles.

When they died in 1994, that house was worth $1.2M, just for the lot it was on. No, we couldn’t afford to keep it in the family. Gawl-lee. My dad and aunt somehow found the emotional courage to deal with being about half a mil richer, after all was said and done, despite that fact.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees one the right to keep living at the same place forever, just because one could have afforded it once upon a time. I mean, it’s a shame when a situation like this, or the one you describe (yes, I believe it, btw), happens, but what it means, in the case that you cite, is that instead of having an inexpensive vacation home, these people have got a barrel of cash. It may be a shame that they can’t vacation in the same old place, but they can probably find somewhere to vacation, within their substantially increased means, that the rich haven’t found yet, but they can more than afford.

As someone who grew up in the DC area, I’ve been hearing a variation on this lament for decades now: “we’re retired, and on our limited incomes, we can no longer afford to pay the property taxes on the house we’ve lived in all our lives.” Again, what that means is, you can sell the house, collect a pile of money, and retire to somewhere with a lower cost of living. I feel sorry for you, but not nearly as sorry as for people with more intractable problems.

You know, when the company of a company town gets bought up and closes its doors, and the people who’ve been living there for generations have to move elsewhere just to find work, those people I feel sorry for. I can’t see a way for the government to preserve their way of life, but it should help them do so, a damn sight sooner than it helps people who are faced with the ‘problem’ that their home is worth too damned much money.

Milo, you’ve got the most bizarre priorities.

Oh yeah, your Pit thread is waiting.

likearock · February 17, 2001, 4:46am

Here’s a plan for all you bleeding heart liberals out there–a 100% estate tax. That should make EVERYONE happy.

RTFirefly · February 17, 2001, 4:48am

…and was impressed by how little he said. Lots of rhetoric, but few real points.

He said that one expert claimed that estate tax repeal would actually aid charitable giving. He didn’t say why, but (a) it’s hard to imagine, and (b) it’s an extremely peripheral issue anyway.

He also said that:

I’ve never yet seen a for-instance of this. But to quote myself from the most recent FET thread,

I think I can demonstrate that the FET doesn’t force people to liquidate their businesses, or sell off the family farm.

In friedo’s example [a business worth $5M, producing $500K annual profit], Cantrip just about got the tax right, except that 55% of $2M is 1.1M, not 1.15M. So that gives us a FET of $2,170,250.

The business is producing $500K in annual profits. The estate doesn’t have to pay any of this tax on this for 5 years and 9 months, and can even then elect to spread out payment of the tax over 10 years. The estate can reinvest over $120K of those annual profits for the next 5.75 years, and still have enough income to pay the tax bill in full when it begins to come due. Or it can reinvest over $350K of the profits each year over the next 14.75 years, and still have enough left over to pay the installments.

So the estate tax laws don’t force liquidation of this business - far from it, as you can see. And it would be hard to come up with a scenario where the FET laws did force liquidation, since the valuation of a closely-held business would be based on the income stream it stood to generate. (What I mean is that the for-instance, ‘suppose the business was worth $5M, but only produced $100K in annual net profits?’ If its profits were that low, that would reduce the estate tax valuation comparably.)

Same idea for farms, which can be valuated in terms of how much you’d net by renting them to someone else to farm the land, after taking out property taxes. Since you should hypothetically be earning more by farming the land than by renting it to someone else to farm - if that’s not true, then how is the renter getting by? - that’s a nice break in valuation, right up front. And then you can pay the tax in installments, as with the closely-held business.

While there are other grounds for debating the estate tax, I would have to argue that the ‘it forces people to kill the family farm/business’ allegation is hogwash.

jshore · February 17, 2001, 4:55am

And in a surprising development, the Wall Street Journal editorial page has come out in favor, yes, I said “in favor” of repeal of the estate tax! Can you believe it?!?!

And this just in…fish apparently prefer the ocean waters to the desert sands…and a source in Iraq has reported that the leader of their country’s leader is not the kindest and gentlest man who ever lived!

And, likearock, yes, we liberals are one nasty bunch! Hell, we’d make it 200% if we could!!

RTFirefly · February 17, 2001, 4:59am

Here’s what I had to say about the estate tax, as a whole, in the last thread on the subject. It deals with the question of the heirs. But, most important, it deals with the relative impacts of the estate tax v. other taxes. Again, I’m looking for some good criticism.

Whatever level of goods and services the Federal government provides, the money has to come from somewhere: tariffs, taxes, user fees, and so forth. At some point, if one is going to talk intelligibly about taxation, one has to have some sort of means of comparing different taxing schemes to arrive at conclusions about which ones are less harmful, and which ones are more harmful.

Mine are that taxes that have less impact on the lives of the individuals being taxed are to be preferred to those having greater impact; taxes that create weak disincentives to productivity, earning, and saving are to be preferred to those that create strong disincentives; and taxes that have lower adverse effects on the economy of the city, state, or nation as a whole are to be preferred to those which have greater adverse effects.

Yeah, I know, those seem pretty obvious. But you’ve got to start somewhere.

By those standards, it’s hard, IMO, to stack the estate tax up against the income tax, the payroll tax, the property tax, the sales tax, the corporate income tax, or any of the other taxes by which we finance government at its various levels, and say that the estate tax is worse. It appears to me - feel free to show me where I’m wrong - that the Federal estate tax, as currently constituted, treads about as lightly on the body politic/economic as a tax can possibly do and still raise significant money.

The individuals being taxed are, in this instance, dead. So it’s hard to imagine a tax with any less impact on their lives.

If people whose wealth has gotten into the seven-figure range are balking at earning more money on account of the estate tax, it’s hard to tell. We seem to have more millionaires every time you turn around, and millionaires turn into multimillionaires, and from thence to bilionaires all the time. If fortunes aren’t being made or expanded due to the estate tax, evidence of it is mighty thin.

And similarly, whatever the effect of the estate tax is on the economy as a whole, I suspect it’s down in the white noise. If people are moving abroad to avoid the FET, they aren’t doing it in numbers that are making much difference.

The people most adversely affected by the FET are the heirs of the people who pay it - the children of millionaires. But the effect on them is probably salutary: they’ve got a marginally higher incentive to earn money of their own. None of us can choose the family we’re born into, and those born into more affluent families are, on the whole, healthier and better educated than those who are born to less affluent families. And then, estate tax or no, the children from more affluent families will receive a greater windfall on the deaths of their parents than will the children of less affluent families; the estate tax reduces but does not eliminate that differential. On the whole, it’s still a better deal to be born to greater affluence than to lesser.

So I’d have to argue that, if you’re going to be cutting taxes, the FET should be among the last, rather than the first, to cut.

milroyj · February 17, 2001, 5:04am

The sad thing is, you probably would. Nothing like redistributing other people’s money for a liberal to get their jollies. :rolleyes: