From the Archives: The Paris Hilton tax and Anna Maniacs (February 27, 2007)
This story originally appeared in The Daily Tar Heel.
The Paris Hilton tax and Anna Maniacs
By David Donovan
February 27, 2007
I follow the news, and the other night I checked what was on the news networks. CNN: Anna Nicole Smith. Headline News: Anna. MSNBC: Anna. FOX: I'm guessing Anna. I suspect this is what hell is like.
Meanwhile, President Bush released his new budget proposal, and the media seems not to care. But there's a connection between the Anna Maniacs and Bush Budget - that is, what happens when rich people die and leave ungodly sums of money.
Smith spent most of the past decade in a nasty fight over a huge inheritance. (Now there might be an equally bitter fight over her fortune.) It's always nauseating to see millionaires fight like animals over more millions, none of which they earned. Soon the exact same cat fight will rumble in the halls of Congress.
President Bush has proposed eliminating the Paris Hilton Tax, less colorfully known as the estate tax. It's one those things that's very revealing of Bush's priorities. In his mind, if you make your living as a cop or janitor, that money should be taxed. But if your hotel tycoon daddy dies and leaves you $50 million, it should be tax-free so you can better afford to tramp around with Nicole Richie.
This is more than just a story about Anna Nicole or tax law. It's a morality tale about what kind of country we are and what we value. The office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., dug up some numbers that show the trade-offs:
If the estate tax were repealed, one family, children of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, would save $32.7 billion. Bush's proposed cuts to Medicaid, which gives health care to sick kids, is $28 billion. Heirs to the Mars candy fortune would save $11.7 billion, twice more than the proposed cuts to education and Veterans' Affairs combined.
I think this is one of the few instances where the people can and should get fired up over tax law. I can't understand how education, health care and veterans are less important that a billion-dollar giveaway to people who are already billionaires, and got that way not through their own labor, but by waiting for their daddy to keel over.
These oligarchs have sought to convince the people that regular folks might too prosper from this tax cut. Hardly. Less than one half of one percent of Americans pay estate taxes because the current exemption is $2 million per couple. The first $2 million, even if you get more, is totally tax-free. Do you know anyone planning to leave you $2 million?
If you receive $2 million tax-free and still can't fashion a decent life for yourself, you are a dummy; so not only does the Bush plan benefit only the richest of rich, it caters to dummies. For a person who makes billions from her own efforts, there are at least two arguments for not taxing her too steeply: that she earned it and that she is clearly no dummy as relates to money. Neither argument applies to divas and trust-fund babies.
At $2 million per kid, you can dispose of a lot of money tax-free. Donations to charity are also tax-free, so the estate tax encourages charitable giving, and therefore killing it is like Karl Rove's wet dream: It benefits billionaires and screws charities.
It was actually a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who argued for the estate tax, before we even had an income tax, so it's ironic that a Republican president wants to kill it. He ought to be arguing for a greater estate tax and lower taxes on people who actually work for a living. But that's not our Bush.
I hope the news channels break from Anna Mania long enough to tell us which senators voted to raise our taxes so the next Paris Hilton could enlarge her collection of $10,000 handbags. It's rare when their priorities are on display in such stark clarity.
The Paris Hilton tax and Anna Maniacs
By David Donovan
February 27, 2007
I follow the news, and the other night I checked what was on the news networks. CNN: Anna Nicole Smith. Headline News: Anna. MSNBC: Anna. FOX: I'm guessing Anna. I suspect this is what hell is like.
Meanwhile, President Bush released his new budget proposal, and the media seems not to care. But there's a connection between the Anna Maniacs and Bush Budget - that is, what happens when rich people die and leave ungodly sums of money.
Smith spent most of the past decade in a nasty fight over a huge inheritance. (Now there might be an equally bitter fight over her fortune.) It's always nauseating to see millionaires fight like animals over more millions, none of which they earned. Soon the exact same cat fight will rumble in the halls of Congress.
President Bush has proposed eliminating the Paris Hilton Tax, less colorfully known as the estate tax. It's one those things that's very revealing of Bush's priorities. In his mind, if you make your living as a cop or janitor, that money should be taxed. But if your hotel tycoon daddy dies and leaves you $50 million, it should be tax-free so you can better afford to tramp around with Nicole Richie.
This is more than just a story about Anna Nicole or tax law. It's a morality tale about what kind of country we are and what we value. The office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., dug up some numbers that show the trade-offs:
If the estate tax were repealed, one family, children of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, would save $32.7 billion. Bush's proposed cuts to Medicaid, which gives health care to sick kids, is $28 billion. Heirs to the Mars candy fortune would save $11.7 billion, twice more than the proposed cuts to education and Veterans' Affairs combined.
I think this is one of the few instances where the people can and should get fired up over tax law. I can't understand how education, health care and veterans are less important that a billion-dollar giveaway to people who are already billionaires, and got that way not through their own labor, but by waiting for their daddy to keel over.
These oligarchs have sought to convince the people that regular folks might too prosper from this tax cut. Hardly. Less than one half of one percent of Americans pay estate taxes because the current exemption is $2 million per couple. The first $2 million, even if you get more, is totally tax-free. Do you know anyone planning to leave you $2 million?
If you receive $2 million tax-free and still can't fashion a decent life for yourself, you are a dummy; so not only does the Bush plan benefit only the richest of rich, it caters to dummies. For a person who makes billions from her own efforts, there are at least two arguments for not taxing her too steeply: that she earned it and that she is clearly no dummy as relates to money. Neither argument applies to divas and trust-fund babies.
At $2 million per kid, you can dispose of a lot of money tax-free. Donations to charity are also tax-free, so the estate tax encourages charitable giving, and therefore killing it is like Karl Rove's wet dream: It benefits billionaires and screws charities.
It was actually a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who argued for the estate tax, before we even had an income tax, so it's ironic that a Republican president wants to kill it. He ought to be arguing for a greater estate tax and lower taxes on people who actually work for a living. But that's not our Bush.
I hope the news channels break from Anna Mania long enough to tell us which senators voted to raise our taxes so the next Paris Hilton could enlarge her collection of $10,000 handbags. It's rare when their priorities are on display in such stark clarity.
posted by Ithakid | 12:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home