15 December 2010

heard it on npr

in case you don't know, the death tax is when someone dies and leaves some property to whoever and the govt comes in and takes part of the inherited property. the death tax in its current form was passed by congress in 1916 -- current form except it was called the estate tax. the man who envisioned the estate tax was also the man who inspired the creation of the teddy bear -- teddy roosevelt. while mr roosevelt was president, he started the work for the estate tax, but he left office in 1909 before it was passed.


in 1913, the first income tax law passed and here we are three years later with the estate tax. the early 1900s were an era of progressive thinking about taxation. "progressive" meaning that people believed in the power of taxation to redistribute wealth thereby leveling the playing field and equaling opportunity.

in the 1920s andrew mellon (google him) was secretary of the treasury, and he worked to get the estate tax repealed but his effort was not successful. later, in the 40s, the opponents started calling it a "death" tax because "death" is a wee bit more attention-grabbing than "estate". still, it hung on. the death tax just wouldn't die.

a smallish percentage of estates on which folks are required to pay tax consist of family farms or other small businesses. the estate tax can sound the death knell for a small business, but the vast majority of small businesses and family farms are not subject to the tax. in the 90s, opponents tried to stir up support for their position by drawing attention to the families that suffered thusly but they could not muster enough support and the tax stayed in place.


for all its staying power, it's not very effective. it has never produced more than 2% of federal revenues in any individual year since world war dos. here are some more facts i gleaned from an npr interview with michael graetz of columbia law school.

The estate tax was repealed for 2010. But if nothing happens, it will return in 2011 -- individuals who inherit estates valued at $1 million or more would see them taxed at a 55 percent rate; couples who receive estates of $2 million or more would also pay that rate. But under the framework of the deal struck between President Obama and Congressional Republicans, the first $5 million of an estate would be exempt -- the rest would be taxed at 35 percent. Many House Democrats would like to see a 45% tax on individuals' estates worth more than $3.5 million and couples' worth more than $7 million.

interesting stuff, really. lots of machinations over a tax that generates little revenue. so, what's the dealio? why are folks so het up over this relatively ineffective tax? because it's the most progressive tax on the books.


mr roosevelt believed that the estate tax was the way to prevent the accumulation of dynastic wealth and to establish a more level playing field. mr roosevelt believed the accumulation of dynastic wealth was counter to the american dream. but see, some would say accumulation of dynastic wealth is the epitome of the american dream.

there, my fair readers, is the crux of the issue.

3 Comments:

At 16 December, 2010 09:15, Blogger J Dot said...

Dynamic, indeed. And tax policy as a method for anything other than raising revenue for the government is a blunt instrument. That being said, the idea of restricting the concentration of wealth in individual families goes back to Thomas Jefferson's laws in Virginia eliminating the practice of the first born son getting everything. He saw how that practice in Europe led to an oppressive aristocracy and eventually to bloody revolts like the one in France. On the other hand, he saw the family farm as the building block of American representative democracy, so laws that break down this unit would have been anathema to him.

 
At 16 December, 2010 12:30, Blogger Jeff Edmonds said...

1) The breakdown of the family farm is long complete, and I do not think that Jefferson, if he were alive today, would consider democracy to be dependent upon family farming.

2) This is an interesting issue. I think one thing to consider in all this is the value of concentrated wealth. There is a good deal of social value in letting capital accumulate in the hands of just a few people. This makes capital easier to move around. If everyone has the same amount of money, it would be hard to generate a large volume of capital to invest in a new project. Also, it is good to have people who are so wealthy that they are willing to take risks with their money because they are not dependent on that money to eat.

All that said, large wealth inequalities also undermine democracy because they give inordinate amounts of power to a small segment of the population. This population has no direct interest in public schools, for example. Or fixing poverty. Because of their wealth, they are shielded from a lot of social problems.

So, here we have a problem of contemporary democracy. How do we maintain an economic system with healthy amounts of capital concentrated in places that can be moved quickly--a necessity for economic growth--while also mitigating the anti-democratic effects of those wealth concentrations?

Answer that question!

 
At 17 December, 2010 18:09, Blogger ace said...

i am really hoping sanuk-d will come back to discuss this a bit more. yeah, d man, that's right - i know you're not working. c'mon. discuss!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home