Stepping Up, Ever So Gently, On Taxes

by: David Sirota

Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 15:04


I've made the case that Barack Obama both pushing corporate tax cuts and dancing around his promises to raise income taxes on the wealthy are bad moves - bad politically because they project fear/weakness in their willingness to appease - rather than challenge - the worst right-wing frames, and bad because corporate tax cuts and refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy simply aren't sound economic policy (as the last 8 years clearly proved).

So, I'm happily surprised by this Wall Street Journal story:

President-elect Barack Obama and congressional leaders plan to move soon to block the estate tax from disappearing in 2010, suggesting the levy might outlive the "Death Tax Repeal" movement that has tried mightily to kill it.

The Democratic stance on the estate tax contrasts with Mr. Obama's reluctance to press forward with his campaign pledge to raise income-tax rates on top earners, which he worries could have an adverse economic impact during a recession.

Of course, I'd like to see the estate tax, which affects only the top 2 percent of all income earners, moved back to its Clinton-era rates. I'd also like to see income tax rates restored to the Clinton era. Last I checked, despite the claim that tax increases "could have an adverse economic impact during a recession," Bill Clinton raised taxes during an economic crisis and the economy boomed.

But Obama's plan would effectively lower those Clinton-era estate tax rates by raising the income levels it applies to - and the Journal estimates the difference between the Clinton-era rates and the proposed Obama rates will cost the Treasury a whopping $324 billion at a time of already exploding deficits.

That said, Obama and congressional Democrats moving to prevent the full repeal of the estate tax is a tangible step in the populist direction. They could just as easily let it expire, and the move to stop that from happening shows the kind of chutzpah we're going to need in the coming weeks and months.

The hope is that if/when Democrats block the repeal of the estate tax cut, they'll see they can start winning on progressive tax policies in the same way my book The Uprising showed other progressive lawmakers throughout the country are winning on taxes - winning both policy-wise and politically. If/when Democrats take their stand on the estate tax - just as they have been taking strong (and surprisingly successful) stands on Obama's worst tax ideas - they'll likely see that they can pass progressive tax policies and not face political extinction. And maybe - just maybe - that will embolden people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) to stop merely "urging" Obama to support repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and simply use her legislative powers to force him to sign such a repeal.

I can dream every now and again, can't I?

David Sirota :: Stepping Up, Ever So Gently, On Taxes

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Long term (4.00 / 10)
In the long term, the estate tax is perhaps the most important tool we have against aristocracy.  One one level, I really don't care how much money Bill Gates or Sam Walton makes.  But we cannot allow families to accumulate wealth over lifetimes and expect the rest of us to just pay rent.  Society cannot survive that.

Completely Agree (4.00 / 4)
I don't get upset over people who are successful like the guys at Google as long as they pay their fair share of taxes.  I also think that estates should be heavily taxed.  You should be allowed to leave stuff to your heirs but the truly wealthy should be taxed on their inheritance.  Incidentally, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both lobbied against repeal of the Estate Tax.

[ Parent ]
Great catch, and your dream is good policy. (4.00 / 5)
A competent proposal costing the benefits of dropping the Bush years tax cuts for th wealthy is necessary. Progressive taxation boosts the economy. Progressive taxation pays for the rescuing of the ecomony. This says nothing about the moral, even deeply spiritual need for those that have benefited most from the last eight years gutting of the economy should help pay handsomely for the recovery their regime has caused. But thats just morality. The economy will benefit more from an order for 10 thousand wind generation devices than it will from a tax cut to people who are busy
buying land in the Bahamas.

This isn't rocket science, and it needs to be pointed out. There should be massive funds available to retrofit homes to use a quarter or a twentieth of their previous heating or cooling energy.

Energy generation needs huge funds. Federal spending can be leveraged by offering below zero interest loans to Municipalities, who do have the ability, to build power systems for their municipalities. Many large towns and cities could power their fleets of cars and trucks with electricity generated by wind and solar, after using a loan that encourages it.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


DEMAND the impossible (4.00 / 2)
How about a revenue neutral stimulus package financed by a 20% tax on all accumulated, intangible assets over $20 million?

Would probably bring in a couple trillion, do you think?

And nobody who matters would feel a thing.

No pain.  Big gain.

A 90% estate tax and an 80% top income bracket could be the compromise position.

Don't just dream about the "impossible"-demand it!


80%? (4.00 / 2)
We make fun of supply-siders, but it isn't as if the Laffer curve doesn't exist at all.  Back in Reagan's acting days, the best actors really did stop making movies after one or two because the rest would be taxed 90% (I think that was the number).  I'm guessing 80% really is way too high.

Personally, I think 50% is the correct upper tax bracket.  It has that kindergarten fairness feel to it.


[ Parent ]
I take the other side (0.00 / 0)
but this is a factual question, and you or I are both guessing.

If we (or the current administration) are serious about financing the operations of government we need to have an answer which is why Obama should commission a series of reports on the likely effects of different forms of taxation leaving nothing off the table.

As I say, you might be right on the income tax, but what about the wealth tax? You might think this will impede initiative.  I'm not so sure. And it is the only means we have to redress the grotesque inequities in wealth distribution.

But, again, that's a matter of opinion.

What economists (the few honest ones) should be doing is providing honest answers to these sorts of questions.


[ Parent ]
It's progressive taxation (0.00 / 0)
It was only 90% once you reached the top tax bracket. You could still accumulate a lot of money until your earnings hit the top tax bracket. Sure, you couldn't get obscenely rich, but it's not like you weren't making any money.

Plus, it would certainly spur the very rich to invest in infrastructure for their businesses.

Not to say that 80% is necessarily right, but since it's not a flat tax it could go pretty high.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Here's a quick example (0.00 / 0)
Let's say we do what Obama says and we return those making over $250k a year to a 39.8 tax bracket. But what would happen if then dramatically increased the progressivity above that level for the very very high earners? I made up a hypothetical tax table that does that. The income amounts I just came up with for some hypothetical tax brackets.

marginal rate...highest income in bracket...tax...net income
45%...$675,000...$249,100...$425,899
50%...5,000,000...2,411,601...2,588,399
55%...7,000,000...3,511,601...3,488,399
60%...10,000,000...5,311,601...4,688,399
.
.
(skipping down a few)
80%...60,000,000...42,811,601...17,188,399

Many people will think that top rate is punitive. That's a good conversation to have. But one very good side affect I think is it would get CEO salaries back in line to what they should be. Giving someone a 40M/year salary doesn't look so hot when 2/3rds of that goes to the government now does it? You'd basically be paying double the tax for the obscene salaries and therefore I bet that corporate board just might think the money could be better used to actually invest in the company.  


[ Parent ]
But Why not a Wealth Tax? (0.00 / 0)
I'm entirely on board with the proposal here.  

That said, the problem is that in the current recessionary climate, relatively fewer will be pulling down the incomes in the top brackets.  

Who needs to pay the fiddler are those who have been doing the dancing-on the backs of everyone else over the past generation.  And some of whom have are succeeding, in their final act, in looting the treasury to the tune of some $350 to 700 billion (depending on what Obama does in the next few days).

In short, much of the wealth accumulated over the past generation was, as the Balzacian maxim goes, built on the foundation of many gigantic financial crimes and a climate of lawlessness winked at by both parties.

We need to get this money back to those from whom it was stolen.

The Wealth Tax is the way to do it.

 


[ Parent ]
Don't raise taxes in bad times!!! (4.00 / 4)
That seems to be the conventional wisdom that is at play here, that we should not be raising taxes on folks during tough times like these.

Poppycock!

What those folks are forgetting is that this tax only applies to folks who are not having a hard time! Hard to picture for the rest of us, but there are still people out there raking in the big bucks!

Now more than ever, a progressive tax on those folks making out well in this economy is fair, and needed.


no (4.00 / 3)
I think Paris Hilton should get a tax-free inheritance. If she only gets two-thirds of her millions instead of the full 100% that would be so not hot for her.

If we stick to the plan (0.00 / 0)
on rasing taxes on the rich, the amount needs to be offset by either an increase in transfer payments (ie tax cuts for someone else) or increased spending.

I have done a fair amount of reading about the Depression recently.  One factor that may be causing Obama to re-think the tax increase on the rich may be Hoover's Tax Increase in 1932, which no doubt helped to deepen the Depression.  Hoover's tax increase was across (the board and as a result distinguishable from Obama's tax plan) but the economists around Obama (including Romer, herself an Economic Historian - for an interesting summation of her ideas go here) may be questioning the wisdom of raising anyone taxes in a recession.  Of course, a traditional Keynsian would argue that because the rich have a higher propensity to save income, taxing the rich while reducing taxes on the poor and middle class provides a more effective stimulus.  


Obama was selling "tax cuts" all along tho -- way before (0.00 / 0)
we all of a sudden had a "crisis" and needed to give Wall St trillions.

He has no economic experience at all -- and sounded like a Republican on taxes from the beginning -- he was even against a temporary gas tax.


[ Parent ]
Republicans (0.00 / 0)
have never been for increasing taxes on the rich, or increasing estate taxes.

[ Parent ]
Rates vs. exemptions (4.00 / 1)
It's really infuriating to me how the Democrats have been outflanked on this issue. The "death tax" crew has been running around arguing that the estate tax keeps people from passing on their farm or small business to their heirs, and people respond to that argument. And the Dems got backed into reducing the rates of the estate tax, which was sold as a compromise between keeping it or eliminating it.

But here's the thing about the estate tax: The overwhelming majority of revenues from the estate tax come from the largest estates. Reducing the tax rate on those estates has almost a one-for-one impact on revenue. But if we're truly worried about small businesses and farms, we don't need to worry about the impact on the largest estates, since those folks don't get a lot of sympathy.

The correct position is just to take small businesses and farms completely out of the debate by raising the exemption below which estates are not taxed from the 2009 level of $3.5 million to something much higher, say $10 million or even $25 million, but keep the rates at their Clinton levels (max 55% rate). This would have a small impact on revenue, but it would completely exempt small business and farms, thereby destroying any future rationale to reduce or eliminate the tax, which as someone above said, is not only a good source of funding for the government but an important way to limit the growth of aristocracy.


Farms (0.00 / 0)
We should definitely exempt tree farms.  Very, very important to keep those in the family.  Now that I think of it, I can't come up with a single more important issue facing our country.  :-)

[ Parent ]
Treasury!!! nominee Geithner doesn't pay taxes--why should they? (0.00 / 0)
appalling -- while working for the IMF, too.

http://apnews.myway.com/articl... --

President-elect Barack Obama's choice to run the Treasury Department and lead the economic rescue effort disclosed to senators Tuesday that he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004, a last-minute complication in an otherwise smooth path to confirmation.

Timothy Geithner paid most of the past-due taxes days before Obama announced his nomination in November, an Obama transition official said. The unpaid taxes were discovered by Obama's transition team while investigating Geithner's background, the official said. ...



Will estate taxes to be frozen at current, not Clinton, level? (4.00 / 1)
The really rich families have been using the high estate tax rate, combined with the low exemption level, to make the correct point that the tax makes it hard or impossible for small business owners and farmers to pass on their business assets to their children.  With vast inflation over the years since the exemption was several hundred thousand dollars or about a million dollars, particularly inflation in business values and assets such as real estate, the old exemption was plainly too low to pass on these businesses to children without requiring a lot of borrowing or asset sales. A combined $7 million exemption for mom and dad will make it possible for the vast majority of them to pass on their businesses to their children, taking away much of the argument against the estate tax.

Proposal is freeze at 2009 level (0.00 / 0)
The current law calls for the estate tax to be repealed only for 2010, and then return to Clinton levels in 2011 ($1 million exemption, 55% top rate). According to the WSJ article that David linked, the Senate Finance Committee and Obama both want to maintain 2009 law, which provides for a $3.5 million exemption ($7 million for a couple), and a tax rate of 45% above that.

I would favor increasing the exemption even more, to say $10 million, but raising the rate back to 55% or even higher above that. Increasing the exemption means very few people end up paying the tax, but since small estates pay a small portion of total estate tax revenues anyway, this has a minimal effect on revenue.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that even though the Republicans have been very effective in making the argument that the so-called "death tax" is a painful burden on farmers and small business owners, they've produced few if any actual examples of businesses or farms that had to be sold to pay the tax. It's pretty much a red herring designed to distract from the fact that this is a tax that's overwhelmingly paid by very rich people.


[ Parent ]
The estate tax is an easy one (0.00 / 0)
There is no job creation involved with the estate tax and the farmers that it affects can be handled with other legislation.  

"Here's a song about blind faith. That's always a dangerous thing, whether it's in your girlfriend--or if it's in your government." Bruce Springsteen, quoted in Glory Days (Born in the USA tour??)  

Currently Estate Tax repeal would expire in 2011! (0.00 / 0)
Actually, when the original estate tax repeal was passed, it had a sunset provision in it because otherwise the entire tax cut package would have exceeded Federal Budget limits in 2001.

If I am not mistaken, the estate tax comes back to 2001 (and hence, Clintonian) levels in 2011 if nothing is done. This is $1 million/55% top rate at $3 million.

All the House and Senate need to do is pass a simple resolution to keep the gift and estate tax at current 2009 levels in 2010 (which already has the $3.5 million exemption in it, but at lower graduated rates [45%])

Full disclosure: As an estate planning paralegal, I very much welcome the return of the estate tax in any kind of form.


The estate tax needs to 100% over a certain limit. (0.00 / 0)
Limit inheritance to a million dollars or something. There's no reason people need to become billionaires by inheritance.

Taxes (0.00 / 0)
We need 90% top income rates again!  Soak the rich!
If Eisenhower (and also FDR, Truman, and JFK) had those rates, then so can we.
If those rates once happened, then they can happen again.
We also need 90% inheritance and estate taxes.  

Taxes (0.00 / 0)
Sorry to make another comment so soon...

In regards to the comments above about how tax increases during a depression will make it worse:  FDR massively increased taxes (to 75% top rate) in 1935 and the depression was less extreme not more afterwards.  


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search