Micheal Moore in Wisconsin: "America is not broke"

[Torie]

The idea that lowering taxes of any sort at this point would result in more tax revenue than would've otherwise been created by increasing taxes is such a complete assault on common sense (and in the case of straight up income taxes, thoroughly debunked) that I cannot believe otherwise intelligent people like you guys would buy it.

You don't think it makes intuitive sense that at a 35% estate tax rate, considerably more estates will just pay the tax, than if it is 55%, thereby creating a much greater financial incentive to put more money into a tax exempt foundation, which money would not be subject to the estate tax?  It certainly would influence me at the margins. Plus, life insurance is used to circumvent the estate tax to a substantial extent, because if the policy is owned by the heirs, with the premiums paid through annual gifting, the proceeds will not be subject to the estate tax. Part of the game here, is that the interest earned on the cash surrender value is never taxed, a loophole that the insurance industry spends endless millions to defend, plus pushing for high estate taxes, believe it or not. I have one client who has about $18 million of such insurance. Presumably there will be less of that at the lower rate.

There are many layers to the onion on this one. A fly by analysis just doesn't get the job done on this one in my opinion.

[opebo]

You don't think it makes intuitive sense that at a 35% estate tax rate, considerably more estates will just pay the tax, than if it is 55%, thereby creating a much greater financial incentive to put more money into a tax exempt foundation, which money would not be subject to the estate tax? 

Um, no.  The obvious policy solution is to eliminate tax exempt foundations, Torie.

[Badger]

Sure my comment was meant to be primarily smartass (who knew?), but not entirely.  If a guy can't manage his own money and is a spendthrift, just why would he knew a damn thing about macroeconomics, and just why would anyone repose any confidence in his opinions when it comes to money matters? The answer of course is that he doesn't know anything about macroeconomics, and,or its nexus with tax policy, or anything else of some complexity in this field. He doesn't have a clue. And unless he is pushing for a wealth tax (is he?), it's irrelevant - totally irrelevant - that the "Tories" of this world have millions or billions in the bank. It's just a throwaway line really. I was smartass, because what comes our of Mr. Moore's mouth isn't worth anything more than that when it comes to a response. He is, in short, a clown. JMO of course!

Now you may continue with your usual programming.

Except even the tories can't take it with them. We need to restore the estate tax to Clinton levels.

Actually the lower estate tax rate might result in more tax revenue. Why? Because with the higher tax rate, the MO was to dump all that cash into tax exempt foundations controlled by the family, and with all that foundation money came, yes you guessed it, power and prestige. And when you reach certain net worth numbers, that is what you spend your money on, unless a nutter. You can only fit some many Beamers in the garage, and there are just not enough days left in your life to consume it all. A foundation which you control is just the perfect accoutrement, and that is in fact what is done (plus you can pay yourself a salary for all your hard work managing it). And that is why the Feds didn't get that much money from the estate tax when it was at 55%.  You want more revenue? Then get rid of money going into foundations at death from being exempt from the estate tax. That will largely shut down new money going into foundations, and generate more tax revenue - a lot more tax revenue.

Thanks for bringing this issue up! I appreciate it.

Hence why raising taxes and raising revenue are not the same thing.

And yet there's quite the corolation, just as there is between cutting taxes and cutting real revenue. Until conservatives get over their repeatedly disproven (historically and mathamatically) belief that "tax cuts pay for themselves", budget problems will be the rule.

BTW: Regardless of one's opinions about Moore or his movies (I haven't seen them all, personally), he's absolutely factually correct about the rapid concentration of wealth and income among the very, very, very rich. Forget Torie-level and think the Kochs and their ilk.

[tpfkaw]

[Torie]

You don't think it makes intuitive sense that at a 35% estate tax rate, considerably more estates will just pay the tax, than if it is 55%, thereby creating a much greater financial incentive to put more money into a tax exempt foundation, which money would not be subject to the estate tax? 

Um, no.  The obvious policy solution is to eliminate tax exempt foundations, Torie.

You might have a point there!  I mean Gates is putting 100 billion into is foundation or or something, and Buffet another 100 billion. You do the math.

[courts]

Well yes badger but that also ignores the reality that only the professional class and above have seen any sort of rise in their income. So in practice doctors, lawyers, etc. also are making up more of the economy. Meanwhile something like 33% is now dependent on the government for their wages someway or another. Of course I could think of a few prescriptions for reducing that outside of taxes on the upper 1% but something tells me the WSJ/NYT crowd wouldn't approve.

[Badger]

Not as instantly appealing to the eye as a (misleading) graph, but the below articles show some fundamental flaws in Hauser's Law (or at least how its misused to support supply side policies).

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd-numbers/2008/05/20/lying-with-charts-wsj-edition/#

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/79495/lying-chart-the-day-classic-edition

Actually, the TNR article has a nice reality-based chart also.

@ Mint----re: your last sentence:  Word. You're right. I'll quibble about the distinction of professionals being among the relative few who've seen their income rise. You're absolutely correct there, but my point goes beyond that. When one looks at the concentration and explosion in wealth/income accumulated by those at the top in the last decade, we need to set aside any conception of "the top" here including doctors, lawyers, or other professionals that actually work for a living. Forget anything related to even Torie's income level of where upper middle class transitions into "merely rich". Forget the "top 2%/over $200k a year" bracket affected if the Bush tax cuts are repealed. We are talking about the upper few tenths of a percent who have had their post tax income multiply by staggering amounts, both percentage wise and in raw dollars. The Kochs have become the bete noir in Wisconsin, but as billionaires they are actually typical of the real winners here.