Tuesday, June 27, 2006
James Taranto notes that Warren Buffet's largesse has resulted in his avoiding much of the taxation that he believes you and I should be liable for:
You can see why Buffett would want to give his billions to charity. The federal death tax is currently being phased out, but it will reappear in 2011 unless Congress acts--which means that if Buffett lives that long, the government will confiscate 55% of his assets upon his death.
But wait. Buffett is, as a New York Sun editorial notes, "an avowed supporter of the estate tax."...
...When billionaires back the death tax, keep in mind that they have no intention of actually paying it. They are being "generous" with other people's money. This is the way in which the superrich wage class warfare against the merely affluent.
For my part, I cannot help considering the personal in something like this. How would just the barest lick of that fortune benefit me? Instead, Gates and Buffett get their jollies crossing their streams. Makes ya wanna cry.
"...When billionaires back the death tax, keep in mind that they have no intention of actually paying it."
maybe he should have included; "and have no intention of letting those 'pork barrel' players get their greasy fingers on it!" ?
I don't get it. I thought Taranto is a conservative, and conservatives believe that the state should keep its hands out of the taxpayers' pockets.
I'm missing the class warfare part of this. Bill Gates started his foundation long before there was a chance to change the estate tax. Warren Buffett lives in a 40-year-old house, not a multimillion-dollar mansion.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Oh, *I* definitely have sour grapes.
The "class warfare" bit is somewhat tongue in cheek as I read it.
The point is that limousine liberals love to advocate for all the wonders that government should be doing for us, but when it comes down to it, they do all they can to avoid them themselves, leaving the rest of us holding the bag. You don't *have* to seek out every shelter on the planet, you *could* even voluntarily pay more taxes. The fact that they don't, from a "conservative" perspective is perfectly fine. More power to 'em, but then shut up about it. No one likes a hypocrite. Advocate for all the wonderful government programs you want, but you better be ready to pony up your own share of the dough to pay for them.
I have no idea what the Gates foundation is all about. I'm sure it's a fine, fine charity that's poised to do wonderful work and save many lives, making the world a better place. On the other hand, maybe it will turn into another Durban-sponsoring Ford Foundation, or yet another money-bag sponsoring, Soros-esque, world-galloping, unaccountable NGO. You'll forgive me if I'm a bit cynical on that point.
At least I have a chance to vote pork-barrel spenders out of office. Who holds a foundation accountable? How much scrutiny do they get? Not much.
I'd have to read the entire thing.
But eliminating the Estate Tax would benefit the super rich only.
If you simply raise the Spousal Free Pass to 3 Million per spouse and then give special advantages to family owned businesses, ie... minority interest discounts on gifting interests, you can eliminate the problem for something like 90% of small businesses...
Then only the super rich would have the problem.
If you're going to cut taxes to stimulate the economy it seems income taxes would come way before estate taxes.
The super rich corporate owners are trying to sell this to the Average Joe and it's bull.
Buffet did what every wealthy person should do, give away to charities you want versus the gov't getting it, it's legal and sensical.
The other way the gov't would get 55% and his heirs 45% of what he gifted.
As far as Gate's charity the idea of entrenched family run charities like the Ford Foundation begins other problems of entrenched corporate culture in the charities themselves, as we both are already aware.
You'd think Buffet could think of another few great charities, how about Oprah's for one.
Mike