Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Cutting The Estate Tax Is Bailing Out the Wealthy.
Rep. Shelley Berkley is a Democratic legislator from Nevada, and boy was she mad about the Wall Street bailouts last year:
Hundreds of billions of dollars, Berkley said, has gone "to prop up Wall Street banks and investment companies, but little to help people in Las Vegas who are losing their homes."The message Washington needs to hear, Berkley said, is this: "Our community is hurting, and we could use some help."
In an interview after the hearing concluded, Warren said she was struck by the disconnect between regular people and the big banking companies. "There was no evidence today that the money is making it past the top levels of the financial institutions," she said. "People are deeply frustrated. They worked hard and played by the rules, and now they can't find anyone to talk to."
Sounds like she really thinks the government should be coming to the aid of people who are getting hit hard by the recession. No doubt that's why she introduced a bill to further exempt the super-wealthy from taxes, increasing the deficit by $119 billion. Now, I'm not sure why that would make any sense. But surely someone who thinks that giving handouts to the wealthy is bad should think that all the time, right?
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities released a study of Berkley's bill today, revealing that all of its benefits go to the top .02 .2 percent of estates:
The current rules already are generous. Under them, an individual can inherit on a tax-free basis a trust fund worth $3.5 million, or more than a middle-class family that makes $70,000 a year — and pays taxes on those earnings every year — earns in a lifetime. With the nation on an unsustainable fiscal path and many middle-class families losing their jobs and their homes, it is difficult to justify providing the top 0.2 percent of estates — the estates of the wealthiest 1 in every 500 people who die — with a costly new tax cut so they can pass on even larger inheritances tax-free.
Berkley says she supports public investment and opposes bailouts. But she also thinks that people who inherit millions of dollars shouldn't have to pay taxes on it.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (9)
More evidence that stupidity knows no party...
Posted by: Passing Shot | November 2, 2009 3:22 PM
Cutting taxes on the top .2% makes sense to me (BTW, post has it incorrectly at .02%). If the children of the wealthy get to keep more of the estate, then they'll spend more and we will all benefit massively. It's sort of like trickle-down, but in this case the headwater is located in a cemetery.
Posted by: Quiddity | November 2, 2009 3:25 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point of your article. A politician is hypocritical? Okay. Sure. So? I've yet to find one that isn't.
I really would appreciate your response as to what your objective is with this article. As it stands, I'm under the impression that she opposes something or someone you favor, so you want to discredit her. Otherwise, you would do more of these articles pointing out the continuous hypocrisy of everyone in the federal government from President Obama to Senator McConnell which would have given you by this point carpal tunnel syndrome from the copious amount of articles detailing governmental misadventures.
I apologize if this sounds overly confrontational, but this article seems below the standards of this site.
Posted by: Daniel | November 2, 2009 3:31 PM
Poor Shelley Berkley, for years making statements as outrageous and idiotic as those of Michelle Bachman, but without a fraction of the media attention.
As for Daniel's point, that's some pretty weak trolling. It's now unfair to call a hypocrite a hypocrite because everybody's a hypocrite"? Maybe he'll do better next time....
Posted by: Aaron | November 2, 2009 5:10 PM
I'm not trolling. It's simply annoying that I'm watching a writer I know can do better on a site I count on for quality blogging go this route. He created a false equivalency. Is she an idiot? Yes, she always has been, but the ad hominem is really unworthy of Mr. Fernholz. If he wants to attack her position on the bailouts, then attack her position on the bailouts. There is no reason whatsoever to bring up an entirely unrelated issue if her position on the bailouts is wrong. This article of Mr. Fernholz's is a disservice to his own writing and this site.
Posted by: Daniel | November 2, 2009 9:14 PM
I assume you could count the number of Nevadans who'd benefit from Berkley's proposal on one hand. Or two. I also assume she knows who they are. Can someone fill the rest of us in on it?
Posted by: K | November 3, 2009 3:53 AM
Capital is hard to accumulate. Just think of your own situation and how hard you have worked to accumulate what you have. Capital makes the workd go round. It is needed to start businesses. Businesses employ people. If the government takes 1/2 of every wealthy persons capital at each generation, doesn't it make sense that their businesses won't grow as fast, thereby employing fewer people? So while you might want to put Steve Wynn at the top of the list of those Nevadans who would benefit directly, all of Wynn's employees (both current and future) benefit indirectly. Is this really that hard to see? The problem with the estate tax is that too few people are taxed and the rate of tax is too high. Drop the exemption to $1,000,000 and lower the rate to 25% and the government will take in more money than it does under current law...guaranteed!
Posted by: steve | November 3, 2009 5:06 AM
"Just think of your own situation and how hard you have worked to accumulate what you have."
1. Just think how hard the recipients have worked to inherit all that wealth;
2. Just think how easy it is to conflate working hard with the accumulation of wealth (as if there were some real-world connection between the two);
3. Rep. Berkley's bill is an outrageous giveaway; even more outrageous, she calls herself a Democrat.
Posted by: Gerald | November 3, 2009 9:25 AM
steve, Japan's estate taxes have long been at levels that many in the west would view as confiscatory. Is that why they have no businesses?
Posted by: Aaron | November 14, 2009 2:00 PM