Estate tax repeal benefits only the very rich and the politicians on their payroll

LEIGH POMEROY

"I would hate to see the estate tax gutted."

"It's a very equitable tax. It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country.”

The statements of a commie-loving, capitalist-hating, namby-pampy liberal?

Hardly.

They're the words of this country's second richest man, a man who has vowed to give away the majority of his $30 billion fortune, a man named Warren Buffett.

There are basically two types of the ultra-wealthy: those who wish to share and those who do not. Often those of the former type start as the latter, as ruthless businessmen such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Then once they have made their fortune they suddenly realize — well, something — and decide to give it away.

Many of the eventual ultra-rich seem selfish as they work their way up, and then once they reach their pinnacle — their personal definition of success — they turn their lives in a different direction. Bill Gates is certainly one of these.

And then there are men like Buffett, who started modest and remained modest throughout his life, although he did make a heck of a lot of money along the way.

Unfortunately, there are others of the very wealthy crowd, unlike Gates and Buffett, who feel that because they have it, because either they earned it or inherited it (probably more so the latter), they have every right to keep it — the government, society and everyone else be damned. They are blind to the fact that without a stable government and economic system their fortunes would not have been possible, that others — employees, associates, investors — may have helped them along the way, that the Judeo-Christian ethic of sharing is something to be practiced rather than just preached. That maybe just simple fate had something to do with their good fortune.

We will not name those names here, but certainly some are behind Congress's ill-conceived attempt to dismantle the estate tax.

Allen Sloan has argued in the Washington Post and Newsweek, on NPR and elsewhere that deep-sixing the estate tax would hurt not just the country as a whole by further indebting an already over-indebted nation, but also the "small rich," those Americans who are wealthy but not ultra-wealthy like the Gateses, Buffetts, Waltons, and so forth.

In other words, the winners from an estate tax repeal would be only the super-rich, with everyone else coming out on the downside.

Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota has written of his position on the estate repeal:

I am a strong believer that this unfair tax hurts the American economy by penalizing the success of hardworking Americans — especially small business owners. Estate tax relief will help tens of thousands of ordinary Americans who own small businesses or family farms. In fact, nearly 75 percent of all estates that would benefit from this relief are valued between $1 million and $2.5 million.

If the Senator listened to Allen Sloan he would know that the estate tax repeal would actually hurt this segment of his constituents that he's trying to protect, not to mention the other 98% of those whom he supposedly represents.

Sloan is not the only economist to argue against the wholesale dismantling of the estate tax. He is just one of many important voices among both the wealthy and the learned arguing for more government fiscal sanity.

In the long run let's look to the examples put forward by America's two wealthiest and most successful businessmen, Mr. Buffett and Mr. Gates. Let's hope that their way of thinking prevails in an enlightened Congress over the intentions of the selfish rich and the misguided legislators who are more than happy to do their bidding.
____________

(See related article, "Buffett calls for retention of estate tax.")