Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Greed, Envy and the Estate Tax

By Sean Gonsalves, AlterNet. Posted April 25, 2006.


Aspiring aristocrats think that taxing the wealthy is punishment --but individual wealth is impossible without the labor and ideas of others.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Sean Gonsalves

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Whenever I write about the estate tax, or what opponents call the ''death tax,'' the aspiring aristocrats come out the woodwork.

The idea that the estate tax is a needed check against concentrated wealth and centralized power, which the intellectual father of free markets, Adam Smith, argued would undermine capitalism itself, apparently causes some kind of allergic reaction among those afflicted with class envy. I know. Usually, it's ''conservatives'' accusing ''liberals'' of having ''class envy.''

Certainly, envy does apply to those ''liberals'' who do harbor ill will toward the wealthy because they are jealous of the advantages that wealth provides. But there's a flip side to envy. Some people envy the rich and, because they hope to someday be rich and be treated as royalty themselves, it induces them to become apologists for greed and view the wealthy as ''victims'' of guilt-ridden liberal policy-makers and their liberal ''mainstream'' news organizations.

Liberals (and ''the terrorists'') don't have a monopoly on envy; to say nothing of the fact that arguing over the inner-recesses of a stranger's psyche is a waste of time.

When I refer to the patron saints of the free market who either implicitly, or in some cases explicitly, support the principle behind the estate tax, opponents respond by sweeping aside tradition and talk about propping up a ''weak argument'' on the shoulders of authority. Another red herring. The point isn't to approach economic policy as religious conservatives do the Bible, but to be aware of internal contradictions and the associated mental errors that result.

Of course, there are those who view all taxes as theft; as the illegitimate confiscation of an individual's income or assets. If every man, woman and child were an island unto themselves, I would agree. But individual wealth is impossible without the labor and ideas of others, as well as the infrastructure, laws and civic institutions necessary for the creation and maintenance of wealth.

It doesn't matter how disciplined, hard-working, virtuous and thrifty you are. If you happen to be born in, say, Haiti, you couldn't be a Bill Gates because of the political and economic environment. Therefore, because the society in which you live makes it possible to be rich, there is a legitimate social claim on a portion of every individual's material wealth. Looked at that way, taxes are not theft but the cost of membership in a society that makes being rich a possibility.

Some call the Warren Buffets and Bill Gateses of the world ''limousine liberals.'' I call them historically astute enough to know that whenever you have a narrow concentration of wealth, you have unstable societies, plagued by revolt and unrest, which is a threat to the wealth of the wealthy. It's not guilt that convinced Buffet and Gates and hundreds of other multi-millionaires and billionaires to form Responsible Wealth in opposition to the Bush administration push to permanently repeal the estate tax. It's their enlightened self-interest.

To those aspiring aristocrats who think taxes ''punish'' success, consider what Responsible Wealth member Frank Butler has to say. Butler is the former president and general manager of Eastman Gelatine Corp., a subsidiary of Eastman Kodak; past president and current board member of Ministry of Money, which deals with money issues from a biblical/spiritual perspective; past chairman of the board of Faith at Work and a Gordon College trustee.

''Punish is such a loaded term,'' he wrote me last week.

''As a 'successful' and 'wealthy' person, I would say that I do not feel any tax I pay is punishing me. And I certainly am not advocating punishing anyone with taxes. I feel that paying taxes is part of my responsibility to the Commonwealth that has nourished me and provided me with opportunities far greater than I ever imagined - and I am saddened that from my perspective the concept of Commonwealth seems to be largely disappearing from the public consciousness.

''If my memory is correct, when I entered the work force in the early 1950s, the top tax bracket was somewhere near 90 percent and no one that I knew of considered that as punishment. I do not remember what the estate tax laws were then - it was too far in the future for me to even think about. I would say now, at this stage in my life, that an estate tax is a great way for me to help celebrate my good fortune by sharing some of the results with others and hopefully helping them be more fortunate in the future.''

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Sean Gonsalves is a Cape Cod Times staff reporter and a syndicated columnist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
maybe
Posted by: daniel1982 on Apr 25, 2006 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Therefore, because the society in which you live makes it possible to be rich, there is a legitimate social claim on a portion of every individual's material wealth.

Generally you don't get props for doing what you're supposed to do. Parents don't get props for feeding their toddler child, this is what they're supposed to do. Likewise a government does not get props for not doing some of the bad things that are done under corrupt totalitarian regimes. Your neighbours don't get props for NOT ganging up on you and beating you for you property. They certainly can't expect a reward for not doing the wrong thing (if they do, its called extortion).

Estate tax is a tax an already taxed income. Its the 50% that was left over after the taxman showed up. Its a money grab.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maybe Posted by: taxon
» RE: maybe Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: maybe Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: maybe Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: maybe Posted by: mazel
» RE: maybe Posted by: Lulu Gee
» Only taxed twice - that's great! Posted by: runawaychimp
» Only taxed twice - that's great! Posted by: runawaychimp
» RE: maybe Posted by: VisionQuest
life tax?
Posted by: brasilaron on Apr 26, 2006 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well, now that the fundies have come up withe Orwellian "Death tax" are they gonna come up withe "Life Tax"? Tax pregnant women for giving birth or children for being alive even before they can earn any money?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's get real
Posted by: nylaw13 on Apr 26, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The estate tax is a tax on the transfer of assets. I do not hear anyone objecting to gift taxes, but then, maybe that is only because they haven't thought of that yet. The real issue with the estate tax is whether we, as US citizens, find it acceptable for the CHILDREN of the very rich to retain their parent's wealth free of any tax. The rich simply cannot take their money with them, so whether or not it's the case that the assets of the very rich are what's left after tax or not, is irrelevant to the discussion. I personally see no reason to enrich these CHILDREN beyond what they have already had access to in terms of the lifetime benefits they have had on account of their parents' money. They - the children - have not earned any of this - their parents did. So, given that under current laws, parents can transfer a total of $4 million dollars free of estate tax to their children, is that not enough?? Think of the $100 million estate - even after expenses and taxes, the children would inherit between $40 and 50 MILLION dollars - and only for being born "right."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It should be said
Posted by: Jesse on Apr 26, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the estate tax, even with a relatively low cieling of $1 million in assets, affected only a tiny, tiny portion of the population.

Even if you include the price of a house, most people once they die have nowhere near $1 million. Pension payments (unless they have a death benefit, which isn't usually taxed that way) don't count. A house might get you $700K in a very nice neighborhood. (Yeah, I know there are $1 million homes out there, but there aren't that many outside of New York or LA and that is my point). You then add up all the other assets someone has.

Besides a house, even if you sold all your stuff in a yard sale and got full price, how much would you get? Not a lot. The vast majority of Americans retire with very little in the way of liquid assets. (Remember, by the time you die you have probably spent most of your savings). Having $100,000 in your checking account is darn rare.

With the new higher ceiling ($2 million), the tax gets to even fewer people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Almost NO ONE pays estaste taxes
Posted by: Artaraxl on Apr 26, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people grossly overestimate the % of Americans who pay ANY estate taxes! It's the most progressive tax we have.

"United for a Fair Economy (UFE) indicates that the [2006] rise in the estate tax exemption level from $1.5 million per person to $2 million ($4 million per couple) means that less than one third of one percent of all U.S. estates—or 0.27%—will be affected by the federal estate tax in 2006.

All other estates, or 99.73%, will be able to pass on 100% of their assets to heirs tax-free. Out of an estimated 2.3 million deaths in 2006, an estimated 6,343 estates will pay the tax. The share of estates taxed will fall to 0.16% in 2009, when the exemption rises to $3.5 million."

http://tinyurl.com/ma558

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Tiring To Hear
Posted by: doneman2000 on Apr 26, 2006 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"it's like a double tax" Most of the largest estates have a great deal of their worth tied up in stocks. If Bill Gates and his wife died today in a plane crash the bulk of their estate would have never been taxed as the bulk of the value lies in Microsoft stock. Until that stock is sold there's been no tax paid on it's ever increasing value. Frankly, I'm all for taxing this wealth to keep America out of the "royalty" business. How bout an up front indiviual $10 million exemption? With that only the truly rich would make any payment. With our national debt going to $10 trillion by the time King George II leaves office WE NEED THE MONEY!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Item Number 435 On The List
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 30, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of why we need a complete overhaul of taxation in our country. I'll stay away from the left-right, socialist-capitalist, Keynes-Friedman stuff, but I'll stick with common sense.

The only way we are ever going to keep heavy politics out of our tax system is to keep it directly oriented to what it is-- a means of collecting money for our government to operate on. The tax code should never have been contorted as an instrument of welfare, income redistribution, economic stimulus, market protection or any of the rest. When there is a possibility that more can be had, those with it will always find a way to get more. Simply put-- the big pigs will always get the best spots at the trough.

Our nation's biggest problem is not a lack of revenue, our nation's problem is that it wastes money like there is no tomorrow. It's true for Democrats and Republicans of every level of government. In the end borrow and spend is little different than tax and spend. Add to that the accumulated debt and we have a potential avalanche hanging over our economic heads.

Our current tax system is very regressive and socially unjust by any standard. The country club crowd likes to crow about how the top 5% pays the bulk of income tax in this nation. What they do not tell you is a) how proportionally little they pay in other taxes and b) how much corporate and individual welfare they get. When tallied up and balanced they do not pay an undue amount in taxes. The people getting crushed are the working poor and lower middle class.

Other than income and estate taxes, the vast majority of money collected is based on end-user consumption. Everything from Fuel to Utilities to Groceries to Liquor and Tobacco are taxed-- many times more than once. A pack of cigarettes, for example, has a federal and state tobacco tax plus sales taxes attached, and that 's not counting the taxes the farmer, manufacturer, distributor and retailer have factored in to the final sale price.

Since the non-rich with no assistance, the working class and lower middle class, have to spend most everything they earn for sustenance they end up paying sales and excise taxes on virtually everything they earn beyond what is taken by the income tax. If they buy a car or home they are subject to property and other property-assessed (levy districts, water districts, etc) taxes. Otherwise-- everything they make is exposed to income tax and everything above that will be taxed with any of a kaleidoscope of Federal, State and Local taxes. This is simply not true of the wealthy. The wealthy do not consume taxable items in proportion to their wealth. The burden is shifted to everyone else and disproportionally those at the bottom of the income scale.

A cursory look at any newspaper over time will detail the ever present shakedown of every level of government for tax abatements, tax credits, no-interest loans, subsidies, and other outright gifts to businesses and wealthy individuals. The entire tax code is structured to maximize deductions available to corporations and wealthy individuals while offering few reasonable opportunities for working poor and lower middle class taxpayers.

Should a family have to go into debt or sell a small business in order to pay estate and inheritance taxes? No. That's the example trotted out by those who oppose state taxes, but that's not the primary group that will benefit. The tax system was written by the wealthy for they wealthy and screws everyone else over, differing only in degree. The only way I will support abolishing the Estate and Inheritance taxes is as part of a complete overhaul of our tax structure to a more equitable model. Take it or leave it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wealth being made by the community is the core of the matter
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on May 1, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too many commentors are overlooking it.

Say a guy owns $3 million shares of stock. Everyone who works for those companies who was educated in public schools is part of the value of those companies, as their education fuels their labour. They pay property taxes to support the schools; shouldn't he, who benefits in a larger quantity from them (and eventually their children, pay more?)

The roads not only allow "his" workers to commute to work. They allow trucks to bring supplies to his business. They allow customers to seek his business out.

The FCC liscenses the broadcasters who put out ads for his business.

The police don't just deal with crime in neighborhoods, they protect businesses from theft, vandalism, and even deal with victimless crimes like vagrancy that might ruin the image of a business neighborhood.

Honest businesses benefit from regulatory agencies because they theoretically won't have their less-moral rivals dumping toxic waste or substituting sawdust for flour in bread, saving money allowing them to put honest businessmen out of business.

Stockholders and propietors SHOULD pay their share for the costs of running society because society benefits business. It's that simple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mark
Posted by: mdf1960 on May 2, 2006 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting that it's greedy for people to want to keep their own money, but the government is never greedy.

Progressives will never admit that the state's enormous taxing power makes things like Iraq possible. Do you think the government could spend $800 billion a year on war and the military without the current tax system?

Taxation is theft, nothing more or less.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tax
Posted by: mdf1960 on May 2, 2006 9:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Therefore, because the society in which you live makes it possible to be rich, there is a legitimate social claim on a portion of every individual's material wealth. Looked at that way, taxes are not theft but the cost of membership in a society that makes being rich a possibility."

Oh I see, because "society" does not coercively prevent me from making voluntarily making trades to get wealthy, the government can steal my money on behalf of "society." Right. Keep trying to rationalize that somehow pointing a gun at someone and taking their money by force is not theft.

Hey, I didn't stop Bill Gates from earning a fortune. Therefore, I'll just bust into his house tonight and take a few things. He can afford it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tax Posted by: sg
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement