Unbribery Objection No. 2

Some politicians benefit financially from policies -- legislation, regulations, tax code -- that they have promoted and supported. In some cases, this financial benefit is significant, even massive -- $40,000 a year, or more than $700,000 in one big chunk.

I want to talk about that money. It matters. It is at least potentially corrosive. To ignore such financial benefit would be dangerous, opening the door to blatant corruption and policies that disregard the common good.

But this is not an easy subject to talk about.

Part of the difficulty is that this subject can seem beside the point. Any given piece of legislation is likely to entail a financial benefit for some but not for others. JMann summarized this point well in comments to the initial post: "Cutting the estate tax is a good idea or a bad idea whether or not it benefits Bush."

The point is pragmatic. Perhaps it is best, in order to evaluate any given policy on its merits, to bracket the question of any given politician's personal financial stake in the matter. The question of who benefits and how much is, in this view, a distraction and a bit of a sideshow. We should keep our policy debates disinterested, abstract and exclusively on the merits of the ideas in question.

The problem with such an approach is that we're talking about money. As in the clinking, clanking sound that makes the world go 'round. Money is never irrelevant.

Consider any abstract, disinterested discussion of tax legislation. Such discussions always include a consideration of what economists refer to as "incentives." What they mean by that is money -- money and the way that money influences the actions and behavior of people who reliably alter said behavior in order to get it or to avoid losing it. It seems strange to consider the powerful influence of such incentives on everyone except the politicians making the decisions that create them.

And we're not just talking about money, we're also talking about politics. That makes the appeal for disinterested discussion impossible. "Disinterested" politics is an oxymoron. Politics is all about interests. The question cui bono?, therefore, is never a mere sideshow. It is the main event.

Any given piece of legislation is likely to benefit some, but not others. The business of politics is a matter of weighing these competing benefits and competing interests, attempting to balance them as best as possible for the common good and whatever rough approximation of justice is achievable.

The particular proposal that sparked this discussion is the attempt to abolish the estate tax. The effect of such a proposal will be a significant financial windfall for some. That money comes from somewhere. There will be, in other words, winners and losers. In this case, a very few winners and a great many losers. If debating this proposal disinterestedly on its merits requires us to ignore its effect on these winners and losers then such a disinterested debate is, itself, irrelevant. Worse than irrelevant, actually. It would be unjust.

President Bush and his heirs stand to profit at least $787,000 from the abolition of the estate tax. Vice President Cheney and his heirs stand to benefit to the tune of more than $12 million. Those are some pretty hefty "incentives." Too hefty for us to ignore or, more to the point, for us to naively accept that Bush and Cheney will ignore.

Such financial benefits may not be identical to the accepting of bribes or kickbacks, but the morally corrosive effect is the same. I suppose we could call them "bribe-related program activities."

Comments

[Mabus]

We need someone who can suggest to Bush, Cheney, or some other Republican politician that, to put their motives above suspicion, they need to exempt themselves from any such tax reduction, much as (IIRC) pay increases don't take effect in the current term of the Congressment who vote for them. Their reaction would tell us a great deal about why they're actually doing this.

Anyone here in a position to do that?

[Linkmeister]

Mabus, if nothing else, it would give us all further education in how to best use obfuscatory language. Unfortunately, until I find a Talon News willing to pay me to go to the gaggles (airfare from Hawai'i included), I'm not your guy.

[wvmcl]

"Cui Bono" is a legitimate question to ask when someone is advocating a policy change. I think the fact that Bush and his circle are primary beneficiaries of a Bush policy proposal is very relevant.

So many political arguments are self-serving that I long ago made a rule for myself. If I determine that an argument is self-serving (i.e. that the person advocating the position would be a significant beneficiary of its implementation), I then discount the weight of that argument by a factor of three. I find this formula works quite well and leaves some room for those occasional (rare) moments when a self-serving argument also happens to be correct.

[Wally Hartshorn]

Let's reverse the situation. Pretend that President Bush grew up extremely poor and, through an impressive amount of hard work, became president, despite making only $15,000 per year in his job as a stockboy at the local Tal-Mart.

Once in office, he pushes for legislation that would help poor people throughout the country.

Would you be arguing that it is wrong for him to help poor people, because it would inevitably help him and his poor family? I hope not!

Tax breaks for the rich are wrong because of ideology and common sense, not because the President and most members of Congress would benefit from it.

[Scott]

The particular proposal that sparked this discussion is the attempt to abolish the estate tax. The effect of such a proposal will be a significant financial windfall for some. That money comes from somewhere.

That money comes from their own bank accounts. It didn't belong to someone else for them to 'take' in the first place. Giving you something and letting you keep something are not the same thing.

[cjmr's husband]

No, it comes from their parent's bank accounts. This is the estate tax.

[wvmcl]

Yes, let's please remember that the estate tax is not a tax on the deceased - you can't take it with you- nor on the spouse, who pays no estate tax. It's a tax on the kids who inherit and are receiving a windfall which they did nothing to earn. The anti-tax crowd has worked long and hard to obscure this simple fact.

[Scott]

No, it comes from their parent's bank accounts. This is the estate tax.

The fact is, it doesn't come out of your bank account.

It's a tax on the kids who inherit and are receiving a windfall which they did nothing to earn.

If whoever 'earned' it is the relevant issue, then the person who earned it should decide where it goes.

[cjmr]

The fact is, it doesn't come out of your bank account.

Well, no, because like 99% of the people in this country, our parents' estates will not be worth more than $1.5 million dollars. I'm guessing that it won't come out of yours either, or Fred's or any of the other readers here.

On the other hand, if the estate tax repeal causes further budget deficits and the government decides to offset those by modifying the income tax yet again or adopting a national sales tax or a value-added tax, much more of that will come out of the pockets of the 99% of us "little guys" than comes out of the pockets of that ultra-rich 1% who did nothing to earn the money but be born with the proper parentage.

[wvmcl]

It is by no means the case that a person who earns money gets to decide where and to whom it goes without any further taxation.

If that were true, gifts would be completely non-taxable. My employer could just "give" me my salary rather than paying it to me and it would be exempt from taxation.

In this society, our primary point of taxation is when wealth changes hands, as in payments for goods or services, sales of assests, and passing of estates.

Most knee-jerk anti-tax rhetoric is basically childish. It ignores that fact that every strong and successful society in history, and certainly today, depends on a sensible system of taxation and government finance. We can argue about the details of taxation levels and how taxes should be imposed and collected, but the "taxation is theft" line adds nothing useful to that debate.

[Scott]

On the other hand, if the estate tax repeal causes further budget deficits and the government decides to offset those by modifying the income tax yet again or adopting a national sales tax or a value-added tax, much more of that will come out of the pockets of the 99% of us "little guys" than comes out of the pockets of that ultra-rich 1% who did nothing to earn the money but be born with the proper parentage.

And I agree w/ you totally that a tax hike elsewhere to 'offset' the cut would be wrong.

As far as who did what to 'earn' money, is that a judgement you're willing to make about everyone across the board? Good singers can keep their record millions, bad singers (who haven't 'earned' it, but just won the genetic beauty lottery) get taxed? Will you base business taxes on how hard the owner worked vs. just getting lucky? How far will you go to ensure everything is 'just' by your own personal standard?

[Scott]

It is by no means the case that a person who earns money gets to decide where and to whom it goes without any further taxation.

I said that in response to people complaining that inheritances aren't 'earned'. BTW, what happens if the inheriting child worked for the parent and was at least partially responsible for building up what he or she inherited?

Most knee-jerk anti-tax rhetoric is basically childish.

Mere posturing.

[Pat Vogel]

What we need here is Accounting 101. In accounting terms, "earned" and "unearned" income have very specific meanings. "Earned" income gets taxed one way, i.e., with Social Security, Medicare, and federal and state income taxes. "Unearned" income, otherwise known as capital gains, gets taxed very differently. Capital gains refers to the increase in value of an asset. If you bought a house for $100,000 and put $50,000 into improvements on it, then sold it sometime later for $300,000, you'd have capital gains of $150,000. (Bear with me here, it has a lot to do with the estate tax issue.) The $150,000 that you had invested in the house is called the "basis". Under current estate tax law, the heirs of an estate get a "stepped-up basis" on everything they inherit. In other words, if they inherited that house, their new basis would be $300,000 (the current value of the house) rather than $150,000 (the actual amount invested in the house). So if they sold it right after inheriting it, they would not pay capital gains taxes on the $150,000. A little-known provision of the proposed estate tax repeal is that there would no longer be a stepped-up basis on inherited assets, but rather there would be a "carryover" basis, i.e., whatever basis the deceased had in an asset is the basis that the heir(s) will have. Now, if you sell that house you will have to pay capital gains on the $150,000 appreciated value.

Now, what I have described here is a very oversimplified version of the proposed law. But the whole issue of stepped up basis is a huge one and anyone who is interested should really spend an hour or so reading every item on the first page or two of results that you get when you google "estate tax + stepped up basis".

[wvmcl]

Scott - You must be joking with that line about kids working for their parents and not getting compensated until the inheritance comes. What kind of dream world are you living in?

Remember that the first million is already exempt from estate taxes. So we are talking about the portion of an inheritance that exceeds a million bucks. That's a lot of lawn mowing.

Anyway, we don't make tax policy based on imaginary or theoretical work. Leaving household chores aside, how many adult heirs have really worked significant careers for their parents without compensation. You've got to do better than that.

Let me ask you -are you expecting an estate valued at over one million bucks? And if not, why are you carrying water for those who are? You and me are the ones who are going to make up that lost revenue, one way or another.

[Scott]

Scott - You must be joking with that line about kids working for their parents and not getting compensated until the inheritance comes. What kind of dream world are you living in?

That was in response to the claim that all inheritance is unearned by lazy, good for nothing Paris Hiltons. It's not a given that's the case. "Without compensation" is a straw man - if one worked in the family business to build up his or her inheritance (delayed compensation), the fact that he or she drew a paycheck earlier doesn't negate that.

My biggest problem here is the taxation based on moral judgement of those being taxed: "we can take this because we judge the current 'owner' as being morally unworthy by not having 'earned' it to our personal satisfaction". You can't base a claim to tax Ms. Hilton on your own personal opinion of her as a human being. Sorry, I have to oppose what's basically a Slut Tax, which is what the earned/unearned (in the moral sense, not as accounting technical terms) argument really boils down to.

(Paris Hilton came up in an earlier thread and is being used just as an example - don't bother triumphantly pointing out her name hasn't explicitly come up yet).

[Robert Ramsdell]

In an earlier post you complain that repealing the estate tax will reduce charitable giving by up to 12% (actually 6-12% in the CBO report you cite). If we grant that Bush and Cheney are to some extent corrupt because repealing the estate tax is worth $787,000 and $12 million respectively, shouldn't we also assume that charitable institutions that oppose estate tax repeal are also 'corrupt' in much the same sense, since they stand to lose between $12 and 24 billion from the change? Or to put it in a more morally neutral manner, both the wealthy right and the charities are engaging in a form of special pleading when they take their respective stands on the issue.

[JRoth]

Ah, but Robert R, charitable orgs are explicitly basing their opposition to repeal on their expected loss of revenue. Bush & Cheney are not explicitly basing their support for repeal on their expected gains. Indeed, as response here has shown, the very notion that they would/should is taken by many to be absurd. Yet everyone understands and agrees on exactly the results that will acrue to repeal opponents: charitable orgs will lose donations, 98% of the population will see increased taxes and/or decreased services, and Bill Gates Sr., et al., will foresee enormous windfalls for their heirs.

The base motives of repeal opponents are on the table. The base motives of repeal supporters must never be acknowledged. Thanks, Fred, for calling Bullshit.

Actually, the person who worked in the family buisness for wages should expect no more than the compensation they got. They recieved exactly what they were working for in the form of a paycheck. Should any non-family member working at the buisness expect a windfall when the owner dies? If not, why should any family member who worked for wages expect anything more?

Secondly, the estate tax is to prevent the rise of an aristocracy based upon money and priveledge. Whether or not the inheritor is lazy isn't the issue, and the value judgement of the heir's work ethic doesn't really matter. What matters is if we believe an attempt at equality in starting points is a worthy goal. I feel that equality is important, and that someone born into wealth should have no greater expectations than someone born into crushing poverty and both should have equal opportunity to succeed.

[Scott]

Ah, but Robert R, charitable orgs are explicitly basing their opposition to repeal on their expected loss of revenue. Bush & Cheney are not explicitly basing their support for repeal on their expected gains.

OK, so Bush is a liar. Both Bush and the charities are still basing their opinions on self-interest. The self-interest of the charities coincides w/ liberal beliefs and so they get an ethical pass on that, just like people selling their votes for govt checks get an ethical pass. Only conservatives can be bribed.

Actually, the person who worked in the family buisness for wages should expect no more than the compensation they got. They recieved exactly what they were working for in the form of a paycheck.

Who are you to say what that person should expect? If someone works for a family business they later inherit, that's part of their compensation and wealth they acted to, dare I say, earn.

Secondly, the estate tax is to prevent the rise of an aristocracy based upon money and priveledge.

You'll just get an aristorcracy based on something else. How many Kennedys (and don't forget Hillary! and Jeb!) are currently polluting public offices?

[DummyPlug]

The self-interest of the charities coincides w/ liberal beliefs and so they get an ethical pass on that, just like people selling their votes for govt checks get an ethical pass.

This is like talking to a wall.

Even if the charities have "self-serving" motives for bemoaning the potential repel of the estate tax, they don't have the actual power to stop it; the president does have to power to make it happen: there's the rub.

That's where the ethics come in: the president and ihs helpers have a conflict of interest when it comes to the estate tax, pure and simple. Yeah, conflict of interest: there's a concept you should have no trouble wrapping your mind around. It's a well know concept in business.

Only conservatives can be bribed.

Nope. I'm sure liberals can be bribed too. Only, it's the conservatives doing it right now (being, you know, in power and all), so they get the scrutiny... for now.

If someone works for a family business they later inherit, that's part of their compensation and wealth they acted to, dare I say, earn.

Not under the current system, it isn't... and as such shouldn't be expected by those working in their family business.

If heirs want to have the system changed, by all means let them try but I'm afraid they'll have a hard time convincing the other 95% of “We The People” that it would be in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

After all, they've been doing a pretty half ass job of it up to now...

[halle]

Scott -- so what if we get an aristocracy based on something else? Money is the important one, and the wealthy are STILL going to be able to pass on more than enough to their families to ensure that their families are starting with well more than your average citizen. The Hilton, Rockefeller and Bush kids (and so on) don't seem to be hurting for easy cash. And that's fine. They have a million ways of passing on that wealth through trusts, and so on. What we're trying to prevent is a society like much of south america, or mexico or india or saudi arabia, where the vastly wealthy own and control so much that they don't interact in the world with the other 99% (or more -- 99.something) of the people and other 99% of the people are fighting it out for 10% of total wealth of the country. whether or not you think that jeb or joe kennedy got an easier ride into office because of their name is small potatos compared to such a polarized stratified society. I, for one, don't want to live in a Mexico City where the poverty is so pressing that the threat of kidnapping is constant even for the so-called middle class (or Bombay, etc).

If someone works for a family business they later inherit, that's part of their compensation and wealth they acted to, dare I say, earn.
Bullshit. For each day they worked, they earned a day's pay. Nothing more. They should expect no more reward for their work than anyone else working in the family buisness.

You'll just get an aristorcracy based on something else.
So does that mean we shouldn't try to remove wealth-based aristocracy? It isn't an easy task to remove inequality, but saying what amounts to "aw, fuck it" is not really constructive. Other forms of aristocracy may pop up, but the justification for all heirarchical forms lies with the people on top. I don't have to prove they have no right to be there, they have to prove, beyond all doubt, that they do.

[Robert Ramsdell]

JRoth:
Good point. I'll take the honestly self-interested over the other kind any day. But I think that my last sentence still stands: There are people on both sides of the debate engaging in special pleading (again, explicit is better than implicit).

DP:
I don't see how the balance of power makes a difference to the conflict of interest. And as for conservatives doing it right now, plenty of Democratic politicians are bought and paid for by 'liberal' interest groups (since we are flinging vague charges around).

Frankly I don't see the point of this discussion. No-one is going to be swayed by this argument who does not already think that Bush & Co. are Up To No Good. Me, I think that there are better arguments against the estate tax, namely that the Federal Government has no business foregoing revenue until it gets a handle on the budget.

[Pat Vogel]

The reason I brought up the point about stepped-up vs. carryover basis a while back is because it means that, after the first excluded couple of million dollars or so, all this wealth we're talking about WILL someday be taxed. The only question is whether the tax should be basically a flat tax (capital gains) or whether it should be a progressive tax (the estate tax). Income tax is progressive, so why shouldn't estate tax be? (But if Congress ends up passing a repeal of the estate tax AND allows a stepped-up basis on inheritance, that would be a knock-your-socks-off giveaway.)

[Nancy Lebovitz]

You seem to be assuming that all the government takes in taxes will go for the sort of program that you approve of. In fact, some of it does, and some of it doesn't, and I don't know what the proportion is for my opinions, let alone yours, but it's something to think about.

Some government money helps people, some impovrishes them, some is just wasted. If you thought about the money from the death/estate tax supporting the next war, would you be as esthusiastic about keeing the tax?

[Scott]

Bullshit. For each day they worked, they earned a day's pay. Nothing more. They should expect no more reward for their work than anyone else working in the family buisness.

If they're hired into the family business w/ the expectation (on the part of both the parent and child) they will inherit, that can impact the decisions both make - you cannot arbitrarily disallow the very idea of future compensation just because it suits you politically.

You can work to earn what you later inherit by helping to build it up before you take posession of it.

And as for conservatives doing it right now, plenty of Democratic politicians are bought and paid for by 'liberal' interest groups

Somehow I doubt we'd be hearing about corruption here if it was Dems in power buying votes w/ govt checks. How much ethical slack was Clinton given by liberals because he brought home the bacon (or at least won elections against the evil GOP)?

Yes, Bush told worse lies later on.

Govt programs are the modern equivalent of selling indulgences. Your sins are forgiven if you financially benefit the church (in this case, the Church of the Holy and Sacred Government). Why else is Ted Kennedy taken seriously as a moral human being after leaving a girl to drown to avoid scandal, other than the amount of other peoples' money he's given away?

[Jason]

My biggest problem here is the taxation based on moral judgement of those being taxed: "we can take this because we judge the current 'owner' as being morally unworthy by not having 'earned' it to our personal satisfaction".

I don't think this is the case at all. We first have to start from the fact that, under our tax system, exchanges of wealth are (or should be) taxable, regardless of whether that exchange takes the form of wages, capital gains, gifts, or inheritances. Now, it is not that someone who is receiving an inheritance is necessarily "morally unworthly." Rather, it is the case that the government must raise $X in revenue, so what is the best source of that revenue? Is it equitable that a middle class worker should be taxed when wealth is transfered to him but the heir is not? The position that inherited wealth is somehow sacrosanct is untenable.

And the family business example is irrelevant; there are any number of ways to structure a business so that the equity younger generation adds does not become part of the founder's estate. Anyone with a business that would hit the $1.5M cap but doesn't talk to a lawyer about it shouldn't then complain about estate taxes.

[Scott]

Anyone with a business that would hit the $1.5M cap but doesn't talk to a lawyer about it shouldn't then complain about estate taxes.

If it's so easy to avoid, why all the fighting to keep the death tax around?

[JRoth]

Because one of the ways people avoid estate taxes is to give to charity. If you'll take note of where we are (virtually), our host is greatly concerned about the impact of repeal on charitable giving.

If everyone knew exactly when they'd die, then many people could, in fact, avoid the tax. But in practice, trusts, etc. don't so much avoid the tax as they do ameliorate its effects. In other words, if you pay some estate taxes, you're not an idiot. But if you're one of the alleged sob stories who is somehow impoverished by them, then you are an idiot, because it's not hard to protect a significant nugget of the estate from heavy taxation, while maintaining significant (taxable) liquidity.

[Scott]

If everyone knew exactly when they'd die, then many people could, in fact, avoid the tax. But in practice, trusts, etc. don't so much avoid the tax as they do ameliorate its effects. In other words, if you pay some estate taxes, you're not an idiot. But if you're one of the alleged sob stories who is somehow impoverished by them, then you are an idiot, because it's not hard to protect a significant nugget of the estate from heavy taxation, while maintaining significant (taxable) liquidity.

So the loopholes that favor the rich are what make the death tax OK?

[JRoth]

OK, there's an increasing amount of nonsense here, intentionally or unintentionally obscuring Fred's point. "[P]lenty of Democratic politicians are bought and paid for by 'liberal' interest groups"..."just like people selling their votes for govt checks get an ethical pass. Only conservatives can be bribed." This is just embarrassing. We're not talking about campaign donations, or constituent service. We're talking about George Bush & Dick Cheney actively promoting and signing a law of which they themselves are prime beneficiaries. If George W Bush signed the George W Bush Protection Act, stating that no ancestor or descendent of George W Bush could ever be subject to taxation again, would Scott defend it? Would he insist that George W Bush and his family work hard, and therefore deserve to keep their money, and after all, GWB is just doing what his principles tell him to do - any personal gain is incidental?

The estate tax thing is somewhat less egregious. But the position of Scott and some others here is that we must never speak of the obvious, direct self-interest Bush has in this law. Why not? He's there to serve us, not to serve himself. I think that we can all agree that politicians deserve the benefit of the doubt only until there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.

All that said, of course there are other reasons to oppose the repeal, and vocally. The pseudo-principled nonsense being spouted by the Rand-wannabes on this subject is easily parried. But if they're going to drag out nonexistent family farmers supposedly hurt by the continuance of the tax, let's talk about the very real beneficiaries of its repeal.

[DummyPlug]

Some government money helps people, some impovrishes them, some is just wasted. If you thought about the money from the death/estate tax supporting the next war, would you be as esthusiastic about keeing the tax?

Of course since:
First, it's the money to the government part I'm worried about, it's the money to charity part.
Second, The "next war" might actually be worth fighting and we'll need the money to do it.

[Scott]

First, it's the money to the government part I'm worried about, it's the money to charity part.

Including right wing evangelical charities pushing for theocracy?

[Scott]

If George W Bush signed the George W Bush Protection Act, stating that no ancestor or descendent of George W Bush could ever be subject to taxation again, would Scott defend it? Would he insist that George W Bush and his family work hard, and therefore deserve to keep their money, and after all, GWB is just doing what his principles tell him to do - any personal gain is incidental?

I'm not defending Bush - I'm pointing out that not only Republicans benefit financially from the results of laws they push for. Liberals are just as easily bought and sold as conservatives. Redefining that as "constituent service" doesn't change that. Both parties are dirty.

[JRoth]

One last thing here - I think I'm going to ramble on a bit more over at my blog - I want to knock down as quickly and firmly as possible a tangent that was raised above, the idea that the current batch of Republicans is no more corrupt, no more power-hungry, than current or ca. 1993 Dems. The Dems are not and were not paragons of virtue - all power corrupts, etc. But the scale and scope of current Republican corruption is breathtaking. Bobo himself wrote a couple columns in the Times (behind paywall) decrying Delay and Abramson, marvelling at how swiftly the Reps have fallen, and if you google "K Street Project," you'll get a sense of their overweening ambition.

An example from the Ethics Committee - Speaker Jim Wright was drummed out of office over a 5-figure book deal that looked shady. Delay has been implicated in millions of dollars' worth of junkets, bribes, and campaign law abuse; the response has been to effectively disband the Ethics Committee.

Louise Slaughter's report (PDF) on the actions of House leadership is devastating in its portrayal of dictatorial, unprecedented practices designed to stifle debate, dissent, and, frankly, democracy in the lower house of congress.

An example: when a floor vote in the 80s was held open an extra 15 minutes to wrangle votes, Dick Cheney called it "the worst abuse of democracy I've ever witnessed." The Medicare Bill last year was held open over 2 hours; just last week, CAFTA was held over 1 hour. "The worst abuse of democracy" is now SOP for the GOP.

It may feel good to wish a pox on both houses, but forgo that easy satisfaction, because it is a lie.

[Scott]

It may feel good to wish a pox on both houses, but forgo that easy satisfaction, because it is a lie.

No it's not - Democrats are just has human and thus as morally falible as Republicans. You cannot define your own corruption as 'governing' and theirs as 'bribery'.

[DummyPlug]

Including right wing evangelical charities pushing for theocracy?

Oh please... Just because a tiny minority of the groups that will received the windfall are wack jobs who want to make a "Jesus Kingdom" then we should starve all the other charities that want to help?

Bullshit.

[Scott]

Oh please... Just because a tiny minority of the groups that will received the windfall are wack jobs who want to make a "Jesus Kingdom" then we should starve all the other charities that want to help?

But wouldn't the Evil Republican Rich prefer to give their money to people who help (indirectly) Republicans get elected over giving it to Big Compassionate Government. They are uniquely corrupt, you know, and can't be trusted to do their own charitable giving.

[Scott]

Scott,
Once again, no. Maybe some of the ruling Republicans are uniquely corrupt, but we've had decades of seeing how people donate their money to charity. People, including those here, are largely comfortable with it. Universities, charities that serve the poor (including religious one) and many other worthy causes lose out when the estate tax goes away.

[halle]

That last comment was me.

If they're hired into the family business w/ the expectation (on the part of both the parent and child) they will inherit, that can impact the decisions both make - you cannot arbitrarily disallow the very idea of future compensation just because it suits you politically.

Why should they even have that expectation? If they do a day's work for a day's pay, where does the extra value come in? It clearly can't be put on the balance sheet. If it can, any non-family employee would have the right to complain because they're clearly getting less than the family member for the same day's work. There are plenty of motivators for non-family members to do good on behalf of the buisness, such as promotions, monetary gain, etc. I disallow the idea of future compensation due to bloodlines, because it is not an option open to all the employees. Thus it is a priveledge, and there is no right to priveledge. As I previously expressed, people should expect no more than if they were born into poverty.

[Scott]

Why should they even have that expectation?

The people who will inherit a business probably know who they are and thus reasonably have expectations, and you ignore the possibility that inheritance might actually be discussed explicitly. Sorry, you cannot ignore all this just to justify imposing your fiscal morality onto others.

[Scott]

Once again, no. Maybe some of the ruling Republicans are uniquely corrupt, but we've had decades of seeing how people donate their money to charity. People, including those here, are largely comfortable with it. Universities, charities that serve the poor (including religious one) and many other worthy causes lose out when the estate tax goes away.

But if you're going to justify the estate tax by the good it forces the rich to do, why not make sure they only give to Oxfam? Once you've opened the door.....

[JRoth]

OK, Scott has committed himself to saying whatever he needs to to maintain his position, but what the hell:

"No it's not - Democrats are just has human and thus as morally falible as Republicans. You cannot define your own corruption as 'governing' and theirs as 'bribery'."

Scott: I'm not speaking in theory. I'm not waxing philosophic. I'm not judging the eternal condition of attaching an R or a D to someone's name. I'm talking about the actual politicians that we have lived with over the last 30 years. We have had decades of Democratic dominance in Congress. We have had one decade of Republican dominance. And the Republicans, in that decade, have proven themselves more corrupt. It's a fact. I'm sorry you don't like that fact. I'm sorry that fact goes against what you believe in your heart. But just as wishing it doesn't make the earth 6,000 years old, hating Democrats doesn't make Jim Wright the moral equal of Tom Delay. Tom Delay is worse. He's a worse House leader, and he's a more corrupt politician. He takes more and bigger bribes, and he works harder to make the House a machine of corruption, rather than the People's House.

I can understand why you don't like to admit it, but surely you can see that admitting the truth is healthier than perpetuating a lie. Look, someday a Democrat may be just as corrupt as Delay is. Some would argue that Johnson was. Scott, if you'll just admit that the current Republicans in Congress really are worse than the other side, I promise you that I'll speak out if ever Dems get as bad. Hell, I'll squawk regardless. But I'd like you to join me over here. It's called being an American first, and a partisan second.

The people who will inherit a business probably know who they are and thus reasonably have expectations, and you ignore the possibility that inheritance might actually be discussed explicitly.
Discussed or not, expectations based upon name, etc. don't really matter, as I'm attacking the assumption that the accident of birth entitles them to more than anyone else. I was also suggesting that their day's work is equal to that of anyone else working at the buisness, while you were trying to suggest that the heir's work creates surplus value for the heir, and that's the reason the heir should expect more reward for work done at the buisness.
Sorry, you cannot ignore all this just to justify imposing your fiscal morality onto others.
Actually, I'd like to see equality of opportunity for everyone, and entitlement based upon birth goes against that notion. Obviously, the estate tax is inadequate to that task, as ensuring opportunity for all to pursue what they wish requires a fundamental change in the thinking and structure of society. Looking at priveledge through random chance is a good place to start in trying to forge a more just and equitable society.

[Scott]

He takes more and bigger bribes, and he works harder to make the House a machine of corruption, rather than the People's House.

Both parties are made up of falible human beings willing to overlook the failings of "their own". If Tom Delay was pushing for "universal health care" instead of theocracy, then progressives would be circling the wagons around him just as aggressively as conservatives are now, since Delay's Correct Moral Beliefs would outweigh his corruption - the ends justifies the means. Its a universal human moral failing, not a Republican one.

Greed, BTW, is also a universal human moral failing, not just a Republican one.

How bad would a Democrat have to be to not benefit from "hey, at least he's not Dick Cheney corrupt, and his political beliefs have earned him some moral slack" and be supported by liberals despite his corruption?

Discussed or not, expectations based upon name, etc. don't really matter, as I'm attacking the assumption that the accident of birth entitles them to more than anyone else.

And I'm attacking the assumption that you get to decide who is entitled to what.

I was also suggesting that their day's work is equal to that of anyone else working at the buisness

Then nationalize the business on the grounds that the current owner doesn't deserve more than a day's pay for a day's work either.

[Scott]

And, wonder of wonders, Matthew Yglesias at TPMCafe gives a perfect example of politics over ethics:

...since New Gingrich certainly was a smarter, more substantive thinker than the gang that runs today's Republican Party. At the same time, let's not have illusions here. Part of that smarter, more substantive early-to-mid nineties vintage GOP was a much more robust commitment to paring back the federal government. That was more intellectually and morally honest than the racket Bush and DeLay are running, but also more objectively pernicious. They were going to shutter the Departments of Education and Energy (and, I think, another one, but it might have been Commerce which really does deserve to go) cut Medicare, reform AFDC in a much more punitive manner than was eventually achieved, etc., etc., etc.

There's something unusually aggravating about today's Republicans because, basically, they don't fight fair. We liberals think that we could easily win a straight-up fight about the big issues, just as we did on Social Security. But by and large the GOP won't give it to us. It's all tax cuts and "healthy forests," no good, honest, straightforward advocacy of massive rollback of programs and regulatory agencies. It sucks. And they do real damage. But the bloated, corrupt Rightwingery Version 2.0 we have today is less harmful, though more disgusting, than the original item.

And I'm attacking the assumption that you get to decide who is entitled to what.
I have been saying the whole time that wealth by birth is not a right, but clearly you believe in aristocratic entitlement. What makes choiceless random chance into priveledge a right?
Then nationalize the business on the grounds that the current (wtf?) owner doesn't deserve more than a day's pay for a day's work either.
Idiotic non-sequiter aside, what the hell is so hard to comprehend about a day's work for a day's pay? Nepotism clearly does not create any measurable value, and it's bullshit to suggest that the relationship (familial or not) between worker and boss has some sort of special property.

[Scott]

I have been saying the whole time that wealth by birth is not a right, but clearly you believe in aristocratic entitlement. What makes choiceless random chance into priveledge a right?

Not 'aristocratic' - just not your place to decide who owns what.

what the hell is so hard to comprehend about a day's work for a day's pay?

Nothing. What the hell is so hard to comprehend that other people may choose to handle compensation differently than that?