Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Former Starbucks Prez Says: Don't Gut Estate Tax

By Howard Behar, AlterNet. Posted August 3, 2006.


Passing on unlimited inheritances is not only bad for our children but also unhealthy for our democracy.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

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

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Immigrants and Health-Care: What Part of LEGAL Doesn't Washington Understand?
Marielena Hincapié

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

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

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Most U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

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

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Howard Behar

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The estate tax is still on the agenda within the halls of the U.S. Congress.

In our nation's capital, after Congress failed by several votes in June to abolish the federal estate tax, the Senate will soon consider a bill to gut the law and dramatically reduce the tax.

This change would be a mistake. Our federal inheritance taxes raise substantial revenue exclusively from those most able to pay -- the heirs and heiresses of multimillionaires and billionaires. The federal tax will raise over $1 trillion in the coming 15 years.

Paying an estate tax is one of the ways that those of us who have accumulated wealth in our society re-fertilize the garden of opportunity that we have benefited from. As an individual and former executive at Starbucks, I know the hundreds of ways our society's investments have helped my company and me. None of us exists on an island -- and no wealth can be created without a society that provides a fertile ground of opportunity.

I don't sympathize with the wealthy families that have spent millions to abolish the estate tax. Passing on unlimited inheritances is not only bad for our children but also unhealthy for a democracy to tolerate concentrations of hereditary wealth and power. It is more important to give our kids educational opportunities and encourage them to make their own way in the world of work. I have a moral responsibility to all the children in our society, not just my own, to ensure access to quality education.

The advocates of repeal talk about how the tax threatens family farms and small businesses. A responsible reform of the federal estate tax will assist closely held family businesses and farms that might be squeezed by the tax. It is irresponsible, however, to let a few hundred households drive a debate over our state and national tax systems.

In the coming week, the U.S. Senate will likely vote on an estate tax proposal that will effectively gut the federal estate tax. This proposal will probably raise the amount of wealth exempted from $4 million for a couple to something like $10 million, and significantly cut the rate from its current level of 46 percent. This kind of proposal would cost hundreds of billions of dollars over the decade following repeal, and would closely approximate the negative budgetary effects of full repeal.

National anti-tax groups are exerting enormous pressure on U.S. senators who oppose gutting the tax. Such tactics have no place in a dignified and honest dialogue about an important policy matter. Their proposed law change includes pairing an estate tax cut with popular tax breaks that expired last year. Tying the extension of these unrelated tax cuts to the estate tax is but a form of political pressure. Hopefully we will be able to see through the subterfuge to understand the vital issues at stake.

The key question is, why now? With an $8.5 trillion federal debt, it seems an odd time to give the super-haves another tax break. How would we replace $774 billion in lost revenue? What will this do to our investments in equality of opportunity?

When we eliminate or dramatically reduce the most progressive tax in our state and federal systems, we effectively shift the tax burden from the wealthy to others. The estate tax should be responsibly reformed, but not gutted. We should preserve the fundamental framework of the tax -- and the substantial revenue it generates.

I agree with Bill Gates, Sr., that the estate tax is a "gratitude" or "grateful heirs" tax. Financially fortunate individuals like myself have a responsibility to pay back society in many forms, including charitable giving. But we also have an obligation to pay an inheritance tax. When the revenue is linked to important services like education and health care, the matter is crystal clear.

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

Howard Behar is the former president of Starbucks International. These are his own personal views and do not represent those of Starbucks.

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:
But Hey!....
Posted by: adp3d on Aug 3, 2006 4:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they're pushing to get a minimum wage increase of 70 cents an hour per year for the next three years. That is so shameful. The Republicans in my state suddenly agreed to a minimum wage increase when it became apparent that a ballot initiative would have brought out more Democratic voters to polls.

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

» RE: But Hey!.... Posted by: BJT
» RE: But Hey!.... Posted by: farmer's daughter
» RE: But Hey!.... Posted by: chaoslegs
» RE: But Hey!.... Posted by: Jesse
» YO, DITTO HEAD Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: But Hey!.... Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
» RE: But Hey!.... Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
Sick, violent people!
Posted by: BJT on Aug 3, 2006 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Passing on unlimited inheritances is not only bad for our children but also unhealthy for our democracy."

Let me get this straight. If my father was too wealthy for your tastes, you would HOLD A GUN TO MY HEAD to make sure you got "your share" of what HE left to ME.

You sick, depraved, violent people.

I understand how babying one's progeny with massive inheritances can be bad for them, but when did inheritances EVER become the government's business?

Just as importantly, this is not a democracy. At least it isn't supposed to be one. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. And once democracy is instituted, the poor realize they can vote themselves huge gifts from the wealthier few, and back their wishes up with the force of government. In so doing they leech the economy dry and drive out the enterprising, financially prosperous people who could help them. This is immoral at best and evil at worst.

Before you ask for new taxes or wealth redistribution, make sure you know what you're asking for.

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

» RE: Sick, violent people! Posted by: DCostello
» RE: Sick, violent people! Posted by: MickeyM
» RE: Sick, violent people! Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Sick, violent people! Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Sick, violent people! Posted by: yellow
» RE: Sick, violent people! Posted by: ConnecttheDots
» RE: Sick, violent people! Posted by: 1984NOW!!!
grazing your land
Posted by: robmikejas on Aug 3, 2006 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Grazing on the fertile land that is our economy, the fat and rich cattle strip the very earth of its riches and yet will give nothing back to sustain the soil. What this country needs most to insure its ability to sustain future growth and future wealth is a healthy education system. This tax, on those who should be most thankful, is one way to guarantee the future of this country and the well being of it's citizens. Why isn't this apparent to those fat cows who benefit from the Republican mantra of more more more? How many dollars is enough? The shame of it is overwhelming and all the while, they throw us a few pennies in a raised minimum wage that won't support a decent family beyond bare essentials. It's a crime...

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

» RE: grazing your land Posted by: BJT
» RE: grazing your land Posted by: DCostello
» RE: grazing your land Posted by: farmer's daughter
Am I the only one who noticed a major change?
Posted by: Realtordave on Aug 3, 2006 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the coverage I've seen on this seems to ignore the major change in the right's position: The right has switched from seeking to eliminate the estate tax to capping the exclusion. That exclusion is currently $2 million, becoming unlimited under current law for one year in 2010. The bill before the Senate would gradually increase the cap for the exclusion to $5 million per person by 2015. Under current law, only $1 million would be excluded per person in 2015.

If you're laughing at "only $1 million," you're not a gen-Xer who's planning on buying a home in California some day. The median home price here is already pushing $500,000. One home and one rental home can easily push a California school teacher into Behar's realm of the "ultra rich." It seems disingenuous for the founder of Starbucks to refer to an individual with a $5 million dollar estate as "ultra rich" or imply she's a "billionaire."

I've been following this whole estate tax thing more closely than most, partly because I'm a real estate sales person in California, where middle class homeowners can easily end up with estates that get hit with that 46% estate tax. As a "boomer" old enough to have proudly cast my first presidential vote for George McGovern, I recognize that inflation keeps pushing the middle class into ever higher tax rates.

Wait a minute--a "couple" gets double the exclusion, according to Behar. Better check your language--that's a "married couple," which pretty much eliminates most alternative couples.

One more thing. That "significant" cut in estate tax rate is from 46% to 40% for high end-estates.

The right is making a major switch here. Glossing over the details can not only be harmful to many middle class progressives, it's harmful to one thing we all cherish--intelligent, informed debate.

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

Economic Apartheid
Posted by: psychochurch on Aug 3, 2006 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything is about creating and maintaining segregation between the Anglo control freaks and everyone else. Always has been. These tax policies are the new Jim Crow laws, only different methods.

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

» RE: economic Apartheid Posted by: TurdFerguson
» Hey Turd- Go flush yourself Posted by: psychochurch
WTF???
Posted by: aislinnluv on Aug 3, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how is it that anyone can believe it isn't just for the rich to pay their fair share? they have tax lawyers that can hide enormous wealth, stash it away on offshore banks, use all manner of schemes to conceal their true worth and not pay a cent, while the middle and lower classes are strugglilng to afford a place to live at all, much less a "home and rental house". we're going without a lot of what the rich take for granted, like peace of mind concerning whether or not we will actually have a roof over our heads, much less an actual vacation. the rich, the corporations and the churches need to start forking over their share of taxes and quit trying to shift the burden to the rest of us. get an effing grip here.

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

We don't live under the Articles of Confederation anymore
Posted by: barbobot on Aug 3, 2006 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry BJT, but our government does not operate under the Articles of Confederation anymore. We did for a while at first. Then we changed to The Constitution. The federal government stopped being simply a meeting place for the states at that time, so your last comment is a little dated, by a little over 200 years. The estate tax would be illegal under the Articles, but it is perfectly Constitutional. Do you know why we changed from the Articles to the Constitution? Because the country sucked under the Articles and that system was not tenable any longer.

Have you ever heard of Shay's Rebellion? It happened while our governing structure was the Articles of Confederation. The Massachusetts state court was foreclosing on farms of the little guys who couldn't pay up. So Daniel Shays and some others invaded the court and took it hostage to prevent the foreclosures. And NOBODY could stop them. The state couldn't raise enough money to pay soldiers to stop them. And the federal goverment couldn't either, because it couldn't, "voilently" as you put it, make people pay the tax money necessary to raise a militia. So, we could have it your way. Go back to the Articles from the Constitution, so the feds can't destroy rich people's souls by taking "their" money. But then, the mob of wolves, like Daniel Shays and friends, can just start rebellions against the rich and take their money themselves, and their won't be a government capable of stopping them. That sounds like what you're advocating.

Wonder which system leads to more violence? History seems to say your way.

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

I Am SO Sick & Tired . . .
Posted by: kwfryatl on Aug 3, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . of seeing the phrase “redistribution of wealth” used in connection with this argument. That phrase makes it sound like the government is “taking” money from the ultra-wealthy and simply “giving” it to the lower class in the form of checks or cash via the inheritance tax.

Like it or not, receiving an inheritance is nothing more than another form of non-traditional income, the same as hitting the right numbers for a huge lottery pot, day-trading/investing as a career, or winning a high-stakes Texas Hold ‘Em tournament in Vegas. All of those people have to pay some form of “income tax” on their non-traditional income, and anyone who receives an ultra-wealthy inheritance should be treated no differently.

And don’t try the old “taxed twice” argument: individuals are the focus of the taxation, not "money" (in whatever form); otherwise, you would wind up with inordinately large, unhealthy concentrations of wealth, as mentioned in other comments here.

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

Starbunks
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 3, 2006 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Starbucks is a fine example of why we really do need an inheritance tax. I mean, it has got to be the dumbest business model ever concocted, and made profitable only by the sheer stupidity of the american people. Let's all go spend $20-$80 a week (!!!) on freakin coffee! It's retarded. What's wrong with just going to a library or somewhere like that and getting a cup of coffee for free? (If they don't have free coffee where you are, ask for it! lol. You'll probably get it.) You can spend $5 (worth of free time) reading a book. There's a million things we could be doing rather than supporting a starbucks on every corner... sometimes there's even more than one starbucks on every corner.

Anyway, the point is that whoever thought of the idea was successful and no doubt got very rich. But the idea sucks, plain and simple. But even if it didn't, why should that person's family be elevated to a permanent state of wealth? Good people with good ideas need to be given every chance to rise to the top. No "death tax" just promotes laziness among heirs and stagnation and classism and all sorts of bad things.

There absolutely needs to be an inheritance tax. It's as important to us as a free press.

I'm not at all surprised that this corrupt Republican regime can't comprehend the value of either.

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

Tax is a social responsibility
Posted by: Peter Boyd on Aug 3, 2006 8:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wrote an essay many years ago as part of an Economics class. I got a distinction for it and that didn't happen to often. The thrust of my argument was that in any civilized egalitarian, society the payment of tax by individuals and business was a social responsibility not a fiscal responsibility. I think this is what this article is really alluding to. Only a fool believes that individual wealth is created in isolation from the broader community. Wise people understand that sharing wealth with the broader community sustains wealth creation opportunity. Taxing wealth is the best way of sharing it and in particular estate tax ensures opportunity for those best equipped to grasp opportunity and sustain economic growth. Inherited wealth very rarley succeeds in this regard.

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

Hippocrytes...
Posted by: bassman on Aug 6, 2006 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For some reason, every American wants to live in the "greatest country in the world", but few of them want to pay for it. Publicly financed infrastructure aids economic activity, but the people who reap the most benefits from economic activity don't want to pay taxes? Gimme a break...

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

  • 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