Abolish the Death Tax
The Washington Post's Sebastian Mallaby believes there is "no excuse" for abolishing the death tax.
Really? How 'bout the fact that it's just wrong?
Everything taxed by the death tax has been taxed at least once before. Why, simply because someone has died, is the federal government entitled to put its hand in his pocket a second time?
What's most remarkable about Mallaby's piece is its assumption -- that government is as entitled to peoples' money as they are. People of good conscience can certainly disagree about the merits of inheirited wealth, but that's a far cry from decreeing that, because one doesn't favor it, there's "no excuse" for the government not to implement his or her policy preference.
Apparently, Mallaby sees the death tax as a great social equalizer. It's noteworthy that he sees the equalizing in terms typical of the left: Rather than trying to put in place policies that will help those with less have the opportunity to gain more, it's just faster and easier to take away from those who have earned more and want to pass it on. It's a little bit like using plastic surgery, not to make everyone beautiful, but to make everyone plain. There. Good. Now we're all the same.
And despite Mallaby's stated concern about the erosion of the meritocracy, it's hard to believe that there will be no more Howard Schultzes (who grew up in a housing project) or even Bill Gateses if the death tax is abolished. In fact, what promotes ingenuity and meritocracy is the absence of government "equalizing" schemes, not a profusion of them.
There's no law that prevents billionaires who are suspicious of inheirited wealth from donating their money -- either to charities or, if it's their desire, to the US government. Let them do it if they want to, just like the liberals who always want tax increases should feel free to pay over and above their tax bill. (Funny how that never happens.) But as for the rest of Americans, let them decide for themselves, please. There's hardly a government entitlement for a second bite at the taxing apple.
By and large, Americans oppose the death tax, because at a visceral level, most understand that one of the primary reasons for "getting ahead" is to ensure that one can provide (in some cases, handsomely) for one's children. That desire is natural and it's good. It shouldn't be thwarted by those who believe it's their right to take from some twice in order to give to others.
Really? How 'bout the fact that it's just wrong?
Everything taxed by the death tax has been taxed at least once before. Why, simply because someone has died, is the federal government entitled to put its hand in his pocket a second time?
What's most remarkable about Mallaby's piece is its assumption -- that government is as entitled to peoples' money as they are. People of good conscience can certainly disagree about the merits of inheirited wealth, but that's a far cry from decreeing that, because one doesn't favor it, there's "no excuse" for the government not to implement his or her policy preference.
Apparently, Mallaby sees the death tax as a great social equalizer. It's noteworthy that he sees the equalizing in terms typical of the left: Rather than trying to put in place policies that will help those with less have the opportunity to gain more, it's just faster and easier to take away from those who have earned more and want to pass it on. It's a little bit like using plastic surgery, not to make everyone beautiful, but to make everyone plain. There. Good. Now we're all the same.
And despite Mallaby's stated concern about the erosion of the meritocracy, it's hard to believe that there will be no more Howard Schultzes (who grew up in a housing project) or even Bill Gateses if the death tax is abolished. In fact, what promotes ingenuity and meritocracy is the absence of government "equalizing" schemes, not a profusion of them.
There's no law that prevents billionaires who are suspicious of inheirited wealth from donating their money -- either to charities or, if it's their desire, to the US government. Let them do it if they want to, just like the liberals who always want tax increases should feel free to pay over and above their tax bill. (Funny how that never happens.) But as for the rest of Americans, let them decide for themselves, please. There's hardly a government entitlement for a second bite at the taxing apple.
By and large, Americans oppose the death tax, because at a visceral level, most understand that one of the primary reasons for "getting ahead" is to ensure that one can provide (in some cases, handsomely) for one's children. That desire is natural and it's good. It shouldn't be thwarted by those who believe it's their right to take from some twice in order to give to others.
posted by LadybugUSA at 12:28 PM
4 Comments:
Wrabkin,
Get a grip, man. You're losing it.
Not suprisingly, Carol decides to kick this thread off with a lie. We read, "Everything taxed by the death tax has been taxed at least once before."
As Carol is surely aware this is a bald-faced lie. The vast majority of taxes brought in by the estate tax are on items that were never taxed at all. The capital gains from Wal-Mart shares, for example.
Also not surprising is the willingness of some posters to eat the big plate of poo Carol is dishing out. Yum, yum.
I see it has taken the commenter (just above) a few short months, after Carol's warning to clean up posts or risk being banned, to resume his usual, brilliant, ad hominem attack, masquerading as argument, and sewer-level descriptive shtick MO. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Childish and boorish, but to be expected from such deep thinkers, I guess.
Now, re: capital gains taxes: Everyone gets the same tax write-off on a portion of them. If someone has a large portion of their portfolio in such investments, it stands to reason they will gain proportionately more. So what? The class warfare card is getting as old as the race card and recognizable in leftists' hands by its dogearedness.
Wow, I mean, just wow. Rzafft has managed to find a Press Release from the primary anti-Estate tax lobbyists where they give a single example of a family that didn't lose their family farm due to the estate tax. Color me impressed, Rzafft.
Hahahahahaha.
Rzafft, there is no actual debate on the underlying facts here. Neither WIPP (the aformentioned lobbying group) nor the anti-Estate tax American Farm Bureau can find an actual example where a family farm was lost due to the estate tax. If the main reason for repealing the estate tax was its effect on family farms, you would think someone somewhere would find an example where the estate tax were truly an issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home