Ummm, milroy, are all your posts that content-free?
Oh, milroyj, get real!
To add a bit to RTFirefly’s points about the estate tax and small businesses, here is a good link on the subject from United for A Fair Economy (the “parent” organization of Responsible Wealth): http://www.ufenet.org/activist/action_alert/Estate_Tax_Family_Business.html
Here are two tidbits:
Seems like the Republicans want to use these as political tools to get the entire tax repealed!
All I have to say is that, if a group of ultra-rich people think that a tax repeal, a repeal of which their assets could benefit the most, could be bad for the country, those in favor of the repeal should listen very carefully to what they say. These rich people made themselves rich; they may have good foundations, but they have built upon it. They also tolerate no aristocracy of the idle rich to be established in America, which they fear could be the result of the repeal. It is ultimately the antithesis of capitalism to them.
I can certainly believe it happens due to property taxes- which is why CA enacted prop 13 (which has it’s good & it’s bad side). It is likely rather common from property taxes. it could even be rather expensive from capital gains.
But not estate taxes- it does not matter how much the property increased in value- just its final net worth. But- pretty much all of that can be excluded if the spouse inherits, and if the Kids are the ones- there is the 650K exclusion, and the 10k/year exclusion (and note that would only be a problem if both spouses died at the exact same time- other wise, the husband could leave 50% of a million dollar house to the wife, and 25% to each of two kids- and no estate tax). And if it is unmarried folk who are dying- do we really care if a cousin has to pay some 1/3 of the value in estate tax?
I mean- just how much are these house worth? Millions?
As to cites- you said it happens- you back it up. Even give me a hypothetical example, maybe.
It is the actual payment of considerable amounts of estate taxes- that happens only to the rich.
RT, DITWD, et al. If you’re so in favor of confiscatory taxes, let’s enact a special “liberal” tax whereby you just send in all of your money to the U.S. Treasury. Not fair you say, why not? Or is it indeed the liberal agenda to take other people’s money to spend how you see fit?
Warren Buffett is, to put it bluntly, a phony.
Look, I have little use for Ted Turner and NONE for the United Nations, but I give Ted Turner credit for this: he GAVE one billion dollars of his own money to the U.N., a cause he believed was worthy.
THAT took generosity. It’s admirable for a rich man to dig deep into his own pocket RIGHT NOW, while he’s still alive, and give it directly to a cause he believes in. In doing so, the rich man is
- making a genuine sacrifice, and
- Making sure that the money goes to the specific cause he cares about.
Is Warren Buffett doing that? Uh, no. He’s going to keep all his money until the day he dies, and THEN fancies himself a hero because the GOVERNMENT is going to descend on his estate and help itself to what it wants. And then, maybe, just MAYBE, the government will spend SOME of that money on causes Mr. Buffett would have deemed worthy. OR they may spend it on tobacco subsidies. Or they may spend it on missile defense programs. Or on Robert Mapplethorpe photo exhibits. Or on… well, you get the idea.
Point is, the rich liberals strutting around and posing as champions of virtue are no such thing. If they REALLY want to help humanity, let them shell out big bucks NOW- not pose as philanthropists, just because they’re willing to let the government take their money after they’re 6 feet under.
Astorian,
And, how do you know that these people are not already giving a large amount of their money to charity? Many are. Some of the people at Responsible Wealth have been donating part of their capital gains taxes to various causes because they believe there should not be a lower tax rate on this form of unearned income than on earned income.
And, if you don’t consider what they are doing by wanting their estates to be taxed to be a sacrifice, then how come it becomes such a horrible sacrifice for those who want their estate tax repealed? Besides, the only good justification for not having an even more extreme estate tax is that it is unfair from the point of view of the person who dies, who would like to transfer the wealth they accumulated on to their offspring. Surely, it is very hard to justify it as unfair from the point of view of the person who inherits the wealth! What did that person do to deserve it? Make a smart decision as to who they chose as their parents? The only reasonable justification that I think one can make for allowing wealth transfer from one generation to another is from the point of view of the transferrer not the receiver, at least if you believe in any sort of equality of opportunity!
I used to think you libertarians loved rich people (a rather extreme case of this being aynrandlover; now I realize that you all seem to reserve a special hatred in your hearts (right next to good-for-nothing welfare bums) for rich people who happen to support progressive taxation policies.
Good one!
stoid
Why? I’ve snipped your entirely irrelevant rant wherein you presume, ipso facto, that Buffett is a liberal.
Now, perhaps you simply mean liberal in the empty abusive sense of anyone disagreeing with your political mythologies. However, I am operating on the supposition you might mean someone adhering to a set of beliefs which might be described as “liberal” by rational observers. Perhaps a belief that extensive government intervention in society is required. Do note extensive as almost anyone besides the most extreme anarcho-libertarian admits some utility.
Now, I could be wrong but everything I have read from the pen of Warren Buffet leads me to believe that he does not fit the adjective liberal in any rational sense. As for as I can tell, he is an old fashioned fiscal conservative, and also a person who analyzes everthing around him in an intesely economic-rational manner.
Ergo, it would appear to me, in my ignorance having only read a little of Warren Buffet’s actual words, that Buffet has arrived at his position re estate tax:
(a) through rational economic analysis,
(b) an apparent dedication to the idea that free markets should be supported in a rational manner to improve their efficiency
© that estate tax is necesssary to suppress a form of rent-seeking behaviour --see pkbites-- which is particularly prone to undermining competitivity.
Given he is rational and not emotionally opposed to taxation, he seems to have decided to come out and oppose a change which he views as being economically unsupported.
Now, of course, perhaps he really is a “liberal” outside the empty ad hominem sense. I simply await some evidence before abandoning my previous impression that Buffet is not a liberal.
Milroy, I’ve clearly stated (2-16-01, 11:59pm, first two paragraphs inside the quote) on what basis I compare one tax to another.
If you think my criteria are misguided, this thread is an excellent place to expose their weaknesses and/or propose alternative criteria.
If you think I’m misapplying my own criteria, same thing applies.
But let’s see something a bit better than “you liberals just want to take everyone’s money and decide how to spend it.” Fact is, the vast majority of the American people support the vast majority of Federal expenses (except for the $200B in annual interest to pay off the Reagan deficits, and we don’t have much choice about that). And the vast majority of Americans don’t consider themselves liberals.
So given that we’ve got $1.8T in annual spending, what’s the best way to pay for it? I’ve argued above, for very clear reasons, that the FET is about as painless a tax as is possible. Those reasons may be right or wrong, but they’re clear. If you think they’re wrong, you ought to be able to put your finger on why.
Were you awake when you wrote this? It IS their money. It is NOT their children’s money. That would be Mr. Buffet’s point precisely. The fact that you were spawned from a wealthy womb means nothing, and does not ENTITLE you (the spawn of the rich) to squat.
And why do you care? Expecting a windfall, are ya?
stoid
RTFirefly, it’s been a while since I asked you for clarification (and you’ve always been kind enough to provide it)…it seems unlikely to me that most Americans support the extent of Federal spending. Can you provide a cite or some clarification to support your statement?
Without anything specific to support my own opinion, I would guess that the average American (if there is such a beast), if asked if he thought the Federal Government spends too much $$$, would respond in the affirmative–and that the wastefulness is rampant.
Thanks.
RT, while I agree that the FET is a less intrusive tax than the other ones we have, I still question its reasonability. First of all, it only affects those who cannot vote (excepting Cook County :)). Second, the FET only affects (I think) something like 1-2% of the population. No matter how you slice it, it comes awful close to taxation without representation. Finally, those subject to the FET earned their money, unlike the Federal Government, which did not, nor do their beneficiaries, like tobacco farmers, various corporate interests, or welfare recipients.
No, they didn’t.
Unless they were included in a will as recompense for services rendered.
But then you ask them about individual programs, and they want to keep pretty much all of them. And when you force them to choose between tax cuts, deficit reduction, and increased spending, tax cuts usually come last.
This survey is two years old, but IIRC a more recent survey found pretty much the same thing.
http://www.news-star.com/stories/010998/opn_survey.html
This is more recent:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/14/teixeira-r.html
Which raises the question, if support for these cuts is so thin, why are congressional Democrats being so spineless in attacking them? Could it be (shock! surprise!) because most of them are millionaires themselves?
Listen to what you are saying. You’re saying that the estate tax is superior to all other taxes, but that you don’t like it anyway. (If that is not the case, perhaps you can tell us what sort of taxes you prefer).
What the government spends money on, roughly
To extend RTF’s point, most of federal spending is either on defense or devoted to middle class entitlements such as social security or medicare.
If you add in interest on the debt, the share totals to 70% (1996, est.)
Now, I’d love it if popular government services didn’t cost money. But since they do, smart grownups seek to raise revenues in the fairest and/or most efficient manner. What sort of tax has those characteristics, of course, is a legitimate GD topic.
True. But practically every decedent who leaves behind a taxable estate was able to vote before s/he kicked.
This one’s kinda odd, I must admit. The FET used to apply to many more people (IIRC, a quarter century ago, before the '76 Tax Reform Act (they always call them that - bears no relation to reality ;)), the per-spouse exemption which now stands at $675K was only $30K), but the right’s always criticized it as being a hardship on the smallest estates actually subject to the tax, so the Dems keep saying, OK, we’ll go along with upping the exemption, and that’s gotten us to where we are.
I suppose we could reverse course, but I can’t see either party pushing for that.
OK, this one, probably inadvertently on your part, is an uneven comparison. We’re trying to compare the plusses and minuses of different taxes with each other here. Presumably, no matter what sort of tax one applies, the taxpayer earned the money being taxed.
Also, the point of the Federal government is to represent us and act on our collective behalf, not to earn money.
Oops. Sorry about the bolding.
(“Preview? What’s that?” ;))
I know RTFirefly has already commented on this…But, it is such a bizarre statement, I really have to explore this more. I mean, are you really trying to argue in the first part that because people can’t vote once they are dead that the estate tax amounts to taxation without representation. That is just ludicrous! The time one gets to participate in the democratic process of making public policy decisions is before the actions of those decisions are carried out! Arguing that dead people can’t vote and thus this is taxation without representation is just some hypertechnical fact, not any sort of serious argument.
It also runs headlong into a sad fact about our current political system, which is that if you are wealthy, you effectively have much more than just one vote. You also have the power to influence (read “buy”) politicians through your political contributions!
Finally, you are going down a dangerous road if you start talking about any laws that may only affect a certain small fraction of the population being unfair. What about drunk driving laws that fall harder on alcoholics than on the rest of us? Or laws against sexual abuse of kids, which is going to fall heavily on those who have a predilection toward this behavior? (Certainly you are interfering with the pursuit of happiness for this population.) Or laws against murder, which are only going to affect those who murder? Sure, if I singled out blue-eyed people for a higher tax rate that would be unfair (and would, I assume, be struck down as unconstitutional). But, you are really opening up a bizarre new interpretation of the Constitution if you are going to try to argue that any tax or tax rate), because it affects only some fraction of the population, can be considered a problem.
Maeglin
You analogy to SS is a specious one - there’s a difference between allowing opportunity and the responsibility that goes with it (SS) and erecting punitive measures that can only be avoided through great care (estate tax). It is also irrelevent to this thread, which concerns SS only. If you start a separate thread, I’ll discuss this further.
DITWD
There’s a crucial difference. In the case of income tax, the rates that million dollar earners pay are not necessarily unjust (or at any rate are not being defended here). Should they end up paying it, it is not necessarily a tragedy. The fact that they can avoid paying this rate is to their advantage - they can get away with paying even less than what has been considered a reasonable rate.
By contrast, the estate tax is widely thought of as unjust, due (among other things) to the fact that it kicks in with relatively high rates at a relatively low level. To this, you are responding that “they can protect their assets through estate tax planning”. This is not a valid counter-argument - to the extent that we accept that the tax as written is unjust, it should not require manipulation to avoid. If you truly believe that the amounts that can be protected through tax planning are the just ones, than these levels should be the ones that are applicable even without planning.
In short, if you would try to defend the income tax on the grounds that you could avoid paying it through clever planning, the exact same argument would apply.
(Furthermore, the fact that super-wealthy people can get away with paying alot less income tax through tax planning also has a negative side, in that there is a popular misconception that these people pay little or no taxes.)
VarlosZ
Exactly. Same thing.