History of the Estate Tax

[ebacon]

Just a survey.

In your own words what good comes from the inter vivos gift tax/estate tax regime?

There must be something or else it would not have been voted in in the first place. It also would not have survived in earnest until today (the federal estate tax was turned off for one year -- 2010)

I'm just curious as to the board members' abilities to see both sides of an issue and at least agree that there are pros and cons. Which side they want is of course subject to differ and can only be resolved civilly by vote.

The Republican vs Democratic shouting match gets old fast. That stuff is available anywhere.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Just a survey.

In your own words what good comes from the inter vivos gift tax/estate tax regime?

There must be something or else it would not have been voted in in the first place. It also would not have survived in earnest until today (the federal estate tax was turned off for one year -- 2010)

I'm just curious as to the board members' abilities to see both sides of an issue and at least agree that there are pros and cons. Which side they want is of course subject to differ and can only be resolved civilly by vote.

The Republican vs Democratic shouting match gets old fast. That stuff is available anywhere.

I guess you're allowed to cut and paste from your own posts. Actually, a couple of good thread-starters.

I know everyone wants to be able to pass something on to one's family. Passing on one's wealth (and sometimes titles) has been a practice for thousands of years. I can see where being able to maintain a family business would be difficult if estate taxation drained all of the capital out of it.

On the other hand, doesn't the perpetuation of wealth in the hands of those who have not earned it stifle the innovation that is supposedly valued in our system? The children of wealth have already had tremendous advantages in the education they have been able to afford, in the contacts that they have made through their family, and in being able to retain a sizeable chunk of the family fortune. If they have been given the tools to succeed, do they also need to have ALL of the wealth passed on to them. It seems fair that some of the wealth that has been accumulated should be returned to the society that has made it possible.

Regards,

D-Ray

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I guess you're allowed to cut and paste from your own posts.

When you're really good you get to sig yourself. hehehehe.

[finnbow]

The estate tax makes sense to me, at least after passing a reasonable threshold (e.g., $1 million). Otherwise, it helps perpetuate a ruling class instead of a meritocracy.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The estate tax makes sense to me, at least after passing a reasonable threshold (e.g., $1 million). Otherwise, it helps perpetuate a ruling class instead of a meritocracy.

Dammit Finn. I hate it when you make my point with greater efficiency.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Dammit Finn. I hate it when you make my point with greater efficiency.

Regards,

D-Ray

Brevity is where it's at.

[ebacon]

Anyone from the economic hard right going to chime in and say something good about the system they grew up with? You don't have to agree with it anymore. Just show that you can see both sides.

If you can't dance with others then IMO your party is no longer fit to be trusted with writing the sheet music. Same thing if you are too paranoid to get your back off the wall. I won't play gotcha games with you.

[wgrr]

The Walton heirs are the major promoters of killing the estate tax. The "death tax" label was their idea. The sad fact is the the Walton heirs own more wealth then the bottom 40% of all Americans in this country.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ealth-bottom-/

When a Walton asks a politician in DC to jump they ask how high. It is a pitiful thing when an individual has so much money that there is no way they can spend it in their lifetime.

Welcome to the new gilded age.

[ebacon]

wgrr,

Thanks for the history of the phrase "death tax".

Here is my reason for starting the thread and why I am posting now.

Since the economic hard right decided to keep their backs to the wall I guess this thread is almost done. The idea for this thread came from arguments in the progressive income tax history thread. Some people, one person, whatever, argued that the incredibly wealthy provide a societal benefit by building things that are incredibly expensive. Examples might include museums, research hospitals, parks, and the like.

While that is true it is also true that the wealthy don't all do those things for the same reasons. After all there are different kinds of wealthy people. Some of them got rich because they were gifted souls. We've talked about Steve Jobs being a great industrial artist. Henry Ford might be considered a gifted pioneer in the assembly arena. We all know the political drum beat and none of us wanted to take away their worldly rewards without good reason. After all we would like to pass similar gifts to our children if we were so gifted. Similarly those kinds of rich people might tend to give to schools or other good causes such as museums.

On the other hand there are people that were also gifted but not in an area of creation or invention. Instead they were gifted in manipulation. They had the gift of gab and were good at getting people to do their bidding. The modern dead master might be Kenneth Lay of Enron fame. In older days William Randolph Hearst might be an example. As voters with morals we have to ask ourselves if those are the kinds of blood lines that we want to have an easy head start with each generation. If we look at their gifts they might tend to give to political research organizations that further their manipulative tendencies.

At the beginning of the Industrial Age our grandparents or great grandparents already had to face those questions. A majority of them decided to throttle back on wealth accumulation so that no bloodline got a head start by mere virtue of being born from blue blood. The voting majority used the age old tool of estate taxes to try and throttle rich dicks back. They were dicks because they weren't happy enough with having big houses on each coast and shopping Europe each season for a wardrobe of handmade clothes. No. The dicks wanted to be kings.

Unfortunately the good rich people and their bloodlines also got caught up in the estate tax trap. I think that is what makes us feel sorry for people like Steve Jobs. There can be such things as good kings after all.

All of this comes back to the modern rhetoric of incredibly wealthy people helping with incredibly expensive causes. Some of you might remember The Giving Pledge Project that Bill and Melinda Gates started during the financial crisis. Warren Buffet helped spearhead the effort. That was simply a gesture of two wealthy families working together to whip other rich people into line. They knew that if the rich didn't police themselves then voters, the 99% was the buzzword du jour, would move toward turning the estate tax back up and taking the wealth from them to kill their wealthy blood lines.

It's no different than a bunch of bummed out players in a game of Monopoly. You've wanted to smack the shit out the guy that got arrogant upon owning the side of the board with Park Place and Boardwalk. Admit it.

Going back to the Giving Pledge Project. Have you noticed that we have not heard much from it in the past few years? The fact is that Bill, Melinda, and Warren did a good job of public relations. They showed that they understand both sides of the situation. The Giving Pledge Project is still alive but they have not made much press. Now they are simply covering their asses by making press releases shortly after tax day, April 15. Check it out.

http://givingpledge.org/#enter

Again I don't want to persuade people to one side or the other. I'm hoping to help fill in the grey between the black and white of campaign rhetoric.

But for the record, so long as the Republican party stays brain dead and glued to one side I can't vote for them any more. Are you listening? Hello?

[d-ray657]

Interesting post EB. I think that the perspective that you have communicated through your posts so far demonstrates that the pendulum has indeed swung so far to the right that we are in danger of receding as a society. For me, the pendulum had swung too far once it moved a tick past the center, but whatever we believe to be the proper arc, I think we agree that it has moved well beyond where it should rest.

With respect to the accumulation of wealth, I read an interesting article in the last couple of years about one of the motivations for the very rich to establish charitable foundations. Many of the founders were highly competitive by nature - which most likely contributed to their financial success. The foundations have become another outlet for the competitiveness. They want very visible foundations because of the status they bestow on the founders, who besides their money also give their names to the foundations.

While we need not snub our noses at the charitable work done by the wealthy, such largess should not be a substitute for their paying a proportional tax contribution as well. While they are free to determine what they want to do with their own money, we must rely on the democratic process to determine what priorities should attach to the public treasury. These exercises in self-aggrandizement should not be allowed as an excuse from the responsibility to pay taxes.

Regards,

D-Ray