How Do You Justify Taxing Dead People’s Property?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
We need to clearly understand that the impending increases in the Death Tax in 2011 (unless something is done to change the outcome before January, 2011) will not be an unfortunate accident of the process. If changes are not made the re-institution of the Death Tax (at the rate and to the amounts of anything more than $1 Million in estates) will be something that was deliberately carried out by those currently in control of the legislative process in Washington, D.C.
Although there may be some resolution of the outcome with possible amendments and other legislative arrangements, it is not unreasonable to consider that those who are not supporting or working to make changes are in fact supportive of the Death Tax being re-instituted with as much as a 55 percent rate and on any estate above the $1 Million threshold.
Because of the impact that Death Taxes have on agricultural and other family-sized business enterprises, there has been a struggle to figure out what the arguments might be for there being a Death Tax. I’m well aware of the reasons for doing away with the tax entirely (something which has been attempted and has gotten to the point of 2010 where it is in fact not in operation), but figuring out how anyone could justify the Death Tax caused be to do something rather unusual -- I did a Google search and found this interesting case at Wikipedia for the arguments made to have the Death Tax system we have coming back.
I have to admit that I didn’t find any of the excuses worthy or even reasonable, but in a nutshell we’re supposed to believe that taxing the estates:
In the mirage of fighting the class war of the wealthy vs the middle-class or desperately needy, it should not be lost that the urbra-wealthy who are supposedly the targets of the Death Tax are insulated from having any problems with the tax burdens, capable of spending the resources necessary to avoid the break-up of their generational wealth distribution. Those in the middle, especially in capital intensive fields are harmed the most and prevented from passing along to their heirs the capacity of what has been built in a life-time or the long-term capability of establishing the solid basis for multi-generational asset accumulation.
The question of whether the Death Tax is appropriate comes down to the core difference of philosophy. If you believe in freedom and the rights of the individual – you are most likely to oppose the concept of Death Taxes being the burden they are headed to becoming again. If you believe that government’s appropriate role is to bestow on the masses whatever can be generated through redistribution schemes of all types – very much the attitude and approach of those in charge of government today – you can hardly wait until January 1, 2011 to get back into the operations of taxing those who have died.
We need to clearly understand that the impending increases in the Death Tax in 2011 (unless something is done to change the outcome before January, 2011) will not be an unfortunate accident of the process. If changes are not made the re-institution of the Death Tax (at the rate and to the amounts of anything more than $1 Million in estates) will be something that was deliberately carried out by those currently in control of the legislative process in Washington, D.C.
Although there may be some resolution of the outcome with possible amendments and other legislative arrangements, it is not unreasonable to consider that those who are not supporting or working to make changes are in fact supportive of the Death Tax being re-instituted with as much as a 55 percent rate and on any estate above the $1 Million threshold.
Because of the impact that Death Taxes have on agricultural and other family-sized business enterprises, there has been a struggle to figure out what the arguments might be for there being a Death Tax. I’m well aware of the reasons for doing away with the tax entirely (something which has been attempted and has gotten to the point of 2010 where it is in fact not in operation), but figuring out how anyone could justify the Death Tax caused be to do something rather unusual -- I did a Google search and found this interesting case at Wikipedia for the arguments made to have the Death Tax system we have coming back.
I have to admit that I didn’t find any of the excuses worthy or even reasonable, but in a nutshell we’re supposed to believe that taxing the estates:
- Prevents the perpetuation of wealth, tax free, locked up in the possession of wealthy families
- It’s really not all that bad since there are credits and other considerations to alleviate some of the burden
- If the government doesn’t tax the transfer of wealth – government might not get any of it
- It is better to tax the wealth of those who have died than revenue of those working
- Wealth inherited makes people less likely to work
- We have a history of limiting inheritance
- Children don’t have any moral right to wealth earned by their parents
In the mirage of fighting the class war of the wealthy vs the middle-class or desperately needy, it should not be lost that the urbra-wealthy who are supposedly the targets of the Death Tax are insulated from having any problems with the tax burdens, capable of spending the resources necessary to avoid the break-up of their generational wealth distribution. Those in the middle, especially in capital intensive fields are harmed the most and prevented from passing along to their heirs the capacity of what has been built in a life-time or the long-term capability of establishing the solid basis for multi-generational asset accumulation.
The question of whether the Death Tax is appropriate comes down to the core difference of philosophy. If you believe in freedom and the rights of the individual – you are most likely to oppose the concept of Death Taxes being the burden they are headed to becoming again. If you believe that government’s appropriate role is to bestow on the masses whatever can be generated through redistribution schemes of all types – very much the attitude and approach of those in charge of government today – you can hardly wait until January 1, 2011 to get back into the operations of taxing those who have died.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/21/2010 7:57 AM 
Categories: Congress
Tags: Nevada Death Taxes U.S. Senate Estate Taxes
Categories: Congress
Tags: Nevada Death Taxes U.S. Senate Estate Taxes
Do you mean the appreciated land value which has formed the core of many huge estates -- Leona Helmsley, Lillian Goldman, the Astors, to name just a few -- never taxed much. Do you mean the value of natural resources accruing to the Jed Clampetts of our world?
I think that value SHOULD be redistributed to all of us. Better to do it monthly rather than once per generation, but once per generation certainly beats never.
The value of land is created by the community, not the lucky landholder, whether he has held it for 1 day, 1 year, 10 years, or many generations. Permitting anyone to treat that as private treasure is theft from the rest of us -- unless you are willing to declare that you DON'T think we were created equal. Maybe you don't. But most of us would say we do think that, at least one day each year.
Similarly, we are all equally entitled to the value of the natural resources with which nature, or, if you will, God, has endowed the earth.
We permit some of us to privatize that at the expense of the vast majority. When some reap what they didn't sow, others don't get to reap what they DO sow. You might find that highly satisfactory, but most of us won't, if we stop to think about it.
Reply to this
The wealthy use their wealth to gain unequal access to government, and often get preferential treatment. Why should they scream when the government gets unequal access to their estates? The tax rate does sound too high, but other than adjusting it to a more reasonable level, I'm not outraged at the estate tax.
Reply to this