« Narcocalm | Main | Who Should I Vote For? »
Estate Tax
I'll trust that anyone reading this blog is well-read enough not to need a primer in why repealing the Estate Tax in the face of massive deficits is not the height of sound policymaking. For your delight and amusement I will, instead, offer some thoughts out of season. Taxing estates doesn't really seem like a great plan. If I die with a $10 million estate and want to give $5 to 2 million different people, there doesn't seem to me to be a good reason why the estate should be taxed. Better to tax inheritance since the actual concern is that I'll give $10 million to my son and he'll be rich, rich, rich without ever having worked. Second, perhaps it's politically effective, but I'm disquieted by the Paris Hilton-bashing. The problem is that not every wealthy heiress is a Paris Hilton. But every wealthy heiress ought to pay tax. Implying that the decadence of Miss Hilton is somehow integral to the case clouds the issue.
Speaking of which, fuck the small businessman. This is exactly the problem posed by obsessive focus on Paris Hilton. I might be an earnest, hardworking dude who works in the store. And somebody might die and give the store to me. The store may be worth millions and millions of dollars. If so, I ought to pay tax on it. Why? Because I've just inherited millions and millions of dollars, that's why. That I'm earnest and hardworking, and that my riches came in the form of a valuable store rather than a heaping plate of gold matters not a whit. What about those sad folks forced to sell the family business? Don't cry for them. Here you are, you inherit a store worth $X. You owe $Y in taxes, with Y being less than X. So you are "forced" to sell the store, and accept "only" $X-Y as your inheritance. Note that X is a figure in the millions, and Y a small proportion of X. This is a very good problem to have, abstracting away from the fact that someone you love has probably died and this is probably a bigger concern of yours that the tax bill. This is, in other words, a non-problem. The government ought, perhaps, to facilitate some kind of lending arrangement so that people who prefer to keep the store and pay the tax down over time out of operating revenues can do so.
The last point, however, is the first in importance. Liberals should not mistake getting self-righteous about estate tax repeal for having a serious program to combat inequality or reduce poverty in America. Repealing the estate tax is dumb. Putting it back in place would be a good idea. But a serious program to combat inequality or reduce poverty would be better. Ressentiment, my comrades, will only get you so far.
April 14, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/58113/2247163
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Estate Tax:
» Yglesias Goes Kos on Small Business from Outside The Beltway
Markos Zuniga famously said "screw them" in reference to American mercenaries killed in Iraq. Matthew Yglesias uses slightly harsher rhetoric in defending the death/estate tax:
Speaking of which, f--- the small businessman. This is exactly the p... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 14, 2005 10:39:34 AM
» When you're in a hole, stop digging from Asymmetrical Information
Matthew Yglesias ably demonstrates why middle America hates blue state folks like us.... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 14, 2005 12:58:39 PM
» Immoral Tax Policy from Isaac Schrödinger
A person likely goes to school, then finds work. Property is bought and a life is lived. The entire time [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 14, 2005 2:12:00 PM
» The Corporate Erin Brockovich? from Truck and Barter
Pardon the echo-chamber post, but this one really deserves an airing, I think. Via Asymmetrical Information, this post from Matt Yglesias. The key point? Speaking of which, fuck the small businessman. Just a reminder, from the government Matt apparentl... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 14, 2005 3:39:43 PM
» Tell Us What You Really Think. from Daly Thoughts
Matthew Yglesias:
Speaking of which, fudge the small businessman.
Only he didn't say fudge (random Christmas Story references in the middle of April are always welcome).
Mr. Yglesias is having a rough month so far.
If this is the Democrat... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 14, 2005 4:26:31 PM
» A Spectre Still Haunts Us from REDUX
Stumbling onto this collective declaration of spite by one the blue state's lumpen proletariat (by way of Megan McArdle's excellent site), I fell into a brief melancholy after finding out that today, in the 21st century, communism does in fact [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 14, 2005 7:14:23 PM
» Estate Tax = Inheritance Tax = Bad Tax from A Stitch in Haste
Matthew Yglesias is -- as usual -- 100% wrong when he tries to rationalize the death tax by re-labeling it as an “inheritance tax.”
I might be an earnest, har... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 14, 2005 8:08:42 PM
» Leftist Stance On Small Business Revealed from Say Anything
... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 14, 2005 11:18:25 PM
» YGads! from The Black Republican
Jane Galt nails it in one line: Matthew Yglesias ably demonstrates why middle America hates blue state folks... The demonstration occurs here, as Yglesias dances in circles on the head of pin. Absent of logic, endowed with the need to... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 2:47:54 AM
» YGads! from The Black Republican
Jane Galt nails it in one line: Matthew Yglesias ably demonstrates why middle America hates blue state folks... The demonstration occurs here, as Yglesias dances in circles on the head of pin. Absent of logic, endowed with the need to... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 2:53:24 AM
» Marx would be proud of Yglesias from justbarkingmad.com
People are, rightfully so, jumping on Ygelsias for his comment "Fuck the small businessman". The more telling phrase is right out of Das Kapital. It is the heart of the issue and in this Ygelsias makes it clear that one doesn't...or shouldn't..... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 7:56:52 AM
» The Price of A Clue from BillHobbs.com
Matt Yglesias is an idiot, and a rude one at that, at least when the issue is estate taxes. Read this post, including his very offensive call for the government to "f..k the small businessman" by continuing to levy the... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 8:32:40 AM
» The Price of A Clue from BillHobbs.com
Matt Yglesias is an idiot, and a rude one at that, at least when the issue is estate taxes. Read this post, including his very offensive call for the government to "f..k the small businessman" by continuing to levy the... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 8:36:46 AM
» Unhinged (as usual) from Overtaken by Events
The "Reality Based" left has a message for those hardwoking entrepreneurs that spend their lives trying to build a business... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 8:43:14 AM
» Ballad of a Straw Man from Cream & Bastards
Matthew Yglesias on the Estate Tax: Speaking of which, fuck the small businessman. This is exactly the problem posed by obsessive focus on Paris Hilton. I might be an earnest, hardworking dude who works in the store. And somebody might... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 9:20:02 AM
» Creativity at its best from In the Agora
Since I took a day off today, enjoying a rare experience for me--sleeping in on a Friday morning--I thought it would be apropos to bring you news of a clever invention. Clocky is the creation of MIT Research Associate Gauri... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 10:41:41 AM
» Taxing your inheritance from Gin and Tonic
An interesting debate is developing on the nature of inheritance taxes. Left-winger Matthew Yglesias thinks "F*** the small businessman", while others think that's a manifestation of self-loathing. I had this discussion with a friend during the last el... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 10:53:02 AM
» Unhinged (as usual) from Overtaken by Events
The "Reality Based" left has a message for those hardwoking entrepreneurs that spend their lives trying to build a business... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 11:11:48 AM
» "Fuck the small businessman" from it comes in pints?
Matthew Yglesias makes a fool of himself. I don't normally read his blog so I don't know if this is a common occurrence. He does seem to have a lot of Marxist idiots commenting there who seem to be under... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 11:56:51 AM
» Unhinged (as usual) from Overtaken by Events
The "Reality Based" left has a message for those hardwoking entrepreneurs that spend their lives trying to build a business... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 12:02:40 PM
» Swollen Fortunes from Molinillo
Back in 1906, for instance, President Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) insisted that Congress pass progressive (or ?graduated?) income and inheritance taxes. [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 12:43:08 PM
» Republican Party Hell Bent on Making Sure I Vote Democrat in 2008 from The World Wide Rant - v3.0
Bill Frist is leading the charge:As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying ... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 1:49:22 PM
» Death Tax from just procrastinating
I'm getting a kick out of this Matt Yglesias thread, wherein the astute Harvard grad lets the entrepreneurial world what he really thinks of them: [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 2:37:54 PM
» The Estate Tax from QandO
With the Estate Tax set for permanent cancellationactually, set to be replaced by a cap-gains tax" would be more accuratedebate is raging, again. Of the moral argument, Glenn Reynolds writes... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 3:26:04 PM
» The "Stupid Computer" People explain the estate tax for you... from UNCoRRELATED
Matthew Yglesias pontificates on the estate tax. Speaking of which, f**k the small businessman. This is exactly the problem posed by obsessive focus on Paris Hilton. I might be an earnest, hardworking dude who works in the store. And somebody... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 10:42:36 PM
» The "Stupid Computer" People explain the estate tax for you... from UNCoRRELATED
Matthew Yglesias pontificates on the estate tax. Speaking of which, f**k the small businessman. This is exactly the problem posed by obsessive focus on Paris Hilton. I might be an earnest, hardworking dude who works in the store. And somebody... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 10:46:01 PM
» Matt Yglesias, Paris Hilton, the Spirit of '76, and Section 6166 of the Internal Revenue Code from Mark A. R. Kleiman
The estate tax does not force the breakup of family-owned firms and farms, so let's not argue about whether it would be a bad thing if it did. [Read More]Tracked on Apr 16, 2005 5:49:56 AM
» Matt Yglesias, Paris Hilton, the Spirit of '76,
and Section 6166 of the Internal Revenue Code from Mark A. R. Kleiman
The estate tax does not force the breakup of family-owned firms and farms, so let's not argue about whether it would be a bad thing if it did. [Read More]Tracked on Apr 16, 2005 5:51:35 AM
» EAT THE RICH from MaxSpeak, You Listen!
Matt aroused a ignorant furor over his estate tax post. The House of Paleozoic Hominids has voted for repeal, as it has in the past; the fate of the tax will be decided in the Billionaire Boyz Club, a.k.a. the... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 16, 2005 12:27:25 PM
» Matthew Yglesia should just get over his hatred of the rich from Blind Mind's Eye
In an astoundingly bad leap of logic, Matthew Yglesia like many so-called liberals cannot get over his hatred of the very rich long enough to realize the implication of his own proposal: Speaking of which, fuck the small businessman. This is exact... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 16, 2005 9:57:47 PM
» All your money are belong to us from Physics Geek
Plenty of people have weighed into on Yglesias' diatribe about the abolishing the estate tax, so I don't have anything of value to add. However, the following comment almost left me speechless: The purpose of citizens is to pay taxes.... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 16, 2005 11:13:34 PM
» Matt Yglesias, Paris Hilton, the Spirit of '76, and Section 6166 of the Internal Revenue Code from Blogcritics
Matt Yglesias is right to prefer inheritance taxes to estate taxes. Conceptually, an inheritance tax puts the focus on the... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 19, 2005 6:41:59 PM
» Not all class warfare, folks from Asymmetrical Information
Reading through the hysteria cited by my co-blogger I'm struck at the level of ignorance of the actual mechanics of the Estate Tax and the implications of repeal. Nor do any of the comments show an understanding of why so many who are not subject to it... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 21, 2005 9:43:48 PM
» Not all class warfare, folks from Asymmetrical Information
Reading through the hysteria cited by my co-blogger I'm struck at the level of ignorance of the actual mechanics of the Estate Tax and the implications of repeal. Nor do any of the comments show an understanding of why so many who are not subject to it... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 21, 2005 9:48:06 PM
» Death of the Estate Tax from In the Agora
As I gear up for my eight hour income tax exam with 8-10 hour study days, I don't feel guilty for taking a few moments away from it to address the potential repeal of the Estate Tax. Many people have... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 22, 2005 12:47:52 PM
» Death of the Estate Tax from In the Agora
As I gear up for my eight hour income tax exam with 8-10 hour study days, I don't feel guilty for taking a few moments away from it to address the potential repeal of the Estate Tax. Many people have... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 22, 2005 12:49:43 PM
» Death of the Estate Tax from In the Agora
As I gear up for my eight hour income tax exam with 8-10 hour study days, I don't feel guilty for taking a few moments away from it to address the potential repeal of the Estate Tax. Many people have... [Read More]Tracked on Apr 22, 2005 12:52:22 PM
» Taxing your inheritance from Gin and Tonic
An interesting debate is developing on the nature of inheritance taxes. Left-winger Matthew Yglesias thinks "F*** the small businessman", while others think that's a manifestation of self-loathing. I had this discussion with a friend during the last el... [Read More]Tracked on Oct 19, 2005 12:33:43 PM
» Taxing your inheritance from Gin and Tonic
An interesting debate is developing on the nature of inheritance taxes. Left-winger Matthew Yglesias thinks "F*** the small businessman", while others think that's a manifestation of self-loathing. I had this discussion with a friend during the last el... [Read More]Tracked on Oct 19, 2005 12:35:31 PM
Comments
Second, perhaps it's politically effective, but I'm disquieted by the Paris Hilton-bashing. The problem is that not every wealthy heiress is a Paris Hilton. But every wealthy heiress ought to pay tax. Implying that the decadence of Miss Hilton is somehow integral to the case clouds the issue.
I find it rather strange when the bloggers are talking about Democrats losing on cultural issues, you would have any problems with Democrats bashing Paris Hilton. we're using Paris Hilton to bash conservatives because for years conservatives have been claiming liberals are the ones who are decadent. It's rather sad we're stuck in the rather pathetic tit for tat insults, but conservatives haven't left liberals with much choice if they want to win right?Posted by: Dan the Man | Apr 14, 2005 1:14:00 AM
"Liberals should not mistake getting self-righteous about estate tax repeal for having a serious program to combat inequality or reduce poverty in America. Repealing the estate tax is dumb. Putting it back in place would be a good idea. But a serious program to combat inequality or reduce poverty would be better."
Just because the estate tax by itself won't solve all the world's problems doesn't mean it's not part of a serious program to combat inequality and reduce poverty.
A trillion dollars in federal revenue ain't chicken feed. That's some serious dollars.
A trillion dollars would represent a not insignificant down payment on a Medicare for All program. A trillion dollars would fund college grants for a lot of deserving students.
And given that every dollar raised by the estate tax tends to be matched by another dollar that moves from heirs to charitable giving means the estate tax's impact on combatting inequality and reducing poverty is doubled.
The existence of the perfect should not cast aspersions on the seriousness of the good.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 1:18:28 AM
Huh?
The ESTATE is in limbo. It belongs to no one. That is the classic story. And, it is an ESTATE. A hunk of property, classically land. A hunk of property whose disposition society will limit to prevent the dead hand of the past from ruling the living. That is the issue for God's sake. Not like it is a new one.
What is the authority for taxing the receiver? "I had an idea?"
What does Paris Hilton have to do with anything?
Ressentiment? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Not just drinking the kool aid, but chugging it, IV ing it, whimpering for it. Their party line. On cue.
Posted by: razor | Apr 14, 2005 1:20:55 AM
It would seem that in re: small businesses and farms, the "right" choice would be to adopt the following:
If you inherit a sole-proprietorship, you do not owe estate taxes upon it so long as you continue to own and operate it. Should you sell it or (some of) its assets, estate/inheritance taxes will be levied at the moment of sale (upon the amount sold).Oh and "razor", you are incoherent. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Posted by: Rahul Sinha | Apr 14, 2005 1:32:44 AM
Why should we tax inheritances rather than estates? It seems to me that taxing estates would be more reliable in terms of raising revenue than taxing inheritances, for precisely the $5-each-to-2-million-people example you cite. It's all nice and well to talk about taxes as social engineering when you are, say, running a small, managable deficit of 1% of GDP or running a surplus or something, but we have a huge deficit, and a demographic bulge coming. It seems to me that right now, the way we should be thinking about taxes is as ways to grab lotsa money from people at gunpoint.
Posted by: Julian Elson | Apr 14, 2005 1:35:23 AM
"Oh and "razor", you are incoherent. I have no idea what you are trying to say."
I understand exactly what he is trying to say.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 1:35:32 AM
"If I die with a $10 million estate and want to give $5 to 2 million different people, there doesn't seem to me to be a good reason why the estate should be taxed. Better to tax inheritance since the actual concern is that I'll give $10 million to my son and he'll be rich, rich, rich without ever having worked."
This misses the revenue raising aspect of the estate tax. Again, a trillion dollars ain't chicken feed.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 1:38:51 AM
""If I die with a $10 million estate and want to give $5 to 2 million different people, there doesn't seem to me to be a good reason why the estate should be taxed."
In reality, this estate actually wouldn't be taxed, as charitable donations (which is what is really being described here) aren't taxed.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 1:42:10 AM
Um, the receiver IS effectively the one being taxed.
sheesh.
Posted by: praktike | Apr 14, 2005 1:49:40 AM
Yeah, but if we don't talk about Paris I can't do entries like this any more. :)
Posted by: Oliver | Apr 14, 2005 1:49:50 AM
Rahula
If you wanna understand, look up the word estate. The word is pregnant with meaning from back before there was contract law. The read about, oh, for example. progenitor.
Posted by: razor | Apr 14, 2005 1:53:26 AM
Spoken like a comrade. Bravo.
Posted by: Dick Durata | Apr 14, 2005 1:55:10 AM
Ressentiment, my comrades, will only get you so far.And may I finally say I say with all sincerity, fuck that shit.Talk of the abolition of the estate tax pisses me off the way the Iraq War pissed off others on the left.
Over the past 30 years, we have witnessed a situation where the very wealthy have essentially absorbed every single penny of additional national wealth.
And now they are turning their gains toward using the political system to further extend their wealth at the expense of the other 98% of the citizenry.
I'd say one of the problems of the past 30 years has been a lack of a politics of economic ressentiment. Enough of this shit.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 1:55:51 AM
"I'd say one of the problems of the past 30 years has been a lack of a politics of economic ressentiment. Enough of this shit."
To the ramparts!
I love Paris Hilton. Seriously. One of the very best amateur videos in my collection. I am in love, and she can have all my money.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 14, 2005 2:08:26 AM
Matt Y says, "But a serious program to combat inequality or reduce poverty would be better."
Here is the solution - GIVE THEM A JOB. Problem is that handouts are too easy and there's no motivation to get off govt assistance. If they choose to sit on their ass, they are choosing to live in "poverty."
Why do the so called person living in poverty pay in $1,000 in federal tax and then get a tax return check for $3,000? How is it that you can get back more than you've paid in federal tax? THAT my friend is govt charity at its finest.
Lastly, why should I have to pay taxes on an inheritance that my father has already paid taxes on? Does the fact that the money changes hands negate the previously paid taxed?
Posted by: jim | Apr 14, 2005 2:26:44 AM
Ooh, James Lileks will not like your comments, Matthew. As one friend of mine notes with amusement, he's gotten quite a lot of columns out of bemoaning all the painful difficulties produced for him by the fact that his father bequeathed him a sizable gas station.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Apr 14, 2005 2:33:49 AM
The purpose of citizens is to pay taxes. Government has no reason to tolerate citizens otherwise. Dead or alive, what difference does it make? They should pay. Let's lobby to add this text to the next Democratic Party platform:
If you drive a car-car I'll tax the street
If you try to sit-sit I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk I'll tax your feet
Tax manWell I'm the tax man
Yea I'm the tax manDon't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some moreCause I'm the tax man
Yea I'm the tax manNow my advice for those who die (tax man)
Declare the pennies on your eyes (tax man)Cause I'm the tax man
Yea I'm the tax manAnd you're working for no one but me
Posted by: Jim | Apr 14, 2005 2:49:35 AM
When a rich person dies, the estate should be confiscated and re-distributed, folks.
This is the least we could do for the poor bastard.
For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 3:35:11 AM
"Speaking of which, fuck the small businessman. This is exactly the problem posed by obsessive focus on Paris Hilton. I might be an earnest, hardworking dude who works in the store. And somebody might die and give the store to me. The store may be worth millions and millions of dollars. If so, I ought to pay tax on it. Why? Because I've just inherited millions and millions of dollars, that's why."
NO, you haven't inherited millions and millions of dollars, you have inherited something that is worth that. Liquidity can't mean nothing, especially in issues of estate - there is so much more involved. I find it hillarious that this kind of argument comes from the same people (typically) who bemoan the fall of family agriculture and local commerce to Agribusiness and Walmart. A Farmer who inherits a $1million dollar chunk of land is not the same as a blue-blood who has an equal sized trust fund. The cash value of the farm is useless to the farmer because his livelyhood depends on the illiquidity of the asset.
Posted by: Sweeney | Apr 14, 2005 3:38:16 AM
Sweeney,
So, the small farmer's son sells the land to someone else who then will become a small farmer. What's wrong with that? I could never understand your argument.
Why does it seem important to you that a small business or chunk of land is transferred to a family member, biological realtive of the former owner? Is this some kind of feudalist concept or eugenics project?
Thanks.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 4:03:46 AM
A Farmer who inherits a $1million dollar chunk of land is not the same as a blue-blood who has an equal sized trust fund.
...which is why the first $2 million plus is exempted from the estate. Smarter monkeys, please.
Posted by: Kimmitt | Apr 14, 2005 4:07:26 AM
Yes, but even if this is a $10 million business or chunk of land - what's the compelling public reason to keep it in the same family? I don't get it. The heirs will probably sell it anyway. I know I would.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 4:15:40 AM
OK, Matt, this is a Pundit's Fallacy you've committed. Sure, your policy explanation is ever-so-sound, but bashing trustafarians WORKS much better than, say, a scion of Rich New York Jewry explaining ever-so-reasonably why the Inheritance Tax is good.
Posted by: bobo brooks | Apr 14, 2005 4:29:32 AM
Bashing the Paris Hilton Relief Act of 2005 may be unfair to Paris Hilton but it is good politics. Anyway, she deserves to suffer. Pay back time for The Simple Life :>
Congratulations, Paris Hilton ! You've been promoted from gas bag to punching bag ! Hope you enjoy your very first role in public policy.
Posted by: Fifi | Apr 14, 2005 5:37:04 AM
It's perfectly understandable to look at some guy begging on the street and think, (Not, "will he STOP blocking traffic!) that something ought to be done about it. That's compassionate and all, and the only problem with Democrats is your reflexive assumption that you're entitled to do that "something" with somebody else's money, instead of your own.
But when you look at somebody who has just gotten rich, and think, "Something has to be done about that!", that's nothing but spite. You'll never understand the trouble you have winning people over, until you grasp that most people think spite is a vice, not a virtue.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Apr 14, 2005 5:48:32 AM
But Paris Hilton has done wonders with her money!
Posted by: blah | Apr 14, 2005 5:57:27 AM
JIM:"Lastly, why should I have to pay taxes on an inheritance that my father has already paid taxes on? "
A similar logic would also apply to state lottery winners because the money they get comes from money that has already been taxed.
Posted by: Steven J. | Apr 14, 2005 6:01:26 AM
Couple of philosophical points from a quasi-Georgist Single Taxer.
1) Ideally we wouldn't need income taxes. While these taxes aren't necessarily theft, they can be damn near close if the money is blown on waste, fraud, or unproductive efforts like welfare.
2) The real money is in the *unimproved* property values, ie the location value of land. We should start taxing this a LOT more, to redirect ricardian rents from unproductive landlords to the community that CREATES the location value in the first place.
3) I believe democratic government has a role in life of mitigating the various failures of our free market capitalist system, IOW enforcing the social contract. But Income taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes should be emplaced AFTER we solve the root problem of landlords capturing rent monies that do not belong to them.
It is estimated that the total ground rents in this country are 20% of GDP, or $2T/yr. That is largely an untaxed tax base.
Posted by: Troy | Apr 14, 2005 6:02:22 AM
JIM:"Why do the so called person living in poverty pay in $1,000 in federal tax and then get a tax return check for $3,000? How is it that you can get back more than you've paid in federal tax? THAT my friend is govt charity at its finest."
A negative income tax was first proposed by Milton Friedman, a paragon of neo-classical orthodoxy.
Posted by: Steven J. | Apr 14, 2005 6:04:43 AM
But when you look at somebody who has just gotten rich, and think, "Something has to be done about that!", that's nothing but spite. You'll never understand the trouble you have winning people over, until you grasp that most people think spite is a vice, not a virtue.
Gah! Painfully stupid remark!
1.) The vast majority people we're taxing with the inheretence tax haven't gotten rich through hard work- they were basically lucky enough to be born. This isn't about spite, it's about ensuring America doesn't have a permanent class of people who remain extremely wealthy while doing absolutely no work.
2.) As far as "winning people over"- OK, so the very top 0.3% of the population won't vote for us. Whoop-tee-freaking-do.
Posted by: Brad R. | Apr 14, 2005 6:34:57 AM
One more thing about ths:
You'll never understand the trouble you have winning people over, until you grasp that most people think spite is a vice, not a virtue.
Yeah, we were the party telling people in West Virginia that our opponents would ban the Bible while allowing gay marriage. The Republicans, they NEVER appeal to spite...
Posted by: Brad R. | Apr 14, 2005 6:36:59 AM
...why should I have to pay taxes on an inheritance that my father has already paid taxes on?
Because you and your father are two different people. Every time money change hands a new income is generated and it's taxed. According to MY's scheme (which makes a lot of sense, I must say), you could cash your father's fortune, deposit it into his casket and bury it with him. This way he can keep it tax-free postmortally. The 'death tax' problem is solved.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 6:43:08 AM
As if needed more validation, you have given us another chance to witness a fucking DLC type Dem dropped a soft fly ball. No, no, whatever you do, don’t use Paris Hilton as example. Don’t call this the “Paris Hilton tax cut”. That would be as naughty as that woman tries, desperately and endlessly, to sell herself as being. Your fucking priceless: “what’s the big deal about gas price increase?” and “hey, guys, give poor Paris a break….forsooth, let us be more specific and forthcoming” in our lamenting the tax cut the idiot gave the people who put him into power. Yes, yes, really noble of you Matt. A prince among men.
Posted by: jon s | Apr 14, 2005 7:01:04 AM
Brett,
"But when you look at somebody who has just gotten rich, and think, "Something has to be done about that!", that's nothing but spite. You'll never understand the trouble you have winning people over, until you grasp that most people think spite is a vice, not a virtue."
Winning people over?
During the past 30 years, the Democratic Party has had a lot of trouble winning a majority of the people over to their side on a wide variety of issues:
- Family and church moral values
- Having a hawkish enough foreign policy
- Not seeming populist enough in terms of style and image
- Basic regional problems (the issue too many on the left ignore)But you think the Democratic Party is having trouble winning people over on economics? Please don't make me laugh so hard. Seriously. It feels good, but you're going to make me bust a gut.
If people voted for President based only on economics, the Democrats would've won every Presidential election over the last 75 years with the single anomaly of Ronald Reagan.
Now, you may certainly think that progressive taxation is wrong on the merits. You're free to think that establishing a federal government with the power of the purse to provide for the common defense and ensure the general welfare was a bad move. You may even think unfettered corporate power is a dandy thing.
But please don't go around thinking your views on economics are popular.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 7:18:46 AM
So, the small farmer's son sells the land to someone else who then will become a small farmer. What's wrong with that? I could never understand your argument.
The argument is that is probably not what happens. What happens instead is the farm doesn't generate enough cash to pay off the tax bill and provide an income for the son's family. So he sells out to a developer who will subdivide it and build tract houses. Or to an agribusiness conglomerate (which conglomerate, of course, will never have to sell the land because of estate taxes). And the kid who inherits the local store? Often a similar story--the store can't pay off the inheritence tax and provide a decent income, so it's time to liquidate, sell the building and pay the tax.
Or maybe the second generation will try to keep it going and pay the tax at the same time but end up bankrupt.
Anyway, rich, idle, useless trust fund kiddies like Paris Hilton are not the typical cases. Most of the country's 'small fortunes' large enough to be affected by the estate tax come from small businesses (see, for example, 'The Millionaire Next Door').
Now I'm not sure how best to balance the competing values here, but I am pretty damn sure "fuck the small businessman" isn't going to be a winning political formula.
Posted by: mw | Apr 14, 2005 7:45:07 AM
"Anyway, rich, idle, useless trust fund kiddies like Paris Hilton are not the typical cases. Most of the country's 'small fortunes' large enough to be affected by the estate tax come from small businesses"
All depends where you put the cutoff point. At the old $650,000 figure (which I think was about right), you are probably correct. At the current $3,000,000 figure, that's getting to be a pretty damn big small business.
If you're inheriting a 5 million dollar business, and you have to pay 1 million dollars in estate tax, (which is the current equation), I've got little to no sympathy for your horrendous plight.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 7:53:50 AM
The estate tax stifles innovation and entrepeneurship.
To give just one example, I have a secret process that turns ordinary tap water into 87 octane unleaded gasoline, but I'm not bringing it to market unless the estate tax is repealed, so that my family can retain, in perpetuity, every last dime of the enormous royalties the corporations who license my invention will pay me.
Posted by: Professor John Frink | Apr 14, 2005 8:04:04 AM
What happens instead is the farm doesn't generate enough cash to pay off the tax bill and provide an income for the son's family. So he sells out to a developer who will subdivide it and build tract houses.
Look, Mw, either it does make economic sense to have a small farm there or it doesn't. If it does, there will be a small farm there whether it's the same family or some other family. If it doesn't - it will be sold to a developer, tax or no tax.
If you want to preserve small farms, that's fine too, but eliminating estate tax is not the way to do it, it simply won't work. Isn't it kinda obvious?
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 8:09:11 AM
I mean, either 'estate tax' or 'inheritance tax'. I personally agree with MY that inheritance tax is a better concept.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 8:14:13 AM
"Taxing estates doesn't really seem like a great plan."
"Repealing the estate tax is dumb"
Huh? Judging government programs on their monetary output rather than their intrinsic characteristics is a slippery slope that feeds into Republicans hands when they make the arguments about smaller, more responsible government.
Posted by: Zach | Apr 14, 2005 8:15:49 AM
"I have a secret process that turns ordinary tap water into 87 octane unleaded gasoline, but I'm not bringing it to market unless the estate tax is repealed, so that my family can retain, in perpetuity, every last dime of the enormous royalties the corporations who license my invention will pay me."
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 8:17:46 AM
"I mean, either 'estate tax' or 'inheritance tax'. I personally agree with MY that inheritance tax is a better concept."
Well, then, can you explain MY's plan to me? It sure seems like the current estate tax plan as far as I can tell...
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 8:19:30 AM
And after we eat the rich - I'll take my Paris Hilton done medium rare with grilled onions - I think we should then turn our attentional toward harvesting John Bolton's internal organs and mustache for sale on eBay.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 8:36:00 AM
The current estate tax, if I understand correctly, taxes the dead guy; that is: if I die and live $100 million to my children, it doesn't matter if I have 1 child or 100 children - the tax will be the same, because the estate is taxed, not the beneficiaries.
The alternative is to tax it on the receiving end, to tax the heirs, to treat inheritance as their income. That's how I understand it, anyway.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 8:47:11 AM
I would note that the question isn't whether the estate tax is an unhappy event for those affected by it. The real question is whether we dislike the estate tax so much that we are willing to tax people's labor income more to finance getting rid of it. There is probably a snappier way to put this, but there you go.
Posted by: alkali | Apr 14, 2005 8:49:04 AM
In regards to small businesses they are only worth “millions” if sold. Otherwise they might provide only a middle class income to the proprietor. So here’s an idea: if someone wants to leave their business to an heir, let the heir be brought on as a business partner beforehand and allow the untaxed inheritance of businesses by partners. And if the business is sold as some subsequent point, tax the proceeds then.
Re: Does the fact that the money changes hands negate the previously paid taxed?Yes, of course! Why is that so biazrre a principle? When I buy something at a store the fact that my money has already been taxed does not absolve either me from paying sales tax or the business from paying corporate income tax on its profits. If we only taxed money that has never been taxed, eventually there would be no tax at all, since all the money would have gone the tax system once and becoem ineligible for further taxation.
Posted by: JonF | Apr 14, 2005 8:56:58 AM
Upon learning that the Mars heirs $100 million campaign to kill the estate tax was nearing success, leaving the Mars heirs in line in inherit many extra billions of dollars, the local nuclear energy monopolist thought of the windfall he'd suddenly be able to pass on after his death, and was heard to say...
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 8:59:47 AM
"The alternative is to tax it on the receiving end, to tax the heirs, to treat inheritance as their income."
Then I'm opposed, at it would pull in far less money into the public treasuries. The current tax will pull in over a trillion dollars. I'm not willing to give up a huge chunk of that for no apparently good reason.
And to re-repeat myself, a trillion dollars ain't chicken feed. Real programs can be paid for with that kind of dough. Big things.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 14, 2005 9:04:30 AM
Well, Petey, it would depend of the spceifics: rates, brackets, etc. It doesn't have to be treated as earned income or investment income - it's inheritance income. It could have a 90% or even 100% bracket.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 9:11:35 AM
mw, please provide an example of the "family farm" being liquidated because of inheritance taxes. Names and dates, please. And tell me how much in assets were left over for the heirs if and when the farm was liquidated.
Those of you who advocate the end to estate/inheritance taxes are forgetting (or perhaps know full well) that this is a means of evading capital gains taxes. Basically, opposition to these taxes is based on the reasoning, "If my father bought a stock at $1, and it's worth $50 when he dies, I want to sell the stock for $50 tax free!" Why should people who inherit wealth get to avoid capital gains taxes, while I have to pay them?
Posted by: Constantine | Apr 14, 2005 9:14:03 AM
Petey, Paris Hilton would taste terrible. Too skinny.
MY, re: "The government ought, perhaps, to facilitate some kind of lending arrangement so that people who prefer to keep the store and pay the tax down over time out of operating revenues can do so" - no, no, no, heavens no. If you can't get a loan to keep the store, it means the store is not economic on those terms and the govt should keep it's irrational nose out of the business.
And while we're at it, let's shut down the Small Business Administration.
Posted by: ostap | Apr 14, 2005 9:19:08 AM
So it will be economic ressentiment from the left and continuied cultural ressentiment from the right? Plays perfectly into the increasingly cynical political climate these days.
Ours is a society that doesn't evolve particularly smoothly and it will take some national crisis to get folks talking about the real issues of fairness and responsiblity again. It's really depressing thinking that if we had had a more visionary leader at the time, 9/11 could have been a moment to argue about real challenges (global concerns, rising powers, US innovation) instead of encouraging and exploiting a cynical view of government and how to re-divide yesterday's pie.
Posted by: hyh | Apr 14, 2005 9:23:47 AM
Regarding farms - inheritance tax issues aside, people don't buy farms as a business venture. The property value is such that it makes a terrible investment. Farming is barely profitable even if you inherit the land tax-free, as we were able to work out in my family. Anyway, my point is, if people are forced (or choose) to sell their farms, it probably won't stay farmland if it could make a good suburb.
Posted by: jacob | Apr 14, 2005 9:24:03 AM
the only problem with Democrats is your reflexive assumption that you're entitled to do that "something" with somebody else's money, instead of your own.
beat that strawman! beat it good!
Posted by: cleek | Apr 14, 2005 9:50:18 AM
Look, Mw, either it does make economic sense to have a small farm there or it doesn't. If it does, there will be a small farm there whether it's the same family or some other family. If it doesn't - it will be sold to a developer, tax or no tax.
If you want to preserve small farms, that's fine too, but eliminating estate tax is not the way to do it, it simply won't work. Isn't it kinda obvious?
You're right--many times small farms and small businesses don't make economic sense in comparison to tract housing or agribusiness or Walmart. Often the assets aren't providing a very good return on investment compared to other possible uses. But these people keep on doing it anyway, for a variety of reasons.
Now, don't misunderstand me, I don't think the inheritance tax is a big problem at $3,000,000, and I don't think it should be repealed. But suggesting that Paris Hilton is the prototypical case and adopting "screw all the kulaks" thinking and rhetoric would be a serious political mistake.
Posted by: mw | Apr 14, 2005 9:54:34 AM
Second alkali and hyh:
Eliminating the estate tax is obviously raising taxes on everyone else, and that is especially obvious with spending way outstripping revenues.
The estate tax may be unpopular all by itself, but I will bet if you asked tax payers to choose between an estate tax and raising their own taxes, they will choose lower taxes for tehmselves. That this point is not being made obvious is an indctment of the Democratic party and, even more so, the media.
The failure of leadership after 9/11 is probably the biggest missed opportunity of my lifetime. Not only was the opportunity wasted, it was actually turned into a disadvantage.Posted by: theCoach | Apr 14, 2005 9:55:28 AM
If you are not going to inherit from an estate worth more than 3m, GWB is preparing to sign a bill that is essentially a Trillion dollar raising of taxes.
Posted by: theCoach | Apr 14, 2005 10:06:26 AM
Matt--There is already a provision allowing closely held businesses to pay the estate tax over time, with low interest rates. See my posting at: http://taxbiz.blogspot.com/2005/04/small-businesses-and-estate-tax.html
Posted by: Stuart Levine | Apr 14, 2005 10:06:33 AM
1) Re Farms: Farmers, or anyone who follows in their father's footsteps by inheriting and running their family's business is not entirely motivated by economic reasons. Making him sell to pay the tax is worse than it looks on a dollar and cents level.
2) On the scale one must think about Federal finances, the estate tax basically raises zero money. The only arguement for an estate tax that didn't hit everyone, like viewing every inheritance as income for the income tax, might go be the forestalling of a 'overmighty subject' problem or because we like our rich people self made because trust fund babies are undesirable as citizens. I actually have some sympathy with the no trust fund babies arguement given I have met a few but they are a group that trends Democratic as far as I can tell so maybe MY wouldn't :).
3) If you are really interested in decreasing the inequality of wealth/income the thing you'd be most for is cracking down on illegal immigration and banning the immigration of unskilled labor, still allowing computer programmers and the like. If you want the low end end of the labor market to rise relative to the high end, importing supply is pretty stupid, you want to restrict supply. Given that doing this will in effectiveness dwarf any wonky pointy head govt scheme, someone who isn't for this cannot really be said to care about the rich poor gap. The Reps might do something about it thought I don't think they care all that much about income inequality, and the Dems aren't for it either. Neither party really cares about income inequality.
Posted by: j mct | Apr 14, 2005 10:21:43 AM
I lost the comment on which I was working, so if it turns out that I have double posted, I apologize.
Most small farm (and perhaps other economic units) valued in the $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 range are marginal businesses. The inheriting family will have to be hard working, smart, and lucky to survive economically - they sure aren't going to be living a rich and decadent lifestyle. So, additional taxes can become confiscatory without looking like they are large. With escalating land values, the number of farms that face that problem seem very likely to grow. Against that reality, we should also consider that farms are essential to a lot of rural communities. Finally, farms are a community enterprise in that farming gets a lot tougher when the network of supporting business has insufficient customers to survive.
So, when a local dairy farm was about to be passed to its heirs, the town in which it is located worked out a deal whereby we bought the development rights to the land. I do not know what was done with that money but the real estate value was thereby reduced so the estate was below the federal tax threshold. I voted for it, thinking that on balance it was a good thing. However, in this instance, federal tax policy has the effect of raising local property taxes and too much of that burden transfer has already taken place.
Posted by: Salmo | Apr 14, 2005 10:28:17 AM
The estate tax is neither spiteful nor a product of modern Democratic Party legistlation, despite the finger pointers here. It has its origin in the late 18th century when most of the Founding Fathers were still alive, and found its greatest advocate in true Republican Teddy Roosevelt (as opposed to the faux neocon/big business shills presently in office) who articulated the need for it thusly:
"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government" -- not the least of which is "the protection the State gives him."Roosevelt brought about the estate tax in response to the same societal conditions that are reappearing today, namely a cadre of ultra-rich controlling the country and its legislators and living off the poor through excessive tax burdens.
Posted by: glitter | Apr 14, 2005 10:31:44 AM
FYI - Matt's idea of making the tax on the money inherited rather than the estate is how they do it in Germany.
As to having to sell the family farm, I had always heard that estate taxes were never the tipping point on a reasonably well-run farm. Generally, the kids wanted to cash out and to save face in the community, blamed the sale on taxes.
Kind of like the fact that there has never been a recorded case of trick-or-treaters poisoned by Halloween candy. There have been several instances of children poisoned by their parents, who assumed that their crime would be lost amidst the large number of sickened kids.
Posted by: Marysquito | Apr 14, 2005 10:35:45 AM
Every time money change hands a new income is generated
This is incredibly silly. No "income" is generated when someone dies. Somebody dying is nothing at all like a sale or other transaction where we impose a tax.
Re Paris Hilton: if Democrats are so pissed off about Paris Hilton being rich, why don't they just propose a tax on all wealth in excess $X? Then they could do something about Paris Hilton being rich without the idiocy of taxing death.
Posted by: Al | Apr 14, 2005 10:43:09 AM
If my dad sells me his car, I pay a state sales tax on that. Why should it matter whether he is dead or not? Shouldn't the transfer of ownership incur a sales tax?
Posted by: Adrock | Apr 14, 2005 10:46:09 AM
I'm surprised no one has hit on another big benefit of the estate/inheritance tax, which is that it encourages the wealthy to devote funding to philanthropic causes (The non-taxing o such contributions increases their value relative to leaving money to heirs who would be taxed, so rich people give more). If it were abolished, not only would the government lose tax revenues, but there would be serious financial problems and reduced ability to serve for a lot of colleges and cultural, charitable, and other nonprofit organizations as a result--a consequence directly counter to any rhetoric about "compassionate conservatism" or the power of philanthropic over government public investment.
Jon S--wtf are you talking about? The DLC put out a piece last week that jumped right on the Hilton bashing bandwagon.
Posted by: flip | Apr 14, 2005 10:53:09 AM
Why should it matter whether he is dead or not?
When he dies, he's not selling it and you're not buying it. Transfer of ownership =/= "sale". Sheesh.
Posted by: Al | Apr 14, 2005 10:57:16 AM
Al,
I agree that death is unfortunate. I disagree that transfer of ownership isn't indeed a sale. Although, that depends on current law. When I am alive, am I allowed to transfer ownership of my ficticious business to my son, daughter, cousin, friend tax free? (Somehow I doubt it.) If so, there should be no difference in death. If not, the same rules should apply. A will ought to be a stipulation that the deceased is selling his property to the bearers upon his death.
Also note that sales taxes are quite less than the estate tax.
The only kink would be those one time spouse gifts I'm always hearing about. I believe you are allowed a one-time tax free gift between family members. I'm willing to debate the merits of that alone, however if proven to be just, I suppose an estate should not be treated any differently.
Posted by: Adrock | Apr 14, 2005 11:12:43 AM
This is incredibly silly. No "income" is generated when someone dies. Somebody dying is nothing at all like a sale or other transaction where we impose a tax.
It's not like a sale, but it is a transaction nevertheless. Plenty of non-sale transactions are taxed, gifts are taxed, tips are taxed, pretty much any transaction where money change hands is taxed, except between the spouses and giving to charity.
It's not silly at all; otherwise you could voluntarily clean my house and I would voluntarily give you $50 - no sale, no tax.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 11:16:36 AM
the idiocy of taxing death.
as compared to the idiocy of saying "death" is that which is actually being taxed ?
Posted by: cleek | Apr 14, 2005 11:17:12 AM
If we want to be fair we'd treat those who inherit some kinds of privilege just as we treat those who inherit other kinds.
So, if by virture of your parents you have additional educational opportunities, or additional social networking opportunities, you should pay a hefty surcharge on your earnings over the course of your working career. To even things out.
Otherwise, we're suggesting that, say, the guy who inherits four DQ's in Des Moines is to be taxed more harshly than, say, MY and his classmates at Harvard, who inherited tremendous social privilege (in addition to whatever financial position they'll receive over time, despite the limited and irrational effects of the estate tax laws).
What's more valuable, a couple of fast food restaurants in IA, or introductions to the right people? Why would we tax one more than another?
Posted by: Thomas | Apr 14, 2005 11:26:35 AM
mw's got it. Look, I'm not talking about the specifics of policy, present or future. I'm talking about MY's brash dismissal of SB owners and farmers. Granted, I can't be objective in this, but it seems like any philosophy which would prescribe a post-mortem redistribution of wealth should not apply in such cases. WHy? Because these people are not wealthy in any conventional sense of the word. The farmer owning 1,2,3 million dollar land still struggles to send his kids to college and struggles to pay the car loan.
As to abb1, I will let your elitism stand on its own. Through inheritance is the only way that the people who WANT to become farmers/small business owners can. Do you think just anyone can go out and buy a piece of land sufficient to live on? Again, if the word "wealth" must be applied in these cases it has a completely different meaning. If the farmer is wealthy, why can he barely afford a comfortable lifestyle. HOnestly, it is stupidly reductive to see everything in terms of $$$ value.
Constantine: Mine nearly was. My father had to go into debt for a seriously long time in order to afford the estate tax levied - and, frankly, it was only a matter of luck that it didn't eventually pull him over. Others in our area weren't so lucky. I won't give you a name, but the year was '73.
Posted by: Sweeney | Apr 14, 2005 11:27:20 AM
"Why do the so called person living in poverty pay in $1,000 in federal tax and then get a tax return check for $3,000? How is it that you can get back more than you've paid in federal tax? THAT my friend is govt charity at its finest."
If you are so stuck on the definition of taxes, why don't we switch up a couple of things/definitions here in America to make you happier. For starters, let's up your friend's income (and the income of others in his position) from about 10-15k that he made last year to, say, 60k. I am sure he/she works just as hard, if not harder, than others making multiples of his/her income. Then, your friend will actually be PAYING taxes, rather than getting a federal refund. Would that help you sleep better? Or should we believe that millionares are the only ones that deserve any break in our society.. afterall, why should they have the misfortune of having to pay their "fair" share of keeping the economy (and military support!) of the country they used to make their fortunes afloat.
In my opinion, you can't have it both ways. You can't keep the wages of a majority of people in this country to a minimum so a certain few can be unnecessarily wealthy, and then complain about the tax structure. Remember, government is there to promote the common good of the people, whether through military defense, social programs, etc. You can't ask the government to give you everything YOU need, but to leave you alone when it comes to everything else. If everything should be decided by a "free market," then why have government at all? Let everyone fend for themselves and contract privately to have all their necessities (and luxuries) satisfied.
And remember, if you want to be responsible for paving your own roads, protecting your house from pirates, catching and using your own water, etc., I believe there are plenty of islands for sale that are not under the jurisdiction of any nation... at least you won't have to worry about an inheritance tax!
Posted by: BizGK | Apr 14, 2005 11:29:39 AM
Al writes:
No "income" is generated when someone dies. Somebody dying is nothing at all like a sale or other transaction where we impose a tax.
That's actually a point in favor of the estate tax versus other taxes. If we tax someone every time they work for a day's pay (and we do), we discourage work. If we tax people every time they invest and make money (and we do), we discourage investment. If we tax people every time they buy something, we discourage consumption (which is good or bad depending on how you look at it). If you tax rich people who die ... well, they were going to die anyway.
I understand that the estate tax arguably has some second-order effects like discouraging the very rich from working or investing before they die (I for one doubt this really happens, but maybe it does). That said, the alternative forms of taxation are plainly worse on this score.
Posted by: alkali | Apr 14, 2005 11:39:07 AM
Constantine: Mine nearly was. My father had to go into debt for a seriously long time in order to afford the estate tax levied
Almost all of us have to "go into a debt for a seriously long time" to own property-- it's called a mortgage.
I've really yet to hear of any actual farm going under due to estate taxes-- beyond being used as a scare tactic by politicians who seek to eliminate it. Only I tiny minority of farms even qualify for an estate tax, and those that do can pay the estate tax over a 15-year period. It strikes me that any farm that goes under due to estate taxes is not a viable farm-- in effect what farmers want is a subsidy-- that can be created outside of the estate tax system. There's no reason to create a tax handout that eliminates estate taxes for those who accumulate actual estate assets to protect a tiny minority of a tiny minority (farmers who are assessed the estate tax).
I also dislike the idea of creating a privileged form of tax-free income, which is what tax-free inheritances do.
Posted by: Constantine | Apr 14, 2005 11:43:25 AM
The simplest argument at this time in favor of leaving the Estate tax in place is that the Estate tax is the fairest tax to repay the treasury bonds held by the Social Security trust fund.
The burden of the estate tax falls mainly on those who have benefitted by the reduction of income and capital taxes made possible by the Social Security surplus and the fact that the surplus was not used to pay down publicly held debt, but rather was used primarily to allow a reduction of taxes on high wage earners and on capital gains and dividends.
The SS trust fund is embodied in the economy at large, and many of the benefits of that are embodied in large estates. It's much more reasonable to keep this tax in place than it it is to default on Social Security benefits or to enact additional regressive taxes to repay the SS trust fund.
Posted by: ChasHeath | Apr 14, 2005 11:50:05 AM
I think Thomas is right. Fuck Harvard grads. Let's slap an additional 50% tax on everything an Ivy League grad earns until he is 65. It would only be fair.
Posted by: Will Allen | Apr 14, 2005 11:54:09 AM
I think Thomas is right. Fuck Harvard grads. Let's slap an additional 50% tax on everything an Ivy League grad earns until he is 65. It would only be fair.
WOAH!
No fair blaming ALL Ivy grads for something that is Harvard's fault!
Posted by: Al | Apr 14, 2005 11:58:13 AM
A remarkably fact-free discussion in this thread.
A few facts worth noting:
1. As commenter Levine noted above, there are special rules for closely held family businesses that already mitigate the small business story.
2. There are also special valuation provisions for agricultural land operated as a farm and transferred within a family. Essentially, for tax purposes the land is not valued at its highest and best use but at a reduced amount for purposes of calculating the exemptions and taxes.
3. The exemption amount could easily be raised -- it was at $675,000 before we started down this road and everyone thought it should go up, but the Republicans blocked measures to set it permanently at $3 million. And evidently the same thing happended last night - where the proposal to set it at $3.5 million or $7 million for couples was defeated in the House in favor of a total repeal of the tax.
4. The 1997 taxpayer relief act also provided additional ways of avoiding or reducing taxes on farm and forest property - by allowing either the decedent or the heirs to grant conservation easements to protect the land and thereby reduce the taxable value of the estate if they so choose -- without reducing its use for farming purposes.
5. Contrary to many comments above, not all of the value of an estate has already been subject to any federal tax... Many estates consists largely of appreciated assets where no taxable event has occurred.
6. As for Matt's idea, some states do have an "inheritance" tax. These taxes are often complex and are even more unpopular than the estate tax -- they also skew the testator's choices more than the estate tax, which applies to the estate as a whole.Posted by: walden | Apr 14, 2005 12:02:49 PM
"Because these people are not wealthy in any conventional sense of the word."
I have to disagree with this. Lets, say for example that I were to inherit a family farm worth $3,000,001 , at the very low end of this tax, you would pay a tax of, I think .45$. Let's say you could not afford it, and had to sell your farm, after that you would have $3M dollars. Assuming you could get 2% in dividends, and only stay even with inflation on the rest, a pretty conservative estimate, you would be receiving $60,000/year. That is if you did absolutely nothing but sit on your couch, and all you had done to 'earn' it was have parents that owned a farm. This money, with current laws would be taxed at a lower rate than wages, and that is significantly higher than the median wages (for doing nothing), especially in areas where there is farmland.
This is the worst case scenario for someone affected by the estate tax.Posted by: theCoach | Apr 14, 2005 12:03:33 PM
Shorter Yglesias: I know me some Nietzsche. Y'all class warriors are pwned!!11!1!
Posted by: norbizness | Apr 14, 2005 12:13:34 PM
A while back, someone said thisL "a trillion dollars ain't chicken feed. Real programs can be paid for with that kind of dough. Big things."
This is why I'm afraid of Democrats. Government spending should be justified based on the program itself, and whether it's worth the cost. Higher spending is not, in itself, a good thing.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 14, 2005 12:15:08 PM
Sweeney,
As to abb1, I will let your elitism stand on its own. Through inheritance is the only way that the people who WANT to become farmers/small business owners can.No, obviously inheritance is not the only way nor it's even a good/rational way.
Why do you assume that the farmer's son wants to be a farmer? More likely he wants to be a software designer or something.
You would be making more sense if you suggested that we should find a guy who really-really wants to farm (in spite of it being economically impractical) and just give the farm to this guy as a gift.
Instead, you want to give a million-dollar gift to some guy who may or may not (more likely) want to farm. Why? Merely because he is a farmer's son. WTF? Does it make sense? I don't think so.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 12:27:42 PM
Steve, we are buying big things already. Bush hasn't cut the budget any.
Posted by: joe o | Apr 14, 2005 12:38:36 PM
theCoach has a good point about a farmer who inherits $3 million of property but can't afford a $.45 estate tax bill (and, obviously this is exaggerated to make the point). That person IS somewhat wealthy.
But all his point really indicates is that the pro-estate tax people really are arguing in favor of large agri-business ownership of farms, since the illiquidity that causes the farmer to have to sell the property to pay the tax is less of an issue for large agri-business.
Now, perhaps the pro-estate tax people really are in favor of large agri-business; I just don't hear them say much...
Posted by: Al | Apr 14, 2005 12:49:01 PM
It's just that estate tax has nothing whatsoever to do with large agro-business. If you want to protect the small farmers, you make small farming worth their while - you subsidize them. It's as simple as that, it's not a secret, it's not complicated, it's done all over Europe, it's done in Vermont.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 12:57:22 PM
Two data points:
1. NPR said (yesterday, I think) that something less than 150,000
Americans are affected by the estate tax. Hardly a significant
number of people.
2. In Minnesota, at least, NO ONE in 50 years has had to pay 1 cent
in estate taxes on a family farm. Minnesota law can be adopted
elsewhere.The estate tax "issue" seems to be a non-issue.
Posted by: ajm | Apr 14, 2005 12:59:39 PM
Matthew,
What do you think about a consumption tax?
Bob
Posted by: Bob | Apr 14, 2005 1:00:59 PM
Love ya and all Matt, but this is just stupid:
"Implying that the decadence of Miss Hilton is somehow integral to the case clouds the issue."
As if drinking lattes were somehow integral to the Republican critique of Liberalism. Its identity politics. They are killing us because they have sold themselves as real honest to goodness Americans fighting against the liberal elites who want to bugger your son with a bottle of white wine while making snide comments about Nascar in the backseat of a Volvo. Paris Hilton is a person affected by the estate tax. Paris Hilton is unnapealing. By all means, use her to taint the estate tax. Certainly she is more representative than the Average Joe family farmers the Right trots out. It would be nice if it weren't so, but its a dirty game and we are getting our asses handed to us. Its about time we started playing to win.Posted by: TJon | Apr 14, 2005 1:01:41 PM
Al,
As it turns out the big agri-business is the most economical in the current setting, and it makes sense to let market forces work their magic. A seperate issue is whether or not there are other issues with giant agribusiness, such as the farm bill, and hidden externalities, that distort the value of the giants. There are some on the left that support a romantic notion of family farms that I think is misguided, but i think you overestimate them[, and probably the proportion that voted for John Kerry]. The agribusiness issue though should be considerd seperately from estate taxes, perhaps as a part of the Farm bill, something that you should and your President should be avoiding.Posted by: theCoach | Apr 14, 2005 1:02:45 PM
Man, I have so been doing my taxes wrong. I looked and looked but I still can't see how I can pay $1000 in taxes and get $3000 back.
Oh, wait, this might be it- it says that if I have 17 children and my wife has over a million in medical expenses, I might be able to swing it. It all depends on me being in the highest tax bracket when I start the calculations.
It all gets so confusing when you try to believe what a right-winger tells you....
Posted by: serial catowner | Apr 14, 2005 1:20:25 PM
So someone you don't know gets rich. So what? It's neither your business, nor the other citizens', nor the governments. Fuck you and all the other thieves.
Posted by: Brett | Apr 14, 2005 1:26:34 PM
People forget that although estates are sometimes taxed, death is actually tax favorable in some circumstances. If you inherit a capital asset, you get to use the value of the asset at the time of inheritance as cost basis. That means that the capital gains on the asset while it was held by the deceased is never taxed. The best solution here is to abolish the estate tax and also abolish the rule that allows a person who inherits a capital asset to use the value at the time of inheritance as cost basis.
The most effective arguments against the estate tax are that it distorts economic behavior near death and that economic resources are wasted on lawyers and tax planners trying to avoid the estate tax. Although those are effective arguments against the estate tax, they are also effective arguments against favorable capital gains treatment for inherited assets.
Under this system, the people who want rich heiresses to pay more taxes should be happy. The people who want kids to be able to inherit and run family businesses should be happy (they don't incur tax liability until they sell it). And the people who are concerned about the distortionary effects of the estate tax should be really happy. Everybody wins.
Posted by: Xavier | Apr 14, 2005 1:31:58 PM
"So, if by virture of your parents you have additional educational opportunities, or additional social networking opportunities, you should pay a hefty surcharge on your earnings over the course of your working career. To even things out."
Likewise, I think all the smart kids and pretty kids should be worth less a tax deduction than the stupid and ugly children.
And there should be higher tuition for the smart kids because the stupid kids already have a hard enough time getting through college and keeping a job after without burdening them with huge student loan payments.
And the ugly girls...all companies should have to hire 3 ugly girls for each pretty girl they have behind the counter, waiting tables, greeting customers. The ugly girls already have a hard enough time as it is with low self esteem.
I mean, that is the government's job, right? To even the score, level the playing field?
Speaking of playing fields, the NFL, NBA, etc should allow lousy athletes on the team and handicap the good athletes to give the lousy athletes a chance.
And, it's not fair that I can't sing like Ella Fitzgerald!
Lunacy
Posted by: lunacy | Apr 14, 2005 1:40:50 PM
"Instead, you want to give a million-dollar gift to some guy who may or may not (more likely) want to farm. Why? Merely because he is a farmer's son. WTF? Does it make sense? I don't think so."
If it doesn't make sense to you, there is little I can do to change it. Let's just say that the vocational anxiety you see as universal is by many seen to be a pretty bourgeous kind of decadence.
Kinship counts. It counts for non-economic reasons, aesthetic reasons, and perhaps most importantly, it is the engine on which civilization is built. You might as well be asking "Instead, you want to raise and nurture some child who may or may not (more likely) become like the parents. Why? Merely because he is a parent's son. WTF? Does it make sense? I don't think so."It makes sense to me. Again, no one has answered my chief objection. Given: a person who inherits, say, a farm and farms that land for the rest of his life, barely eking out a comfortable living from it. How is he in any sense wealthy, even though his net worth may be considerable?
Posted by: Sweeney | Apr 14, 2005 1:42:42 PM
Speaking about tax issues in terms of "fairness" is a waste of time, as is trying to determine who "deserves" what they have. Unless one is an anarchist, one is going to have to favor taxation of some sort. The only pertinent issue, when examining a particular tax, is whether it raises revenues efficiently. That is, how much economically distortive or destructive activity takes place in the process of collecting the tax, compared to other means or rates of taxation, vs. how much revenue is raised?
Maybe the estate tax is worthwhile, but there is a non-negligible body of evidence which suggests that the estate tax, at least at the marginal rates that have predominated, provides huge incentive to allocate capital in non-optimum ways, like life insurance premiums, salaries to "manage" charitable trusts, and other tools of the estate planning industry. Toss in the question of whether it is wise to provide more incentive for businesses to leverage assets, in order to pay the tax upon the founder's death, and it is far from clear cut whether the estate tax is worthwhile, particularly since it really doesn't do much to reduce the power of the heirs of the mega-wealthy, if that is one of the goals of the tax's proponents. It didn't do much to reduce the Rockefeller's influence.
Posted by: Will Allen | Apr 14, 2005 1:44:08 PM
I believe that the government should rely only on VOLUNTARY donations. If you can't convince anyone to donate to your program...no program!
I'm serious, BTW.
Posted by: Mr.X | Apr 14, 2005 1:47:26 PM
I love this thread.
It shows how full of shit, ignorant, narcissistic, and fact phobic are those who oppose estate tax, as, for example, "theft." Not one person posting here in opposition to the estate tax has dealt with the rationale or history of that tax. Instead, like the modern conservative, you all bitch and whine about whatever you love to bitch and whine about. And, lo and behold, it is the same dumb ass bitch everytime, like a broken record in a lame brain.
There is, in this world, no empiriacal basis for asserting those who receive rent economies have earned those economies by their productivity, and that is not even talking about heirs to the rent economies. The modern conservative cannot distinguish two fundamentally different issues: who has earned what, and, who gets to decide how property is allocated. Any serious empirical investigation of these questions will blow up the conservative bullshit peddled here. To stay in denial conservatives MUST confuse these issues, and, so they do.
Meanwhile, there is a lot of rabbit chasing by estate tax supporters about things like Paris Hilton. As spoiled rich brats go, Paris is nothing. Now, George Bush, there is an example of money and connections and government infleunce sucking up rent economies like a leach.
Posted by: razor | Apr 14, 2005 1:57:34 PM
There's a reality to this that practically all those who support the removal of the federal estate tax ignore. That reality is, if the federal government dumps this revenue, the states are going to jump at it. It's going to be taxed at an increased level by the states. And then it's going to be gone for the Feds.
This isn't going to turn out to be a "fairness issue", it's going to be an "taxing entity" issue.
Posted by: PSoTD | Apr 14, 2005 2:02:43 PM
Sweeney,
Imagine that I own a big pile of gold (some of it in bags). All the live-long day I stack, restack, and again stack the pieces of gold. I move the bags of gold from one side of a see-saw to the other and back again. Attached to the see-saw is a dynamo that generates some small amount of electricity. I'm paid a pittance for the electricity because the big 'ol hydroelectric plant on the river has lower costs.
I refuse to trade the gold I have because I grew up with the gold, the bags, the dynamo. I watched my father doing the work I do now and feel the bond of kinship and a connection to tradition. I'm proud of it, I like it.
I may barely subsist on the pittance that I'm paid for the electricity I generate (a product I'm willing to trade), but I refuse to exploit the assets I have in a way for which others will compensate me very well. Am I poor, or just refusing to be wealthy?
Posted by: TJ | Apr 14, 2005 2:14:48 PM
Sweeney, this is the 21st century, not 15th. Feudalism ended a few centuries ago, farmers' children do not go on farming any more; it's not my fault, it's just how it is these days, with industrial revolution, progress, evolution and so on.
How is he wealthy? He is wealthy because he owns something of high value. If I own a $50 million worth 10-story building in Manhattan that I prefer to keep emply for sentimental reasons - I may be starving, but I am still wealthy, simply because I am the owner of something I can sell for $50 million.
What can be simplier? Just admit it.
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 14, 2005 2:15:07 PM
Will Allen writes:
Maybe the estate tax is worthwhile, but there is a non-negligible body of evidence which suggests that the estate tax, at least at the marginal rates that have predominated, provides huge incentive to allocate capital in non-optimum ways, like life insurance premiums, salaries to "manage" charitable trusts, and other tools of the estate planning industry.
This confuses whether an effect exists with its size. It is certainly true that people do things to try to avoid the estate tax that have no or negative economic value. The question is whether those bad effects are worse than the negative economic effect of increasing income taxes, now or in the future, to make up for the lost revenue.
(Alternatively, you could cut spending, but then the question is whether the effects of the spending cuts are worse than the effects of the estate tax: if it's a choice between keeping the estate tax and eliminating the federal courts, I choose door number 1.)
PSoTD writes:
That reality is, if the federal government dumps this revenue, the states are going to jump at it. It's going to be taxed at an increased level by the states. And then it's going to be gone for the Feds.
I doubt it. Competition for the consumption dollars of the elderly wealthy already encourages states to reduce or eliminate their estate taxes; that won't change. Also, removing the federal estate tax makes administering a state version harder: most state estate taxes "free ride" on federal enforcement efforts.
Posted by: alkali | Apr 14, 2005 2:23:18 PM
Hey, Matt,
fuck you, too, and a pre-emptive "eat shit and die" while I'm at it.
Posted by: Small Businessman | Apr 14, 2005 2:24:34 PM
abb1,
I would argue that that is NOT how "it is these days." Again, the whole "world is your oyster" view of vocation is particular to a certain class of people: not all, or even most of america. TJ's analogy is better than yours. For one, its not all about sentimentality; the farm produces something while the building does not(assuming it is only kept for sentimental value)TJ,
A good, but ultimately flawed argument, I think. For one, the reason why the decision in your analogy seems so straightfoward is because of the sheer inefficiency of it all. Assuming the dynamo was the only way of creating electricity, you could do the same thing with rocks. IF the only quality of family farming (I imply small businesses as well) is in its productive capacity, then you are right: why not sell it off to a corporation or realtor and go drive a truck for a living?But I don't think it is that simple. I'm writing a post on my blog to answer the rest... I'll post a link here when I'm done.
Posted by: Sweeney | Apr 14, 2005 2:29:21 PM
O.K.,here's an estate tax I'd back whole-heartedly; no exemption whatsoever and the rate is 100%, until that amount which was paid to the deceased in Social Security benefits, and in Medicare benefits received in the last 30 days of life, is recovered, adjusted for inflation. After that, the tax disappears.
If a business owner does not want to pass a debt-burdened enterprise onto his heirs, or some San Diego widow wants to pass a house on to a child, they can refuse Social Security benefits, and execute a living will which prohibits expensive medical treatments after a certain age.
Posted by: Will Allen | Apr 14, 2005 2:32:02 PM
Tell ya' what Alkali, I'll be willing to examine the utility of estate taxes after tax revenues are no longer transferred to folks who have the ability to care for themselves, whether it be sugar-beet farmers or many retirees. Until then, I can't see much reason to favor estate taxes as they are currently constructed.
Posted by: Will Allen | Apr 14, 2005 2:41:43 PM
It makes no sense to talk about eliminating taxes unless you do so in a revenue neutral way. If you are in favor of eliminating ~300 Billion in estate tax revenue/to years, then you should be required to specify what taxes you will raise to replace that revenue (at this point, 5 years into Bushdom I think all talk of cutting spending significantly is utopian fantasy land).
Posted by: theCoach | Apr 14, 2005 2:43:12 PM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the guy that has a $3MM farm, yet can't afford a 45 cent tax bill.
Posted by: Vladi G | Apr 14, 2005 2:47:00 PM
Xavier--the system you propose is exactly what Congress is passing, right down to stepped-up basis for assets passed at death.
Posted by: Thomas | Apr 14, 2005 2:59:04 PM
Sweeney,
My analogy is mainly constructed to point out that if you control assets that others highly value- even if for a different reason or purpose- you have the potential to make great economic gains.
If there is some intrinsic benefit to farming or small business-proprietorship that other aspects of citizenship or economic participation do not have, it is not clear how to value that. I'm open to the argument, but thus far unconvinced by it.
The other reason I constructed that analogy is that it was a fun, silly way to spend five minutes of a beautiful Pasadena day. (My office computer is in front of the window).
Posted by: TJ | Apr 14, 2005 3:04:41 PM
Isn't the gov't "limited" (generally speaking) with where funds are funnelled too and if so what does the Estate Tax go to pay?
Posted by: Taxbaffoon | Apr 14, 2005 3:08:51 PM
The problem with this argument is that you seem ot feel that you have a right to tell people that they don't have the dispose of their money in the way they wish when they die.
Paris "doesn't deserve" her inheritance, and thus her parents should be forced to give some of it to the government.
Well, Paris has a lot of sex with people who "don't deserve it," so dopes that mean that the governemnt has the right to force her to have sex with people it deems to be more deserving than her boyfriends?
Posted by: Glaivester | Apr 14, 2005 3:10:17 PM
Eh, I decided to just finish the convo here. Listen, my position is predicated upon a few assumptions:
1) Family Matters. If you think (abb1, Im looking in your direction) that kinship ought to have no effect on this project than a) there is nothing I can do to change your mind and b) you are out of step with the vast majority of americans (which ought to be damning enough).
2)Wealth Matters. The liberal justification for levying large estate taxes is based on the necessity of 'earning' and the goal of equal