Estate Tax Pyramid Scheme

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Estate Tax Pyramid Scheme
Robert B. Reich
June 06, 2006

Robert Reich is professor of public policy at the Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.

Before your good senator pulls the plug on the estate tax?and keep an eye on him or her this week and next?consider this: the earnings of nearly everyone used to rise with rising productivity. That?s no longer true. Today?s workers are 24 percent more productive than they were five years ago but their median real earnings have barely budged.

What?s happened to all this extra value? A big chunk has gone to people earning over $1 million a year?mostly CEOs, investment bankers and hedge fund managers. This past year, 25 hedge fund managers each took home at least $130 million. Henry Paulson, our about-to-be Treasury Secretary, pocketed over $30 million. Average CEO pay back in 1966 was 60 times that of the typical American worker. Now it?s 400 times. Exxon?s former chairman just got a thoughtful retirement package of close to $400 million.

Wealth is even more lopsided than income. Henry Paulson?s net worth of more than $700 million doesn?t even earn him a place among Forbes richest 400 Americans. You have to have at least $900 million to get there. Most are billionaires.

What does this mean for the nation? Thirty years ago, the richest 1 percent owned less than a fifth of America?s wealth. Now, according to a recent report by the Fed Reserve Board, they own*more than*a third. Not since the days of the robber barons of the 19th century have we seen this much wealth concentrated in so few hands.
Super-rich couples can now pass on $4 million to their heirs tax-free. Anything over $4 million is taxed at a 45 percent rate. Why, exactly, is it so important to repeal the estate tax altogether? Repeal will cost the Treasury nearly a trillion dollars in its first 10 years?more than the entire shortfall in Social Security. That means more federal debt or higher taxes on the middle class.


Those who argue for repeal say the estate tax discourages entrepreneurs. What? Passing on $4 million tax free to your kids is not enough incentive?

Talk about discouraging entrepreneurship. Repeal the estate tax and within a few decades control over America?s productive assets will be in the hands of non-productive Americans who never lifted a finger in their lives except to speed-dial their financial advisors.

People who inherit great wealth just because they?re lucky enough to have super-rich parents don?t have any particular incentive to be entrepreneurial. They don?t have any particular incentive to do anything. Giving them control over the American economy is like giving control over a Boeing 777 to teenagers with joysticks.

According to a new report from*United for a Fair Economy, 18 families worth a total of $185 billion have financed and coordinated the repeal campaign. They?ve underwritten the massive PR drive that fooled most Americans into thinking the estate tax was a "death" tax that would fall on them. They posed as small businesses and family farmers, saying their livelihoods would be threatened unless the tax were repealed. In fact it?s hard to find a small business or family farm with an estate valued at more than $4 million.

Most of these 18 families have been wealthy for decades. Only five of them include any of the people who first earned the family fortune. If they succeed in their repeal campaign, they?ll save a total of $71 billion on their tax bills. That?s a healthy return on their investment in politics. Maybe you call this entrepreneurship. I call it further proof of the danger of concentrated wealth.

Editor's Note: This piece originally aired on the public radio program*Marketplace*on June 7, 2006.
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
I'm sorry but this is complete garbage and slanted to keep much more tax revenue streaming into the politicians pockets.

Bottom line is how many times was this money taxed by the Federal Govt while it was being earned by the "super rich" and now they want to tax it ONE MORE TIME FOR GOOD MEASURE

Just another democrat ranting about Tax Tax Tax and Reich is one of the worst, to him the American taxpayer is his personal bank to fund more and more.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
So, then you are saying that by cutting taxes, there would be less tax revenue produced? I guess I'm confused by your conservative tax assessment. Different day, different tax, different spin. I thought conservatives maintain that cutting taxes creates MORE tax revenue? Interesting.
 

Nosigar

53%
Forum Member
Jul 5, 2000
2,487
9
0
Florida
Uhhh, i stopped at Robert Recih.

Wasn't he convicted of something but was
deemed too short to go to prison?

Maybe it's the wrong guy.
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
Chadman said:
So, then you are saying that by cutting taxes, there would be less tax revenue produced? I guess I'm confused by your conservative tax assessment. Different day, different tax, different spin. I thought conservatives maintain that cutting taxes creates MORE tax revenue? Interesting.

Only a liberal moron would interpret my answer this way.

If they tax it , yes it will bring in more tax revenue duhhhhh

But by not taxing it which it already has been taxed about umpteen times, you put more money in the taxpayer's hands so he can choose what to do with it and by making his choices which should be his right more taxes will be produced from his choices.

THIS IS A MUCH BETTER WAY OF DOING IT, KEEP THE FU**ING GOVT'S HANDS OFF OF OUR HARD EARNED MONEY.

UNDERSTAND
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,473
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
I stopped at Cal-Berkley

"What does this mean for the nation? Thirty years ago, the richest 1 percent owned less than a fifth of America?s wealth. Now, according to a recent report by the Fed Reserve Board, they own*more than*a third. Not since the days of the robber barons of the 19th century have we seen this much wealth concentrated in so few hands."

--he forgot to mention they pay 1/3 of taxes and top 5% pay 50%

"Wealth concetrated is so few hands"--what an utter fool and bigger fools are those that bite on his BS--

There are now about 2.27 millionaires in U.S--one in every 125 Americans.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2004/0615millionaires.htm
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
"Wealth concetrated is so few hands"--what an utter fool and bigger fools are those that bite on his BS--

Chadman????? :mj07: :142smilie
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
2.7 that's a heck of a lot lower then the Sunday morning show your money. I mean way off. They said over 7 million now can say millionaire. They being FOX seemed so proud to announce that as a Bush achievement.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
That's ok, Dogs. I'm used to watching Ctowns flaming name calling to anyone he doesn't agree with which speaks volumes about his outlook. I consider your comments a lot when forming my own personal thoughts on things, and many times I find myself changing my opinion a little bit based on those comments. In fact, I think one time you were actually right and I may have been wrong...but the specific point escapes me right now... ;)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
ctownguy said:
Only a liberal moron would interpret my answer this way.

If they tax it , yes it will bring in more tax revenue duhhhhh

But by not taxing it which it already has been taxed about umpteen times, you put more money in the taxpayer's hands so he can choose what to do with it and by making his choices which should be his right more taxes will be produced from his choices.

THIS IS A MUCH BETTER WAY OF DOING IT, KEEP THE FU**ING GOVT'S HANDS OFF OF OUR HARD EARNED MONEY.

UNDERSTAND

What I understand is that you have now made it perfectly clear that your position is that taxes increase revenue for the government and that reducing taxes would then reduce revenue for the government. I just want that on record, because I'll bet I can go back and find a comment by you that states that reducing taxes causes people to spend more money and creates more revenue for the government. I know a few here believe that, and the argument can be made. You cannot argue both ways, I don't think. So, the next time we have a discussion on this, make sure you stick to your point, and don't take credit the other way, as many try to do.

I'm curious about your "umpteen times" financial commentary. What are you saying there, that when people make money, and put it in savings or into a retirement or investment account, that it is taxed "umpteen times?" What exactly does that mean? I realize income is taxed, and there are taxes on investment income (money made from investing, not money lost in investing), but where else, before the estate tax?

I understand the theory of keeping more of your money and lower taxation. I wouldn't mind having more of my paycheck, but I am happy to live where I live and enjoy the quality of life that I lead - which is largely funded by taxation (I mean everything around me, like schools, good roads, police, parks, golf courses, snow removal, and on and on). But if we lose the estate tax funds, we'll have to make other choices to take care of that revenue - those choices will be tougher than the ones we currently face - or don't face in the case of George Bush.

I don't want to face those tough choices, I'd rather keep taxation the way it is, or consider a flat tax with absolutely no deductions or loopholes - and make American companies pony up their fair share and not go offshore to avoid it.

For those of you complaining about our current tax system, what is your solution? Do you have any ideas other than the typical ending all entitlement programs theory? You want to fund wars in Iraq and Iran and North Korea and Afganistan and on and on, but don't seem to offer up much more other than exploding our national debt to do it the way you want.

I wonder how many of you guys that complain about the "FU**ING GOVT" have used it to your benefit in times of need. Probably never think of that. We need to spend our time trying to improve the "FU**ING GOVT" and less time posturing against each other. But somehow, I don't think guys like you, Ctown, will ever be able to work with anyone not dressed in red. It must be tough being the smartest person in the room all the time. Funny how at least half the people in this country of ours don't agree with you. And you label them all the same and call them a degrading name.

Welcome to Ctown's America. (And remember to stay out of Freeze's yard).
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Chadman you are correct. if you don't' have enough coming in. You have basic bills that need paying even if your the government. So you just raise fees some place else. Or make the states raise there taxes. But there is no free ride. You pay sooner or later. A economic plan built of tax cuts only will slowly die.
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
Unbelievable chadman, you are truly a socialist and all your double talk is ridiculous.

I wish I could write slowly so you would be able to understand.

Less taxing of the people will bring in more revenue to the Fed Govt than increased taxing of the people.

NOW BEFORE YOU GO ON A CUT AND PASTE SPREE, THERE ARE ARGUMENTS FOR THIS AND AGAINST IT, IF IT WORKS. I BELIEVE AND SEE RESULTS THAT IT WORKS YOU DON'T SO BE IT.

As far as your ridiculous comparison about not having an estate tax and I think by taxing it brings in more revenue, go back and read my answer again idiot.

If the estate tax is used it will bring in revenue from that one tax yes, duuuuhhh you dumb ass. But if it isn't taxed more revenue will flow into the Fed Govt from the individual using the money instead of the Fed Gov.

Please read this slowly comrade. :sadwave:
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
DOGS THAT BARK said:
I did not mean Chadman--Ctown. In fact I have very high opinion of him.

DTB, you might not have meant him and I respect your opinion of him, but that being said by his posts and views he has placed on taxes it sure looks like he buys right into it. :shrug:

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck............
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,473
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
No prob Ctown--Was my fault for making general statement.

A little on estate taxes as I worked in this field quite a bit before it was repealed and one of biggest lobbiest for estate tax is insurance industry because it is big revenue for them and agents--however I will opt against most my associates on this one.
1st I think it is counter productive to penalize those that do the right things during their lives and to comensate those that don't--probably more so is the fact most of cases I worked on were not for the very rich as they often have other means to skirt the issue via high priced estate attorneys--however have been bitten by in the ass of late by border line shelters now deemed illegal--about 80% of cases I worked on were in 2 areas-- small businesses where bulk of assets were tied up in family business and it would have to be liquidated to pay taxes the other were farmers who bulk of assetts were in real estate and usually had to skimp to make ends meet and at death was no question part of farm would have had to be sold to pay taxes--you also had prob on farms where multiple children were involved and only one farmed--but that is another matter entirely.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
If 4 million is the target. Wont hurt any one in the middle class. In fact it wont hurt most newly made millionaires. And those with the big bucks get the best lawyers and do just fine.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Boy, I must have really touched a nerve with this one, making you state your opinions so explicitly and setting you up for the future so sadly, ctown. You're pulling out the two word names for this one.

I agree, there are two ways to look at this, and unlike you and your flaming tirades, I can allow that parts of what you believe in has merit. Heck, it might even be correct. I personally am not an economist, nor a tax expert. But let me ask you this...

The author of this says that repeal of this tax will cost the treasury $1 trillion dollars in the first 10 years. It looks like he is working with the numbers released by the treasury department, but I don't know that for sure. But most assuredly, the number will be closer to $1 trillion than it is zero. So, we have to make that up somewhere, unless we can get both parties to stop spending so much money on what they think is important to fund. Do you HONESTLY believe that people who have been given $4 million untaxed to spend before any more of the estate is taxed at all will go out and spend enough in the economy to tally $1 trillion dollars? I just do not in any way believe that. Whether you do or not, I'm sure you'll say they will. But it just does not make sense. Most of these people are probably already nicely set up in life from what their parents, grandparents, etc., have been able to do for them in their path to riches.

I just do not believe that the repeal of this tax will generate remotely enough in the short or long run to make up for what the tax brings in. If anyone can show me any numbers that might prove otherwise - THIS TAX, not in general taxation - then I'd be glad to look at it.

ctown, you can continue to dance on that tightrope of saying that both of your assessments are right, that's fine. No matter what you believe in, it generates more for the government. Isn't THAT convenient. Maybe someday you'll cut and paste some numbers to back up your universal claim of correctness, or at least show good reason for why these two positions are both true other than calling me a dumb-ass.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
The cloture vote lost in the Senate on this. They could not get enough votes to bring it up for a second vote. Interesting to see how legislators position on this one.
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,473
142
63
Bowling Green Ky
Saw something interesting from Ben Stein on Oreilly show last night Chad.
He proposed a sur tax of 10% on all with incomes of a mill or more a year to fund just war effort as long as it was needed. The 10% hike would be on taxes owed not on amount earned which would equate to about 3.3% on earned income for most making that amount--Something along those lines I would not object to.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
Amazing how you leftists feel entitled to someone else's money

I just can't get myself to be that envious and greedy to have the nerve to feel like I should be given some part of someone else's hard earned money
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top