Collounsbury
That’s not how I read it. It doens’t seem like these guys are worried about government revenue.
No, but I don’t see these effects as justification.
Dangerosa
It’s not that every tax is highway robbery. I am merely saying that you should not pretend to not be doing what you actually are. In this case, saying that “it’s not your money” falls under that category.
IzzyR: Reread my earlier post (the first one that you responded to) in which I specifically said that I was responding to this rationale.
Okay. What you said there was:
One thing that is annoying is this constant refrain of super-rich people calling for measures that are purportedly harmful to themselves, but are really sticking it to people far less wealthy than themselves. These people are sanctimoniously cloaking themselves with an undeserved glory.
So far, however, I don’t think you’ve produced any evidence that these “super-rich people” (and many of the signers of their petition seem to be, in fact, not the wealthiest of the wealthy) themselves have claimed or insinuated that they’re the only ones impacted by the estate tax, or the only important ones. You’ve pointed to a number of reporters and editorial writers focusing on these super-rich guys and ignoring counterclaims that “ordinary millionaires” find the estate tax detrimental. Well then, pick on the reporters and editorial writers; or don’t bother, because the “ordinary millionaires” making the counterclaims don’t seem to have any trouble getting their voices heard.
All that Gates, Sr. and Soros and their bunch seem to me to be saying is that they think that a repeal of the estate tax will be harmful to our economy and our society overall, and they’re opposed to it—which they have every right to say. I don’t think you’ve at all adequately defended the claim that this amounts to “sanctimoniously cloaking themselves with an undeserved glory”; it seems that what annoys you is that they are supporting a wealth-redistribution policy that you disagree with, and they’re getting a good deal of press attention for it because they’re wealthy. shrug Sorry.
Kimstu,
The fact that you’ve somehow read words that I specifically addressed to Collounsbury as though they were addressed to yourself has evidently caused you to misinterpret them. You might wish to reread that post.
Regarding your post - I don’t think the impression that the reporters and writers came away with is that difficult to understand, and am convinced that the billionaires who began this campaign had it in mind, latching onto the RW group as a convenient pre-existing group that supported their aims. But to the extent that one can believe that this was not what they had in mind - that one can believe that Gates et al somehow believed that on this issue alone the world awaited their principled viewpoint - then they’re not sanctimonious. Pick your choice.
IzzyR: *The fact that you’ve somehow read words that I specifically addressed to Collounsbury as though they were addressed to yourself […] *
Sorry about that, Izzy. My mistake.
*But to the extent that one can believe that this was not what they had in mind - that one can believe that Gates et al somehow believed that on this issue alone the world awaited their principled viewpoint - then they’re not sanctimonious. *
Well, if using your available PR advantages to try to convey the impression that your viewpoint is principled makes you sanctimonious, then sure, they’re sanctimonious. So are you. So am I. So are Bush and Cheney when they talk about small family farms and businesses being devastated by the estate tax (but forget to mention the personal advantages to them from its repeal). So are the non-wealthy people who favor repealing the estate tax even though the decreased government revenue will likely hurt people who are worse off than they are.
I don’t object to your being cynical about people’s motives: have a ball. What I objected to initially, and still find pretty disingenuous, was the double standard in your cynicism, when you dismissed the estate-tax-favoring billionaires as “sanctimonious” but stuck up for the estate-tax-opposing non-wealthy people as “principled”. It’s just as easy to be cynical about the motivations of one group as the other, when you can’t point to explicit evidence of dishonesty in either case. But you seem to want to disparage the motives of the people who disagree with your position while admiring the motives of the people who agree with it, and I think that that’s based on personal bias rather than actual knowledge of what people are thinking.
Kimstu
You keep on confusing this. One last try - afterwards I give up.
The motivations of these billionaires may well be principled ones. Their arrival at their viewpoint may be due to the highest form of altruism. I have no basis for thinking that they are any less principled than any of the numerous poor people who find the estate tax unjust, and I have never suggested otherwise anywhere in this thread. What I do object to, and find sanctimonious, is this particular campaign in which they are floating their names out in front, in an attempt to emphasize that even the richest of the rich still oppose repeal of the estate tax. This campaign plays on the thought that they will suffer the most from the estate tax, so certainly everyone else should go along. Which is misleading.
I don’t see what is so difficult to understand. If you are playing on the notion that you suffer the most, in an attempt to pressure the ones who really do suffer the most, it is sanctimonious. The numerous people who answer opinion polls or otherwise express their opinions in favor of repeal are not being sanctimonious in any way. They are not falsely holding themselves up as examples of anything.
You find this “disingenuous”? So be it.
I don’t see what you’re basing this on, Izzy. To me, Kimstu’s interpretation that they’re saying, “Look, even a bunch of us whose estates will be heavily taxed by the FET are against its repeal, and that should get you thinking” has just as much merit. Unless there’s something in the wording of their pronouncement that I missed.
Izzy, I’m relieved to find that RTFirefly doesn’t get your reasoning here either, because I was really starting to worry about myself. You say:
The numerous people who answer opinion polls or otherwise express their opinions in favor of repeal are not being sanctimonious in any way. They are not falsely holding themselves up as examples of anything.
Why sure they are, just as much as the billionaires are. They’re saying “This measure that I support will hurt me the most” (while slyly neglecting to mention the worse-off who will really be hurt more), in order to hold themselves up as examples of principled citizenship—exactly as much as the billionaires are. You say I can’t show an example of where they actually come out and say that? But you can’t show an example of where the billionaires actually come out and say it either. They are not saying or insinuating “We will suffer the most from the estate tax, so if we don’t oppose it then nobody else should,” and your claims that their campaign is nonetheless obviously somehow “playing on that thought” sound to me simply like speculative imagination.
You seem to be saying that just because Gates et al. are a group of well-known wealthy people who are trying to attract public attention to their opposition to estate tax repeal, then they are somehow ipso facto presenting themselves under false colors. Izzy, at this point I honestly believe that you honestly believe that you’ve got a coherent argument here, so I withdraw (and apologize for) the term “disingenuous”. But your reasoning still seems to me completely arbitrary and illogical. I agree with you on one thing, though—I think we’re going to have to give this up.
Hm. Interesting point. I don’t think that Gates et al are playing for sympathy (that seems ludicrous on its face) but perhaps the campaign plays on the thought that Gates et al will be affected the most from the estate tax, which may be somewhat misleading.
Gates’ kids are fairly young, IIRC. If Buffet’s kids signed on as well, along with the potential heirs of the less wealthy of the wealthy, would that satisfy you? Sounds a little morbid to me, but what the heck.
I assume you are not saying that there isn’t any acceptable way to advocate substantiated policy positions that you disagree with.
I’m unsure how you are distinguishing between these two arguments. They are basically the same thing, and are sanctimonious, as the main sufferers are not them but are the small-business owner types described previously in this thread.
I am distinguishing between a person who is engaged in an active campaign to sway public opinion holding himself up as an example, purporting to represent something that he does not (e.g. these billionaires), and between a person who merely happens to hold a certain opinion (e.g. a poor person opposed to the death tax). One is sanctimonious, one not. Kimstu does not find this to be rational. Oh well.
Now, from “A Call to Preserve the Estate Tax” (http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_Call.html):
Any more questions?
I’m not sure if this smugness is completely justified, jshore. My discussion with Collounsbury concerned the redisribution of wealth (and promoting merit etc.) argument being put forth by Gates and Buffet. I don’t feel that this is a good argument. To this, Collounsbury responded that the redistributing issue is not a stand-alone argument - that is that it is merely being used as a rationale for chosing one form of tax of another. And to this I responded (and continue to maintain) that that is not how it is being used by these people. Read for example the Gates Op-Ed piece, and the Buffet quotes. I think they’re pretty clear.
The RW petition appears to be a trimmed up version of the Gates article. And it does leave out the merit vs. inheritance argument. Interesting.
(I should note, while on the subject, that estate taxes are a tiny percentage of Federal Government revenue - probably about 1.5% or so. And some of this is, no doubt, the result of provisions that even the RW people agree should be reformed).
An interesting position, Izzy. Is it holding an opinion that you disagree with which makes them sanctimonious or is it having the temerity to use their wealth to make their position public that puts them beyond the pale?
If the latter, do you demand the same standard for other exercises of opinion by the wealthy?
Is it your opinion that because the ultra-wealthy are not in danger of losing a small business or farm they are not at all impacted by the estate tax? Are only the most impacted citizens granted the possibility of expressing an unsanctimonious opinion in your world?
If so, since you have obviously disregarded the easy objective standard of economic impact (gross dollars) what subjective measure does one have to meet before they can express an honest opinion without being damned for sanctimony?
Also, do you apply the same standard to other taxes? If, for instance, the marginal rate on income above $2 million were raised to 70% would you rage that the ultra-wealthy should keep silent since they are not the most impacted population group?
I interpret “everyone else should go along” as “we’re against repeal - that should end the discussion,” v. “that should get you thinking” by which I meant that, although they’ve made a significant contribution to the discussion, there’s no implication on their part that their statement should be the final word on the subject.
I’m still waiting for some substantiation that the current FET law forces the breakup of small businesses. I’ve provided numbers that at least strongly suggest otherwise, and am awaiting rebuttal.
Excluding this, you’d be saying that smaller estates subject to the tax are, by some measure, hit harder than larger ones. If you’re saying the FET should be more of a graduated tax than it is, I happen to agree. I believe very strongly in the logic of graduated taxes, as my posts above undoubtedly convey. Do Buffett, Gates, Soros, etc. take a stand one way or the other on this? (And why should they have? The issue they responded to was should we repeal it or not?, not what’s the best way to structure it?) And if not, then what’s your beef?
One thing at a time: has it stopped being OK to engage in active campaigns to sway public opinion? I hope not - that’s what the First Amendment is about.
Do the rich have greater ability to make their voices heard? Yes, and I’m not exactly happy with the extent to which that’s true. But what should they do - remain silent while Dubya pretends to speak for them?
Are Buffett & Co. holding themselves up as examples, representing something they’re not? I’d say they’re holding themselves up as people who are taking a stand that significantly fails to coincide with their self-interest on this issue, which happens to be 100% true.
If that in itself is sanctimony, then everybody’s opinion is either sanctimonious or self-interested.
In this case, our president was claiming to represent the interests of people like Buffett. So they took it upon themselves to contradict him. It’s hardly sanctimonious to object to someone putting words in your mouth.
Spiritus Mundi
Been down this road with you before. Not this time, sorry.
RTFirefly
Answer these questions off the bat: Do you think that there is a public perception that these billionaires (or their type) are the very last group of people who should be against tax repeal, and that this has lent their campaign some additional strength? Do you think these billionaires made their campaign with this impact in mind? Do you think it is true that they are indeed the very last group of people who would support the estate tax? My answer to these questions is yes, yes, and no. If you disagree then fine, but at least we would be clear on what we are saying, something that has proven extraordinarily difficult in this thread.
I agree with your position, and have not claimed otherwise.
How about…more than one thing at a time. One of the difficulties of debating simultaneously with multiple people on message boards is that it can happen that people jump in and out, agreeing with aspects of a position, but not being prepared to defend it in full. In this instance, I was responding to kimstu, who has been repeatedly claiming to see an inconsistency between my calling the billionaires sanctimonious and my statement that the poor people who support repeal might be expressing a principled stand. The post that you cite was about this issue (inconsistent vs. not inconsistent). It is difficult to know how to respond to you if you ignore that issue and treat the words as if they were spoken in a vacuum. You should take a position on what I said (considering the previous posts on the matter), or at least take them in context.
No. the universe of people who are affected by the estate tax is not a large one, as has been mentioned. Within that universe, they are among the least affected. Someone who is not much interested one way or other or who is not highlighting his own personal status is not being sanctimonious.
This is presumptous on your part. I don’t think Bush thinks of himself as representing the interests of people like Buffett, though you as a liberal might prefer to see it that way.
sanc.ti.mo.ni.ous adj (1603) 1 : affecting piousness : hypocritically devout
So unless you’re saying Buffett et al. are lying when they say they oppose repealing the estate tax, they are by definition not sanctimonious. It’s time to pick a new word, Izzy.
I have no idea which road you mean. I honestly don’t recall any particular disagreements with you on this board, though I do not doubt they might have occurred. I assume you mean hat you do not like it when I examine your positions for logical consistency. shrug
No. “Very last” is an unjustified modifier. Since you are unwilling to establish your subjective standard of impact, and since you dismiss dollar losses in the billions as insignificant if they don’t include breaking up a small business or selling a family home (does losing control of a corporation count as significant in your world?) I see no basis for stating the perception in such extreme terms. There is a perception that these people’s estates are directly and significantly impacted by FET. That perception is valid.
Yes. Do you think their position is weakened because they argue a position not easily charaterized as “selfish”?
No. The adjectival phrase is as unwarranted here as it was in your first question. Additionally, since their position is known (and the FET does not enjoy universal support) the answer is trivial.
I will ask again whether you apply the same standard of impact to other taxes, particularly the income tax. Of course, you might decline to respond again, thereby demonstrating . . .something, I’m sure.
RTFirefly: *If you’re saying the FET should be more of a graduated tax than it is, I happen to agree. I believe very strongly in the logic of graduated taxes, as my posts above undoubtedly convey. Do Buffett, Gates, Soros, etc. take a stand one way or the other on this? *
Yes, they seem to agree with you. Here is the entire text of the “Call to Preserve the Estate Tax” that I linked to before at responsiblewealth.org. (Note that the leaders of this petition drive seem to be Soros, Gates Sr. (the father of superbillionaire Bill), and others: I know Bill Gates Jr. and Buffett have spoken out against repealing the FET in other fora, but I don’t know exactly what they said.)
Sorry about the smug comment which, if I were doing it over again, I would leave out. My point was just that, whether or not Gates and Buffett were making this point in all of what they have written or said on this issue, the official statement that Gates is helping organize the signing of makes the revenue point very clearly. And, we had linked to that site countless times before in our posts here.
Ah, yes. We’ve been down this road before! The point is that the 1.5% of revenue becomes a lot larger when viewed in the context of the fact that much revenue is already spoken for (by things like social security) and only a fraction of the federal budget is used for non-defense discretionary spending. If you consider the revenue from the estate and gift tax as a percentage of non-defense discretionary spending (which most of it will probably have to come out of because it will be hard to cut discretionary or DoD spending) then it runs about 9% (and is projected to be running about 11% in 2010, for whatever such projections are worth). I say that such a cut in discretionary spending is no small potatoes!
Well, not demonstrating that I’m an outright liar.
Something positive…
jshore
I’m not going to debate whether there is a need for the revenue. I suspect not, but maybe yes. My point earlier concerned whether the “merit” argument was a stand-alone argument, and a justified one.
FYI: During the promotion of his tax cut plan (his entire one), Bush has liked to present families that would benefit. Fair enough. When asked why he doesn’t present people from the highest incomes during his press conferences, he says: “Well, I beg your pardon, I’m representing them. I got a little pay raise coming to Washington from Austin, I’ll be in the top bracket.” Cute reply really, IMO.
Cite: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010206/ts/bush_leadall_dc_251.html
I suspect that is what your adversary may have been refering to. Perhaps you were too quick to impunge on his motives.
Finally: Gee, I always thought that Spiritus was one of the more level-headed guys on the board. Ah well, who you choose to converse with is your perogative.