Millions More for Millionaires

The estate tax doesn't really make a lot of sense, since it's on income that has already been taxed. And it's one of the easiest taxes to duck and avoid, FWIW.

Maybe those who complaint about "the rich" in these blog posts should post their tax returns and list of charitable giving so we can judge them, too.

So many inaccuracies and bigoted statements in this column...where to start?

"The purpose of the estate tax is to ensure that when wealth is passed between generations, a portion goes to support the wonderful capitalist system that provided that amazing wealth in the first place."
--The system didn't provide the wealth. The parents did, duh. Also, the money has already been taxed. What is the purpose of taxing it again other than 'just because'? It cannot be justified on the basis of logic or morality. Democrats don't even try to make either case. They say 'The estate tax gives the govt lots of money and the rich don't need the money.' That's not a reason. That's theft.

"But somehow, we don't have to "pay for" giving millionaires and billionaires a deficit busting tax break?"
--The govt allowing people to keep more of their money involves no 'payment' whatsoever on the part of the govt.

"These laws make those of us who are "hundredaires" and "thousandaires" pay for it."
--Neither you nor I are paying for other people's tax breaks because it was never our money to begin with.

Greed is a sin, of course. But so is the theft and envy you're calling for and celebrating here.

I wish Congress would spend time on revising the tax code, make it simple enough for all to be able to understand it , and also do away with loopholes. I am not for raising taxes on anyone during a recession, but am for making everyone pay their fair share . In this case there is many rich people abusing the tax systems and getting away with not paying their fair share.

I read Exxon paid no income taxes last year . yet they had enough money to give to political representatives from both sides . the system needs an overhaul.

The Republicans have indeed set a trap, but it's the House Democrats, NOT the President, that may let us fall into it. If the changes they want kill the deal, as doesn't seem likely, I certainly would not support that because:
* Millions of people will be helped by the stimulus that's in the deal with more stimulus than tax cuts for the rich. And we will see NO stimulus from the Republican controlled House for 2 years.
* Millions of people will be hurt if tax cuts for all are allowed to expire. President Obama and the Democrats ran on the basis of placing middle class tax cuts as the highest priority, regardless of what happens to the taxes of the rich.
* Millions of people will be saved on unemployment benefits, without the Republican House members being able to touch those benefits for a whole year. 13 months is the longest extension we've ever done on these benefits because it's supposed to be pegged to the unemployment rate (above 7.4) an unknown a year from now.
* The highest priority is millions of real human beings and recovering the economy. The deficit can (in fact should) be dealt with later.
* As galling as it is for the few millionaires and billionaires to get these temporary tax cuts, I'm on the side of the many millions of people who will be hurt if we don't get this deal done
* All the other important agenda items are being stopped until this is tackled

Luke 12:48 - From those to whom much is given, much is required.

Need it be any more clear?

Question for you mblockhart: The "rich" (by the way, just a point of fact, the rich start at $250,000 and they may have only reached that level after years and years of hard work and saving, so they hardly constitute millionaires, that's just a select few; but I have people in my family who are technically millionaires and they did that by saving, staying out of debt, etc., even though the primary earner never made more than $6.50/hour, but I digress).

Back to my question to mblockhart: the rich constitute about 2% of the population, yet Republicans got more than half the vote in the last election. Obviously a lot of people who are not "rich" voted for Republicans. Why is that, do you think?

Actually, the estate tax follows the principle of the sabbatical and jubilee years in the Old Testament. Debts forgiven; land restored to its tribal owners. The claim that the wealthy have "earned" their wealth is specious. Even the IRS does not treat interest income and capital gains income as earned income. It allows special treatment and in some cases lower tax rates on this unearned income.

It is a shame that the Republican law makers feel that 700 billion dollars is necessary for a wealthy tax cut to move the economy along. However a $250 bonus check to aid the retired that are on a fixed Social Security income is seen as a luxury and can't be given out. There will be no increase for Social Security for 2 years seeing that the checks are tied to cost-of-living levels. If anyone has weathered this "Republican Recession" it is the folks that earn $250,000 a year or more.

Most people vote emotionally not logically. If they had thought through the issues, they would have seen that voting for Republicans would not be in their best interest. A price tag of a tax cut costing 700 billion dollars to folks that are doing OK in this recession is not needed. This 2% of the population hold a majority of the wealth. The 98% need the assistance.

I thought republicans were all about pull yourself up by your own bootstrap kinda people? It that's the case shouldn't the rich offspring also learn to pull themselves up since you don't believe in the whole coat tail things?!

I read recently that this line of thinking is just "sanctified covetousness." I relished that sentence!

Exxon is a company. Companies don't pay income taxes. They collect them [by charging higher prices to consumers].

Yes, that is clear, but it is an admonishment to those who have much, not for those who don't have much to use force against those who do.

Besides, those words were from Jesus to his followers. Does he really intend for that to be used as legal and political commandments to take the money of others for what we deem to be "good use"? To be sure, these words apply to everyone, Christians and nonChristians alike. But to force people to live by Christ's ethics is to miss the purpose of the peaceful kingdom Jesus came to establish.

The estate tax is immoral and has nothing to do with the jubilee principles. I highly doubt that's what Congress used to justify these laws.

And the claim that the wealthy have "earned" their wealth...How is that a specious claim?

OLaw, let's rant about honor, integrity, and commitment! The Republican leaders who sold us this tax cut for the wealthest said it would expire. Absolutey expire. Now they work to make sure it doesn't expire? To answer your question OLaw, the reason why they shouldn't get to keep this little portion is these are the dues for membership in the American club where they have free enterprise and freedom for which they richly enjoy. Besides, isn't keeping your promise still a value that conservatives cherish? Don't lie, let it expire and be a promisekeeper!

I doubt if "force" is the issue; this is a democracy in which the common good was a founding principle. The rich today have forced us to absorb their risk and fund their carelessness while they take the profits with both hands. From those to whom much has been forcibly given, much is required.

Help me out. I'm a little dense.

Tax me 100%. I could not afford the cost of one soldier in Afghanistan for one year. Only a millionaire's taxes could pay for that. Yet we cut the taxes of the richest people at the same time we plunged into two wars. The economics did not and do not work out.

Tax me 100%. My money will not bail out the firms "too big too fail" Reading the book "The Big Short," I find out that the rich Wall Street investors were both greedy and stupid. So they get subsidized without investing capital in such a way as to actually produce jobs? Meanwhile, the Main Street people who were hurt the most by their decisions get cut out? I don't get it. Why do they get "saved" while we let the "least of these" drown?

Explain it to me. How do we fund our government if the rich pay less and less, while the middle class and the poor keep falling farther and farther behind? Sounds like magical thinking to me.

I don't know, Olaw. I think Sojo is just being consistent with Christ (which is the point of the Sojourners organization) - who was most harsh on the wealthy and elite. We live in the wealthiest nation in the world's history and yet, strangely enough, have one of the biggest disparities between our rich and our poor in the world. It is verifiable that the rich are getting richer and poor poorer. The math is saying that rich are not giving to the poor in a way that alleviates their poverty. They are and continue to consistently do what rich throughout world history have done - horde and hold onto their money or spend it on themselves. Soooo - out of this vacuum springs taxation on the wealthy. If the wealthy would organize and take care of the poor - I suppose there would be no need for gov't social programs would there?

But I think Sojo is simply doing what they are here to do - echo the voice of Christ in our culture. :)

the rich "earned it" because of the economic system we have that allows them to earn it. If the majority of us wanted to we could confiscate ALL of their wealth, so the rich need to appreciate the opportunities that "we the people" have given them. In addition, the rich earn their wealth off the labor of the employees who work at their companies. If the rich want to keep the gravy train going they need to share the wealth with the majority of us, or risk loosing it when "we the people" get fed-up with their selfishness.

When people are permitted to inherit large sums of money we end up with an elite aristocracy who got rich by being born to the right parents. In a country that claims to believe in equal opportunity, and in the work ethic, it is immoral to allow a privileged few to reap unequal opportunities simply because they happened to be born to the right set of parents. By taxing inherited wealth we can use it to benefit the majority of the people, and create more equality of opportunity.

xfree, the estate tax ameliorates the accumulation of wealth among the few;

the jubilee principle did the same thing. Whether Congress had Jubilee in

mind is beside the point. To a great degree, the wealth of the wealthy is

not "earned' the way the earnings of a laborer are earned. Much of it is

inherited. Much of it comes from capital gains and/or interest, which as I

stated in my post is not even treated as earned income by the IRS. How does

a CEO "earn" his/her compensation in the amounts of hundreds of times the

earnings of company employees? I stick by my guns on both counts. No doubt

you will disagree.

I don't normally comment on internal US affairs, but we're going through a similar debate on our side of the pond (and it's warming up nicely - and I mean that literally. Tonight's main news bulletin was full of images of bonfires being lit by student protestors outside the Houses of Parliament).
Read Jesus on the rich. Read James on the rich. Read Isaiah, or Amos, or the Psalms (especially 49, 52 and 62) on the rich. As the first letter to Timothy puts it "the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains."
Those who are so keen to pluck out the speck of socialism from Sojourners' eye should perhaps pay a little more attention to the log of capitalism in their own.

Shane--to add to that. I have seen more than once (including with my own grandmother) middle class people have their hard-earned money sucked up by nursing homes with little to no power over that occurring. As such, my grandmother left no money for her children. You never see that happening to the very wealthy, but I don't think it is at all uncommon among the middle class.