Estate Tax

[Editor's note: The original writer is finally back!]

The estate tax is a tricky subject. So many valid points can be made for both sides of the issue. As a freedom loving kind of guy, I don't like the idea of monied aristocracy, with great amounts of wealth held by a small group of people (i.e. Vanderbilt's, Carniges, Fords, etc). But as a freedom loving kind of guy, it is a tax, which means the government is saying pay it or you will go to jail (or we'll take it anyway, and you will still go to jail). When you get a pay check you pay taxes (usually, not always. Some careers don't withhold taxes, so they get the fun of sending out tax checks on a regular basis. They also tend to be in careers where they make more money. Funny how people in that position tend to be the ones that complain most about taxes. I wonder if there's a connection there? Note: I'm not one of them). When that money is spent, its taxed again. When the money is invested to produce more wealth, any gain is taxed again. And if that's not enough, when you're dead, the government is taking one last dig at it. When is enough?

When determining whether or not I think a tax is fair, I ask myself does it apply to me? The next question is, will I fairly judge it, if it doesn't? If your answer to that question is "I don't care, it doesn't effect me", then you are not being academically honest. Though I'm not going to be affected by the estate tax, lets draw an analogy. Let's take a look at Larry, our average guy. Suppose Larry's house and stuff is equal to $100,000. Larry hits the lottery, wins $50,000,000,000,000! (Yeah Larry!). Running out of his house jumping up and down, he gets hit by a car, and the ticket is never turned in (so Larry's stuff still totals $100,000, I just added the part about him winning the lottery so that in this example, Larry died happy). Now his heirs will inherit his $100,000 worth of stuff. But say, an estate tax is in effect. The Feds want 30% ($30,000) and the state wants a sum equal to 1/2 that (another $15,000 - yes, New York is in on this too). That means they demand checks totalling $45,000. And lets say, $90,000 of his wealth is in his house, so the heirs only have $10,000 in cash. They must sell the property for at least $35,000 and send all the wealth to the government. There are other options available, loans, liens, etc, but my point is, if his heirs can't come up with the $45,000 check, the government will take the house and keep what ever it gets from the house including anything over and above $35,000. The heirs get $10,000. Now I ask you, is that fair?

Lastly, the editorial makes reference to how much ending the estate tax will cost the government. And this is something that really bugs me. It won't cost the government a cent. Three hundred dollar Army hammers, computers (check out how the IRS and CIA are doing on system upgrades), and public works (hear anything in the news recently on Boston's "Big Dig"?) are costs to the government. What we pay the government in taxes is not the government's income. Its taxes. Politicians and their lap dogs love to change the terms of a debate depending upon which side of a argument a group is on. If you want to raise taxes for more government spending, then you're enhancing revenue because everyone needs to "pay their fare share" (that's an actual quote from Hillary Clinton). After all, who could be against every one paying their fare share for all the great and good services governments supply (that hammer may cost $300, but you have to admit, it is really, really nice). We the people, must do our best to ensure that governmental issues are debated in the arena of free ideas, in real and honest terms. George Orwell wrote some great stuff on this very subject, I highly recommend it. If we allow politicians on either side to define the terms of the debate in words of their choice, then the debate is no longer fair. Just as it's not fair to be in favor of a tax just because it doesn't affect you. Just as We The People have both a right and a responsibility to act collectively at the ballot box to hold government accountable for when enough is enough.


The estate tax, also known as the death tax, is the share Uncle Sam takes from what the dearly departed has left behind. That is in addition to what he takes before the dearly has departed. But the real problem occurs when much of what has been left behind is in the form of land, buildings, livestock and equipment instead of cold, hard cash. And since the IRS prefers greenbacks to combines, many farm families and other small businesses have to sell off what makes the operation run in order to gain the liquid assets needed for the tax man. This can result in either a much-reduced operation or no operation at all.
http://www.fb.org/views/focus/fo97/fo0310.html

"Farmers and ranchers work long, hard hours over a lifetime to build their businesses," said Charles Kruse, a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation board of directors and president of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation. "Often, farm heirs must sell business assets to pay estate taxes. When taxes drain capital from a farm business, the profit-making ability of the farm is destroyed and the farm business dies."
http://www.fb.org/news/nr/nr97/nr0319a.html

Although only about four percent of all farmers owe federal estate taxes, repeal of the tax would affect a much broader group of farmers, according to USDA Economic Research Service Senior Economists Ron Durst and James Monke.

"A significant benefit would be relieving farmers of the administrative burden of filing the tax returns, since many of those required to file now do not actually
have to pay any taxes, they said at the Agricultural Outlook Conference in Washington."

The number of farm estates that must file tax returns, but owe no tax as a result of special provisions in the law, is nearly double the number of farm estates that actually owe taxes.
http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_farm_families/

Social Security Surplus Scam

You will often times hear about the Social Security Trust Fund. Four words that each have a definite meaning, but when combined together and attached to our current situation are probably the worst four words to use to define the surplus in our government-mandated retirement system. [Note, the last sentence should have 'surplus' and 'retirement' in quotes to denote their ironic character, but to be consistent I'd have to do that a lot in this article and it may look weird. When in doubt, assume it's there.]
First, let's explore how Social Security works at a fairly high level. A certain percentage of your labor value - the amount of money an employer is willing to pay you, based on your expected utility - is taxed by the government for the purpose of paying Social Security. Half of which comes directly out of your paycheck, the other half comes out of the salary your employer intends to pay you. Huh? what does that mean, what's the difference? There is none, but you will often hear it expressed as a 6.2% tax, or 12.4% for self-employed. The truth is that if you are not self-employed, your employer must also pay in 6.2%. The employer is not going to eat this additional cost, and so your effective salary is reduced to pay for this. [Note that technically it is possible the employer splits the cost between reducing your salary and increasing their product/service cost. But if products on the market have inflated prices to cover this tax, then the value of a consumers dollar is reduced by an equal amount, and hence they end up paying that other 6.2% one way or the other]. The point being, if you make $50,000 a year you will end up paying $6,200 in Social Security tax, even though your W-2 may not show this.

Currently Social Security takes in more than it has to give out in benefits. The extra is commonly called a surplus, and is frequently used to discount any worries of there being a crisis. So where is this surplus, are there millions of lock boxes at Fort Knox?

Alas, the surplus does not just sit in a government warehouse. It takes an interesting journey from being the fruits of a Social Security tax, to being part of the mass of monies used to pay off the general budget. How this happens is that the surplus funds are used to purchase special treasury bonds (main feature being that they can be redeemed at any time). The money gained from selling the bonds is used for general budgeting. The surplus is thus a giant steaming pile - of treasury bonds, and the money is spent immediately for other things. That's ok, you may be thinking, lots of people invest in bonds, they provide a secure way of yielding interest, what makes this not a true surplus? I'm glad you asked.

In effect, the government is giving money to itself for immediate use in return for an IOU (promise to pay later). When the Social Security surplus bonds need to be redeemed the government will have to pay itself back. Unlike a business that produces goods/services people willingly pay for, the government does not have profits, nor has to rely on the fickle nature of the market. Government's means of obtaining revenue is through taxation. Since death and taxes are both guaranteed, this is why government bonds are considered less risky than stocks - Microsoft will go out of business before government ends taxation. If the government has to pay back the treasury bonds, this is another way of saying that taxes will be needed to pay for this.

Analysts have shown that in 2018, Social Security will stop taking in more than it has to give out in benefits. This means that the trust fund will need to be dipped into, or more accurately some of the bonds (or interest earned on the bonds) will need to be redeemed, or more accurately, taxes will have to be increased to pay for this. Various shell games can be played, such as saying that part of the budget already goes to cover regular bond payments. But the surplus that currently goes into the general budget will no longer exist - that shortfall will have to be made up, and it won't come from Congressmen selling lemonade.

Hey wait, taxes don't have to be increased - government could reduce spending in other areas, cut down on its budget, to cover this extra cost. To that I can only laugh. Or I would laugh if this wouldn't be affecting both my present and future economic outlook.

Information on Government Bonds
Information on Bonds in general
Information on Social Security

The surplus as explained by the government
Note this gem: "Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."

Yes, they aren't worthless IOUs, because government will make damn sure the taxpayers are fleeced to pay all those special bonds back. A classic case of missing the point. The issue isn't that the bonds are not secure*, but that the cost to pay them will bleed the taxpayers dry.

* - However, while the bonds themselves may be secure, there is no guarantee on the benefits SS pays out; this has changed in the past and can change again - and most likely will, as the politicians will probably come up with a scheme that both raises taxes and reduces benefits (or increases the retirement age for receiving benefits).

P.S. The above should not be taken to read: "I agree 100% with Bush's plan for personal accounts". Although I will say that anyone who claims Bush's plan is privatizing Social Security, is probably the same kind of person who thinks that Social Security runs a real surplus.

Apology

First off, I apologize for the delay; this blog was created with the expectation that the designated writer would contribute rigorous, relevant, and regular posts. The blog's creator and editor (me) had given the recalcitrant writer plenty of time to come up with a new entry - promised to be on Kyoto and the limits the Constitution places on the federal government. Alas, there is no new entry and this blog languishes like Toni Basil, Tommy Tutone, or Dexy's Midnight Runners, full of promise but only able to come through one time.

I hope to change this by getting some things off my chest concerning popular misonceptions that bother me every time I hear them.

Note: Let's give credit where credit is due. The post on the Filibuster was prophetic - see Sen. Byrd's recent controversial speech. A speech that the wacky right blew up as equating Bush with Hitler, a tactic known as "You are saying something that I do not want to fully acknowledge - HEY, WHEN YOU MOVED YOUR HAND IT LOOKED LIKE YOU GAVE ME THE FINGER - HEY EVERYBODY, COME LOOK AT THIS PERSON WHO GAVE ME THE FINGER!". Avoidance and deflection, brilliant. Of course, one should also take Byrd's speech with a critical eye; one can only wonder if he would have given this speech if his party was curently king of the hill.

Full text of Senator Byrd's speech

For the curious, here is info on Byrd's KKK Konnection.

Your Constitution in Action, #1: The Filibuster

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the constitution states the following:

"[The President] ...shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not
herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such
inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

The important section of this is "...shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" and "all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law". This says the President nominates, the Senate approves (50% +1 votes for passage), and since the constitution provides for only the creation of the Supreme Court, and not the federal judiciary (which was created by an act of congress), federal judges fall under all other officers, not specifically stated in the constitution. That's it. That's all the constitution says of the subject of the federal judiciary, excluding the Supreme Court

So how do these few simple rules turn into such a huge rats nest of filibusters, committees, subcommittees, and legislative rules? Here's how: Article I, Section 5, paragraph 2.

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

This says Senate will be in charge of making up their own rules, their own proceedings, punish their own members and generally be like foxes in charge of the hen house. These two items are the only constitutional related items in the swamp of judicial nominees. But just what does "advice and consent" really mean? Consent obviously means a floor vote with a simple majority (50% + 1). There are no requirements as to which way a senator votes. There are no restrictions saying a senator must vote down if he thinks the judge stinks, nothing saying a senator votes for a judge if he likes them. Senators are pretty much free to vote however they want, based on whatever criteria they choose. A nominee has a really cool house boat and throws great parties? He's in. And if the nominee is made by a president from the other party? He's out.

The second part, about the senate free to make its own rules is where most of the problems arise. In order to deal with the massively over blown government they created, the senate has formed committees to handle special duties, i.e. Armed Services Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, Intelligence Committee (oxymoron if I ever heard one), Ethics Committee (even a better oxymoron). These committees form subcommittees to handle even more specific issues, i.e. The Senate subcommittee on procuring the best parking spots at Reagan National Airport, etc. The Judicial Committee has a subcommittee which, among other things, reviews the judicial nominees from the President. These nominees will have to jump through all kinds of hoops to please this subcommittee, here's where you see them on the news getting grilled by the loyal opposition party, and given hand jobs by the party of the president. If they don't please the subcommittee (i.e gain consent), then the nominees never make it to the floor for the "consent" part of the full Senate's constitutional duties.

Since the Senate gets to make the rules, there are all kinds of tricks they can play to gum up this simple process. Enter the filibuster. I'm no expert on senate floor rules, for one reason the senate likes to keep them as complicated as possible so that we "common" people aren't really quite sure what exactly they're up to. Here's a more specific explanation.

Wikipedia: Filibuster

We've all seen a movie were the only idealistic politician left Washington stands up and speaks till he's about to die in an attempt to save the "little people" from the evils of politics. That's Hollywood's version. What it really comes down to, when the senate is in action, the minority party threatens to seize the floor of the senate and begin to debate, and continues till the majority party finally gets tired and gives up. I don't think there's been a real filibuster in years (Strom Thurmond holds the individual record - over 24 hours trying to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957 - but the Southern Democrats, including Al Gore Sr, were involved in a 73 day filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964); they're very inconvenient, messy and time consuming. Now if they can get enough votes to support a filibuster, the threat is usually enough (the mere thought of a politican threatening to speak to me for 24 hours is enough to bring me to my knees too). So they threaten to do this big talk fest, which requires 60 senators to stop. That's significant. Because to vote consent, the nominee needs a simple majority, 50% + 1. But to break a filibuster requires 60 votes. Currently, the republicans have a 55 - 45 majority (I think). That means they have the numbers to pass a nominee on the floor vote, but not enough to end debate in committee to bring a floor vote. And this is why all the big huffing is going on.

Since these are senate rules, and not a constitutional requirement, the senate can simply change the rules to prevent filibusters. The republicans are threatening to do this. But some republicans are worried, they remember what its like to be a minority party, and they know at some point they very may will again be a minority. If they do away with the rule, then they can't use it either. We'll have to see how it plays out. Will the democrats threaten a filibuster? Will the republicans accept the challenge? Will they actually make the politicians get up there and speak for hours? Will the republicans change the rules to remove the filibuster? Stay tuned!

So that's my simple primer on judicial nominees. I make no preferences, I don't even know the names of the judges or their qualifications. Just a simple explanation as to what the evening news will never go into detail on (I saw a 20 second story on this last night on some program and realized they never explained a single thing about what really is going on). Whether it's good or bad, I'll leave it up to you.