Julia Gorin
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
IT WAS ONLY this year that I heard for the first time of the scourge called
estate tax. You know—the one that takes up to a 55% chunk out of a person’s
already-taxed life savings which he was planning to leave to his progeny so
he might rest in peace.
I heard this, and rage—rage from the depths of my American soul—welled up in me. It just struck me as fundamentally wrong.
Naturally, the president likes it and last week vetoed a 10-year phase-out plan for the tax, just as he’d promised he would. But the issue is a hotly contested one, and will resurface with the next administration.
I myself am heir to no one’s grand estate. My parents are immigrants who lived a middle-class life and now live even more modestly as retirees. I’ll never inherit more than a negligible estate, tax-wise.
Now, election-time tax issues—or anytime tax issues--have never caught my attention. I don’t know from taxes. They confuse me. But this was simple enough to understand. And I understood it to be unjust.
For that reason, a recent front-page headline on the Forward newspaper caught my eye. It read: "Loss of Estate Tax Could Cost Charities Billions." The article defended the 86 year-old gift tax on inherited estates as a motivator of the very rich to make charitable bequests.
In other words, don’t repeal the law, because it’ll eliminate a perk that comes with robbing the rich.
The piece went on to criticize Republicans for portraying the death tax as "an injustice that affects the family of every hard-working person who dies" rather than the estimated two percent of Americans whom it actually affects.
So if only two percent of the people are getting robbed, I suppose that makes it ok.
Ah, can’t you just see the Feds already salivating over the thought of Bill Gates kicking the bucket? His heirs will have to sell off all their Microsoft stock just to pay the taxes. Imagine the jubilation! It’s a wonder they haven’t ordered a hit on the guy yet.
But it's not just Bill Gates. It’s not even just family farms and small businesses. I have several friends, all from separate families, who are heirs to estates of one to two million. And I know people who have even more such friends. Not to mention all those law firms I temp at, where crews of attorneys regularly pull 48-hour shifts. I would guess their estates to reach at least two million before they’re through. It certainly feels like more than 2% of the population.
Critics like the Forward condemn the move as an assault on a more fundamental principle: progressivity in the federal tax code.
"Taxes that fall heaviest on those with the most money have been a basic tool of government for a century," read the Forward. Similarly, the New York Times called the progressive tax on income "a cornerstone of 20th Century American society."
Sticking it to the rich is a cornerstone of 20th Century American society? Robbing the rich is a progressive idea? Joseph Stalin was also considered a progressive idea. In fact, the same newspaper that brought us the image of Uncle Joe wants us to keep redistributing private wealth. Our red flags should be going up—no pun intended.
As recently as the Carter Administration, the highest tax bracket was paying 70% of its income to the government. Under F.D.R. it was 90%. If that isn’t highway robbery, nothing is. It’s not just the ninety or seventy percent figure; it’s the very concept. Taxes by nature hit harder on those who earn more. That’s how percentages work. The rich do pay a proportionately larger share of the taxes as it is. We’re asking them to pay a disproportionate share.
So should they pay a higher sales tax too? Sure! The IRS could issue everyone a card identifying their household income, and cashiers will have a corresponding tax chart to refer to. For that matter, I think a Big Mac should cost me only $2, but rich folks $45.
Because taking money from the rich can only be a good thing—even if it gets lost in politicians’ pockets or bureaucracy on its way to "The People."
I seem to be missing this age-old tradition of contempt for the rich, shared by so many of my fellow human beings—and by big government (outside its own ranks, of course). I don’t know about others, but my parents raised me not to look into other people’s wallets.
While I admit I’m not particularly an advocate for the poor or the uninsured—those heavily touted heroes of the Democratic Convention—nor am I an advocate for the rich. I’m an advocate for what’s fair. In this case it puts me in the position of defending the rich, which isn’t exactly politically correct.
But eliminating the estate tax isn’t a vote for the rich or against the
poor. It’s a vote for a just
JWR contributor Julia Gorin is a journalist and stand-up comic residing in Manhattan. Send your comments by clicking here.
08/14/00: Dangers in do-goodness
05/23/00: What's so funny? The death of political humor
04/14/00: The most violent people
03/24/00: Beautiful fraud
03/17/00: Patronizing the patron
02/18/00: No one likes a hater without a cause
02/04/00: Bubba's big break
12/21/00: The Sport of Sitting
11/19/99: He wants his brother back!
11/15/99: Hollywood: Just jamming
10/29/99: Bomb all bans
10/04/99: Welcome, Mr. Buchanan!
09/24/99: The Financing of Hill's House
09/10/99: 'I cause your pain'
08/20/99: Believing the hype
08/09/99: Chickens bombing ... chickens?
07/30/99: Why I'm eating so much chocolate
07/16/99: The reluctant partisan
06/29/99: Maddy and Bill went up the (Capitol) Hill
04/29/99: "Never again"? This isn't exactly what we had in mind
03/19/99: The Thin Yellow Line
03/03/99: How many more are out there?
10/19/98: Got milk? Don’t know. Do I?
07/30/98: Kofi Annan's crimes against sensibility
05/15/98: Susan McDougal: a real stand-up kinda guy
01/08/98: In defense of the appetizing shiksa