Posted on 09/23/2002 5:46:35 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Is it about farmers and the owners of small businesses? Or is it about multimillionaires?
The national debate over whether to abolish the tax that the federal government levies on large estates revolves around enduring images of "American Gothic"-style family farms and mom-and-pop shopkeepers struggling to stay in business.
Those images aren't terribly accurate.
But that hasn't prevented Democrats and Republicans from seizing the estate tax as a defining issue in close U.S. Senate races this year, including the duel between Paul Wellstone and Norm Coleman in Minnesota.
Republicans want to abolish the tax on farmers, small-business owners and anyone else whose estate — house, property and other assets — is worth more than $1 million. Democrats want to overhaul the tax, not eliminate it.
Each says its plan better protects family farmers and owners of small businesses.
But the reality is that few farmers and small-business owners pay the tax even now.
The Minnesota Department of Revenue estimates that barely three dozen farms are subject to the state's version of the estate tax, even though the state threshold is $700,000 — $300,000 less than the current federal exemption. Moreover, only 325 of the state's nearly 1.9 million households would pay any federal estate taxes.
"There's a huge amount of misrepresentation on this issue," said economist Neil Harl of Iowa State University. "Farmers losing their farms because of the estate tax is a myth."
To the wealthiest Minnesotans, though, the estate tax is very real. And they're supporting the party and candidate whose position best protects their interests.
A Pioneer Press analysis shows that about three dozen of Minnesota's wealthiest families have contributed nearly three-quarters of a million dollars into the effort to elect former St. Paul Mayor Coleman, a Republican.
And while those wealthy families — most of whom live in Edina or around Lake Minnetonka — tend to back the GOP anyway, all stand to benefit from total abolition of what Coleman calls the "death tax."
REPEAL VS. 'REFORM'
Congress has, in a way, already abolished the estate tax. It is being slowly phased out and is scheduled to disappear entirely in 2010. But in a strange twist, the law is then slated to expire — restoring the tax in 2011.
Coleman and many other Republicans want to make repeal permanent. President Bush has stumped across the country demanding total abolition of the levy, and the issue has become part of the debate throughout the Farm Belt.
Democrats, including incumbent U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, want to raise the $1 million threshold to at least $4 million, and add a total exemption for family farmers and small-business owners. They say the tens of millions the tax generates each year is better spent on essential government services, especially since the federal budget surplus has evaporated.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture study notes that total abolition of the estate tax would primarily benefit farms worth more than $5 million. Under the proposal Wellstone supports, the USDA estimates that just 1 percent of farms nationally would be subject to the estate tax — even disregarding a built-in exemption for family farms.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee and the White House, which have both taken extraordinary interest in the Coleman-Wellstone contest, hammer away at the issue daily. The estate tax also has become part of the debate in Iowa, South Dakota and Missouri — all places where the GOP hopes to score points with farmers.
Republicans are suggesting in ads and polls that farmers will lose land unless the "death tax" is totally repealed. They say Wellstone claims to be against the tax yet has voted against abolishing it seven times.
Wellstone spokesman Jim Farrell says the Republicans are misstating the senator's position. While Wellstone has voted against total repeal, he has never said he wants to abolish the tax entirely. "We're never going to support repeal," Wellstone spokes-man Jim Farrell said. "We support reform."
Several Republicans prominent in Minnesota and nationally say they're puzzled by the current emphasis on the issue. Before Congress upped the threshold from $675,000 to $1 million last year, the GOP had a political issue that potentially affected anyone with a nice house and a healthy stock portfolio. Now, they say, the Democrat-engineered vote in June to raise the threshold to $4 million — $8 million under certain circumstances — undercuts the usefulness of the estate tax on the campaign trail.
Even former U.S. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz, a Republican and Wellstone's former nemesis, supports the Democrat position.
"An $8 million exemption? I'd be for that," Boschwitz said. He said that would reduce the need for expensive estate planning for all but a few families. Boschwitz said government should not subsidize the rich. But he would not exempt all family farmers.
Coleman, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and allied groups say the June vote was a political ploy by Democrats.
"That vote was designed for exactly what Wellstone is using it for: It was a fig leaf," said Mike Dubke, president of the business-backed Americans for Job Security, a Virginia-based group attacking Wellstone on the issue.
Coleman called the proposal "a sham vote." He said the exemption for farmers and small-business owners in the Wellstone-backed proposal is too cumbersome and makes families spend money on estate planning that could otherwise be spent building their business. And Coleman dislikes a provision in the law that requires a family member to stay involved in the business or farm for at least five years after inheriting it.
Coleman said he wants to go to Washington and abolish the "death tax." But when pressed, Coleman did say he'd accept less than total repeal.
"Look, I prefer to get rid of this tax entirely," he said. "However, I am open to discussing limiting this to only the super-rich, if there was a way we could structure it that way. But that hasn't been on the table."
WHO'S AFFECTED?
Even if Congress does nothing, only a few hundred Minnesota families are affected by the tax. And if it lifts the threshold to $4 million, that number shrinks to just a few dozen.
Who might still be affected? The Pohlad family, the Bingers of 3M, the Carlson sisters of the Radisson hotel chain, Stanley Hubbard of Hubbard Broadcasting, Glen Taylor of the Timberwolves and Richard Schulze of Best Buy — all are members of the Fortune 400. All are financial supporters of Coleman.
Add longtime GOP stalwarts such as the Pillsburys and the Whitneys, and Coleman's support from Minnesota's elite is near total. Of that group, only Vance Opperman, formerly of West Publishing, and the Dayton family are backing Wellstone. Mark Dayton is Minnesota's junior U.S. senator and is a substantial Democratic moneyman.
All told, federal records show 40 of the state's wealthiest families have contributed at least $713,000 to Coleman, his affiliated political action committees, or the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Most notable are father-and-son commercial developers Sidney and John Goodman of Chaska: Combined, they've contributed at least $81,500 to the Coleman effort.
Coleman says the state's wealthy support him because they dislike the union-friendly Wellstone, not because of Coleman's stance on the estate tax.
"Look at who's supporting Paul Wellstone: the trial lawyers. Is that bad? I don't know," Coleman said. He added that Wellstone's position as a champion for Big Labor has made him a natural target for Minnesota's business community.
Reach Hank Shaw at hshaw@ pioneerpress.com or (651) 228-5257.
Your statements assume government has legitimate control over private property. State ownership of private property is communism.
But I mave have overlooked the fascist aspect, namely private ownership of property, but government control. So I may have been wrong, your attitudes may be more of a fascist nature than a communist nature, but it is a mute point since they both do what you advocate.
PS, I don't have a sandbox. I discarded it at the same time I discarded the childish notions that go along with that age group. You seem to have become stuck in that time warp.
Well, the dead are currently a major Democrat voting bloc; if the GOP could capture them that might help their chances...
No apology necessary. This is just banter.
I have already tried that approach with Willie Boy in times past. This was just another argument I was trying out on him, not that anything would ever penetrate that thick, class-envious skull of his.
OK, so why debate that people who come here are more inclined to concider themselves conservative? Why not ask him, if he admits to being a lefty, I'll withdraw the comment.
You beat me to it -- that's almost exactly the post I was about to make.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."
Notice the "Pursuit of Happiness". I agree that having found wealth would be a source of great happiness. Sadly, many who don't find "wealth" are envious of those who do.
Personally, we say MORE POWER to those who are inventive enough or lucky enough to have wealth! We can even say we are happy for them. Because it reflects another aspect of American life that is FREE!! The freedom to succeed!!
Notice also the title CREATOR!!
GOD BLESS those who are successful as well as those who aren't. May they all find a way to succeed in the Pursuit of Happiness!!
Equality.. doesn't mean we are all rich. We all have an EQUAL right to succeed, but that would depend on how we play this game called life. :o)
Some play the game of life better than others.
It's when people PLAY OFF of our citizens and our hard work, that it is wrong. Those who make a life living off welfare are the leaches I'm talking about. (I have an autistic cousin who works and lives independently, she does need some help. I agree with help for the mentally ill and disabled. She had no control over what happened to her, and there are people who need help. I don't think any of us really object to that kind of help!!)
I actually saw "generations" of people who being on Welfare was a "way of life". Grandmothers, daughters and their daughters, all signing up for their welfare checks. It was truly "generational". The ones I remember were TOTALLY able bodied.
Thanks for pointing out that our Constitution encourages people to do well, and says NO WHERE that they should be PUNISHED or PENALIZED for doing so!!
So if Karl Marx denied being a "lefty" you would take his word for it?
Willie's Boy's words speak for themselves. Class envy is a basic tenet of communism, not capitalism.
I withdraw this suggestion as well, it's all a waste if time. Regards.
Sure you do.
Unable to cope with the complexities of life with a practical perspective,
You cloak an immature intellect with an extremist ideology,
Then project supposedly derogatory labels upon those you disagree with.
In short, you're boring as he!!....
Funny, I was think those things about you comrade. LOL
It took 82 posts before someone (you) finally got to the bottom of the real reasons for the Death Tax. The tax exists:
1. To prevent anyone else from gaining admittance to the Super-Rich Club, preserving the blue-blood status of this group from invasion by successful new entepreneurs;
2. To provide endless fees to royers needed to create the enormous paperwork used by the wealthy to avoid this tax;
3. To levy a large windfall tax on "the unprepared."
It exists for those principal reasons, and is enforced by socialist goons who can use it for the side purpose of promoting socialism. The end-goal of the tax is an oligarchist-socialist state, with all land of any consequence being either owned by the oligarchs OR the government.
The Old Money Rich don't want their club besmirched by any upstart New Money Rich. This tax keeps 'em down.
Michael
But those who make something of themselves and follow dreams are those whose accomplishments benefit humanity and raise the standard of living worldwide.
One individual pursuing his own desires can do more for humanity than every government program or socialist society, funded through confiscatory taxes, that has ever existed. The fact is that the sum of government programs is most likely negative.
But aside from the impracicality of it, the idea of the government controlling private property, and with it, private lives, is just plain evil on the face of it.
Except in your case, it's true.
The epithet that you brandish as "class envy" is no different than what the adolescent left-wing spews as "corporate greed".
Rather than the polar opposites that the politicos strive to differentiate, both are merely manifestations of the same primal human motivation to seek economic security and prosperity.
When the goal of improving one's individual lot in life is widely perceived as attainable (albeit through hard work and discipline) capitalism flourishes for the benefit of all. However, when those same goals are widely perceived as unattainable, and efforts to obtain them consistantly frustrated, social unrest is directed at the growing disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots".
The role of government should be to promote the former while avoiding the latter.
Still Lady Heron should get some legal advice. Undivided interest in Life Estates can be given to the prospective heirs in amounts exceeeding 10K per person - its based on the Grandma's life exepectancy - best advice - get some ASAP - the sooner the better.
People who believe in liberty do not agree with you.
The proper role of government in a free society is to defend rights.
That is one of the fundamental differences between us, you are an authoritarian. You believe in and advocate that force is used to achieve political ends. I do not. I also believe in property rights, you do not.
"Libertarian" extremists are anarchists.
I also believe in property rights, you do not.
Once again, adolescent projection of extremist views.
"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed... It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682"[The] unequal division of property... occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which... is to be observed all over Europe."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:681"I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind."
--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:17, Papers 8:682"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.