From the Washington Post: A Fair Payment for War by William H. Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins Last week we saw something unprecedented in American history: a push for tax cuts targeted to the wealthy in a time of war. As U.S. jets prepared to bomb Baghdad, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment to the federal budget legislation accelerating the repeal of the estate tax. It is a provision that would benefit less than 2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers. It passed by a narrow vote of 51 to 48. There is something unseemly about Congress's obsession with repealing the estate tax, the nation's most equitable tax on accumulated wealth, at a time when life and death are at stake... ...In order to pay for World War II, the income tax was broadened to many lower-income households. In 1942 Irving Berlin wrote a patriotic song called "I Paid My Income Tax Today" to mark the unprecedented tax collections. One verse went: "You see those bombers in the sky, Rockefeller helped to build them, so did I." President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that national unity against Hitler depended on a sense of shared sacrifice, by both Rockefeller and Rosie the Riveter. Top income rates were boosted, and the estate tax was increased so that fortunes exceeding $50 million would be taxed at 70 percent. FDR spoke out boldly against war profiteering, saying, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster..." ...Rather than facing these problems and appropriating the money to resolve them, congressional leaders are using the diversion of war to pass a tax cut for the wealthy that would exacerbate budget shortfalls at all levels. While the public's attention is riveted on Iraq, the Senate acts to accelerate the repeal of the progressive estate tax... William H. Gates Sr. is co-chairman of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Chuck Collins is co-founder of Responsible Wealth. They are the authors of "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes."
I'm not a big supporter of the Bush tax cut plan (as it stands right now), but the estate tax, to me, is just awful. I just don't see how anyone can justify government seizure of wealth upon someone's death. No matter how much money they've got, it just doesn't make sense.
my understanding of the tax is that it is a tax on inheritance. if i gave someone a million dollars today, they'd have to report it as income and pay taxes on it. is the estate tax any different?
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the inheritance tax treats inherited income BETTER than earned income, because the inheritance tax has a huge, huge exemption (in comparison to earned income.) Here's an idea...propose a bill that treats all income equally. That'll get the plutocrats' underwear in a bunch.
In our country, we are taxed based upon our income. Additionally, if I do really well and want to pass the money onto my children the government wants a piece of the action because, why? Because it can. If I'm taxed on my income, the inheritance that I want to leave to my kids has already been taxed when I earned it. Why should the govt. tax it again? Because it can. Ben Reilly said, "Right, it's not fair to the people that chose their parents wisely." Is it right to stop me from providing for my family? Any amount? Look, I think it's great that Bill Gates of Microsoft gives millions of $$$ to charity and that he wants to give 98% of it away when he perishes because he believe his kids will be better off with only 2% of his money. I think that's terrific. I think it's terrific because he is the one that is controlling and directing where his money is going. And he should. After all, it is his money, not the government's. If the govt. is allowed to tax inheritance, what is the right amount, 5%, 10%, 25%, 90% or 100%? Let's face it. This is money grabbing in its basic form. Of course, during a war, it makes for bad headlines as the heartstrings are getting tugged. But the bottom line is that this is not good law.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't realize that they will never pay a penny in estate taxes no matter how much they work or how much they save. Some people here have been complaining about the ignorance of citizens in regard to the war, but that pales in comparison to the ignorance about economic matters. The estate tax has functioned as a tax on wealthy children who have contributed absolutely nothing to society. Republicans consider that unfair, but have no problems taxing McDonald's workers far in excess of any benefits they'll receive. I'd rather the McDonald's worker have access to health care than the Forbes' have matching yachts. By the way, I'm outraged that Saddam Hussein is building palaces while many Iraqis are in poverty. Outraged!!!
Here is my theory on the estate tax and why it is ok. I fully recognize that it is essentially a double tax and the fairness issue raised above. However, this fairness argument is based on the underlying premise that wealth as it is distributed now is "fair". I see this as an entirely faulty premise. Sure, you can take a Bill Gates and say that it is fair with him, and several others as well. But there are those who have benefitted from war profiteering. There are those that have benefited from slavery, discrimination, etc. These inequities justify the tax against others as a means of partially (a small amount) redistributing wealth. I say this and I would probably be considered a free marketeer/neo con on these boards. If fairness is the only reason to oppose the tax, then prove that the current distribution of wealth is fair.
Look, you can't take it with you, and rich kids are ungrateful little b#stards anyway. Might as well let the government take it. Or else give to charity. Even if you're a mean tempered rich miser, you can create your own non-profit like 'Kill the whales" or something.
That was written by Bill Gates' father, who if I'm not mistaken was already a very wealthy man before his son came along. So we know he doesn't give two $hits about whether or not his son gets an inheiritance and if it is taxed.
That should be their right. Just as it is the right of some weathly people to give it all away. Two wrongs don't make a right. So you have no justification for it, so long as the ends justify the means. Some wealthy people have benefited from those things, some haven't. People who have accumulated extensive wealth through fair and legal means have as much right to their money as those who fall under the estate tax threshold.
Yeah, but they're dead. Do they want gold doubloons put into their coffins? That's the thing. The people getting taxed are NOT the people who earned the money.
i thought for estate tax, the first mill was untaxable, and then after that you get taxed. i don't know that many people who are getting a mill net worth from a death in the fam
Those taxes are related to things that are generally causal (i.e. property taxes being related to local services, schools, etc.). How is a tax triggered by death and imposed on a slim percentage of the population causal?
What is the income tax related to? The gvt's need for money. So is the property tax, and the sales tax, and the excise tax on cigarettes, and on and on and on.
But those all have triggers (i.e. you buy a pack a cigarettes, you pay a tax; you have income, you pay a tax), and are at least reasonably fairly applied (the income tax). The trigger for the estate tax is death (so far, unavoidable), and it isn't fairly applied. It's not like I'm way out on a limb here. Most people are opposed to it.