Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Feb. 27, 2001 / 4 Adar, 5761

Betsy Hart

Betsy Hart
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Super mistake by super rich


http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- IT must be nice to be rich. I mean really, really rich. So rich, that while you are sitting in your own private jet or helicoptering to your ski chalet that's so removed from the hoi polloi no lift gets near it, you can feel positively self-righteous.

Because you are so mega-wealthy you can both leave billions to the government and, if you so choose, billions to your kids when you die. But, between now and then you can work to make sure that when a typical hard-working smart-saving "Joe" bites the dust, the government is by far his biggest, if not sole, beneficiary.

Billionaires George Soros, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller and scores of their mega-wealthy friends call themselves the Responsible Wealth Coalition. And their highly publicized efforts of recent weeks to preserve the estate-tax, better called a "death-tax," might be paying off.

A centerpiece of their campaign was a petition in the New York Times signed by some 200 jumbo-jet setters. (Buffett himself didn't sign because he didn't think the petition was draconian enough.) Apparently this gilded gang felt called to step forward now because of the overwhelmingly popular move to repeal the confiscatory tax, a rate as high as 55 percent on "estates" of more than $675,000 when passed to anyone except a spouse. That dollar amount, which will eventually rise to $1 million, includes everything of value - land, homes, other buildings, business assets, everything. (It's worth noting the government only takes payment in cash.)

Polls consistently show repeal is hugely favored even among folks who aren't likely to be stung by the death-tax. That's why in the last Congress some 65 House Democrats voted to repeal the onerous assessment, though they could rest easy knowing President Clinton would veto the measure And repeal of the death-tax is a centerpiece, though lately a weakened one, of President Bush's agenda.

Of course the rich have always had estate planners, insurance agents, and attorneys who, for tidy sums, can help them avoid or minimize Uncle Sam's bite.

So the death-tax hits hardest those folks who can't afford the fancy financial footwork. That includes struggling farmers and small businessmen whose families are often financially wiped out by the tax, as well as just about anyone else who didn't come into the world wealthy or strike it rich but has worked hard, saved and invested to leave something to their families.

Soros and cronies argue that inherited wealth is corrupting.

They may well be right, but decisions about the appropriate distribution of wealth should be made by the family that created it - not government.

The pro-tax gang also maintains that getting rid of the death tax would take needed funds from other government programs. Baloney. The "cost" of ending the tax is about $220 billion over the next ten years, not even 5 percent of the conservative estimate of our budget surplus over that same time. And this doesn't consider the tax revenue generated when heirs, not government, spend, invest, or build on those inherited assets.

The death tax elite argue that repeal would seriously crimp charitable giving. Well maybe the mega-rich give for purely cynical reasons of tax avoidance, but most people don't. In fact according to a Heritage Foundation study, charitable giving relative to personal income and economic output has held quite constant since the earliest days of the Great Depression, regardless of huge variations in tax rates.

Worst of all, this pathetic group of the super-monied say that the tax is "just" since it affects only about 2 percent of taxpayers. Easy for them to say, but this misses the point entirely. It's simply wrong for government to tax for a third time the very same money it's already taxed twice as income and capital gains. Besides, is it "just" for the government to encourage the "die-broke" policy it does now?

How dare these mega-rich say, in essence, it's greedy for Mr. Jones to want to bequeath his hard-earned "wealth" to his heirs for their benefit; but it's generous of the government to confiscate Mr. Jones' wealth by force to spend for its benefit?

Actually, this gives me an idea. If the super-rich pro death- tax gang is so concerned about the corrupting influence of wealth, if they are so worried that the loss of the tax will impact the federal treasury and charities, then let's just act on their advice and have government confiscate ALL of their assets at death. On second thought, how about just taking it all right now? I think I'll start a petition.



JWR contributor Betsy Hart, a frequent commentator on CNN and the Fox News Channel, can be reached by clicking here.

Up

02/22/01: Brave when the battle's done
02/14/01: Sick
02/06/01: Is nothing sacred?
01/30/01: Moral bankruptcy of the civil rights establishment
01/16/01: Who are the truly 'ugly' ones?
01/10/01: The extent to which our culture has been feminized
01/02/01: It's gettin' better all the time
12/20/00: Now that the head banging has stopped ....
12/13/00: TV keeps giving us the bad dad
12/01/00: Sorriest legacy of election has nothing to do with chads, 'aborted pregnancies' or the electoral college
12/01/00: Giving 'sleepovers' a new meaning
11/20/00: The Dems' pathetic craving for power
11/14/00: A potentially fateful indication of Gore's mindset
11/07/00: What do women really want?
10/24/00: Spare the rod ...
10/19/00: Gore is a liar --- period
10/12/00: Making the case for marriage
09/28/00: "Mommy, what's abortion?"
09/20/00: Gay righters no longer seek just tolerance but endorsement
09/14/00: The stupidity of smart growth
09/07/00: It takes more than a kiss
08/30/00: Helping out at school is more than an obligation
08/24/00: Family time comes far down the summer schedule
08/16/00: A tale of two wives
08/09/00: The Brady Bill isn't achieving its aim
08/01/00: Attention feminists: How to really keep our daughters safe
07/25/00: Everything is protective: the parents, the gear, the age
07/18/00: Say it ain't so, Ann
07/11/00: Limiting a child's choices
07/06/00: Accounting for your health
06/21/00: It's a bad time to be a boy in America
06/13/00: The state of our unions
06/02/00: Federalizing care of kids
05/25/00: "STOP WHINING, GET BACK INTO THE GAME, AND DO YOUR BEST!"
05/17/00: The natural food threat
05/09/00: To stop gun violence, keep families intact
05/03/00: Pass the fat, please
04/25/00: Something just for boys
04/18/00: When toleration goes too far
04/10/00: Women warriors
04/05/00: Confessions of a soccer mom
03/30/00: Getting an education about schools
03/22/00: If you're a parent, act like one!
03/14/00: Not child advocates, but self-advocates
03/06/00: McCain not what he seemed at first
02/29/00: An effective answer to social problems
02/22/00: The feminists' newest target: Toys
02/06/00: Harassing the harassers
01/31/00: It doesn't take a village to raise a child --- it takes a scheduler
01/25/00: Psuedo science and global warming
01/18/00: Socially responsible nonsense
01/10/00: Monica may be onto something
12/27/99: Sometimes it matters quite a lot what government thinks
12/17/99: Teens have no inherent 'right to privacy'
12/10/99: Buying a minivan and tossing the SUV
12/03/99: On the mommy track
11/05/99:The waste of recycling
11/01/99: Welcome to Harvard pre-school
10/22/99: No disaster for women that Dole is out
10/19/99: 'Humanitarian' hypocrites
10/15/99: On a first-name basis with a three-year-old

© 2001, Scripps Howard News Service