A Defense of the Estate Tax
Mar. 3rd, 2005 12:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythSo, one of Bush and the Republican Party's pet projects has been to attack the Estate Tax as the "death tax" and hold up poor innocent little farmers and small businesscritters as examples of the horrible, horrible things it does to people.
It's bullshit, really.
The Estate Tax (maybe we should call it the "Billionaire's tax") was pushed for by the Founding Fathers for one specific reason. To prevent the creation of hereditary monetary dynasties like those that controlled much of Europe. When people died, their fortunes are taxed, so their kids can't just inherit the work of their parents and not do anything at all. It also kept money more likely to fall into the hands of people who worked at it, rather than just inherited it, let people earn their way into influence. And it worked, mostly. Yeah, there's families like the Rockefellers, the Kennedies, the Bushes, the Carnegies, where the kids don't REALLY have to work, or they've got connections to buy them out when they fail, but it wasn't nearly as bad.
There's a couple other reasons to support it, too. For one, it's good for the economy. It requires people to put their talents to use, not just coast off the investments of their parents. Well, it doesn't even require that, people can easily inherit enough to survive without working. And there's trust funds and foundations and those sorts of things. But if they want their kids to inherit, they'll actually have to work, or at least invest wisely. Which is good for the economy and the country, since then the children of rich folks actually put their expensive upbringing and education to work, which in the end will help everybody.
Another is a moral reason, of sorts. The rich benefit the most from the laws, infrastructure, and all the other apparatus of government. Without the government to enforce markets, enforce property rights, and enforce banking laws and all the other basic underpinnings of civilization, they couldn't get nearly so wealthy, and would have to spend much of their money protecting their money. Since they benefit the most from what government provides, it's only fair that they pay more of it. It's the same as with progressive taxation.
I have no objection to somebody being able to inherit say, 5million free of taxes, then whatever percent of the rest. They've already got an enormous head start over 99.9% of the people in the world, they could live without working if they really wanted to. But they shouldn't inherit millions or billions of dollars that they didn't work for, and set up dynasties.
But this is what Bush and the Republicans have been pushing for. Taking taxes off inheritance, off investment, and placing it only on work. Which means more and more on people who actually work, which is most of us. Tax cuts for the rich and more taxes for the rest of us.
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles
It's bullshit, really.
The Estate Tax (maybe we should call it the "Billionaire's tax") was pushed for by the Founding Fathers for one specific reason. To prevent the creation of hereditary monetary dynasties like those that controlled much of Europe. When people died, their fortunes are taxed, so their kids can't just inherit the work of their parents and not do anything at all. It also kept money more likely to fall into the hands of people who worked at it, rather than just inherited it, let people earn their way into influence. And it worked, mostly. Yeah, there's families like the Rockefellers, the Kennedies, the Bushes, the Carnegies, where the kids don't REALLY have to work, or they've got connections to buy them out when they fail, but it wasn't nearly as bad.
There's a couple other reasons to support it, too. For one, it's good for the economy. It requires people to put their talents to use, not just coast off the investments of their parents. Well, it doesn't even require that, people can easily inherit enough to survive without working. And there's trust funds and foundations and those sorts of things. But if they want their kids to inherit, they'll actually have to work, or at least invest wisely. Which is good for the economy and the country, since then the children of rich folks actually put their expensive upbringing and education to work, which in the end will help everybody.
Another is a moral reason, of sorts. The rich benefit the most from the laws, infrastructure, and all the other apparatus of government. Without the government to enforce markets, enforce property rights, and enforce banking laws and all the other basic underpinnings of civilization, they couldn't get nearly so wealthy, and would have to spend much of their money protecting their money. Since they benefit the most from what government provides, it's only fair that they pay more of it. It's the same as with progressive taxation.
I have no objection to somebody being able to inherit say, 5million free of taxes, then whatever percent of the rest. They've already got an enormous head start over 99.9% of the people in the world, they could live without working if they really wanted to. But they shouldn't inherit millions or billions of dollars that they didn't work for, and set up dynasties.
But this is what Bush and the Republicans have been pushing for. Taking taxes off inheritance, off investment, and placing it only on work. Which means more and more on people who actually work, which is most of us. Tax cuts for the rich and more taxes for the rest of us.
Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles
