Lincoln said a lot of insightful things. One of his quotes is very interesting and merits our attention. However, I suspect that the meaning of the quote lies in the mind of the interpreter. Lincoln said, "It has so happened in the ages of the world, that some have labored and others have, without labor, enjoyed a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong and should not continue." Bold and italics mine.
I look at this from a worker's and a socialist's point of view.
I think that President Lincoln, if he could be here today, would be dismayed with the bonuses that are lavishly and continually doled out to top CEO's and executives. I believe that President Lincoln, were he here today, would applaud President Obama's new policies (announced today) dealing with such extravagances.
I also believe that President Lincoln, based on the above quote, would approve of hefty inheritance taxes. There are those who inherit, who do not a minute of work, and yet who benefit from vast sums, and who need not ever work. I support hefty inheritance taxes (up to 50%) for sums inherited over $250,000. Redistribution of wealth or obliging each of us to work for our keep?
Was he alluding only to slavery or to a broader social vision?
What do you think? I pose this question before reading an article in this month's Smithsonian magazine that I suspect will make me think a lot and may make me, who knows, change my mind. Tell me what you think and I will keep you posted on my reading.
Doug
9 comments:
Is there an online version of the Smithsonian article to which you are referring?
I have had mixed feelings about the inheritance tax and how it is implemented. The bonuses of CEOs seem extravagant, but are the bonuses and pay of professional athletes excessive? What about entrepreneurs who succeed by hard work and earn every penny they have? The problem with government is that it defines such things in monetary terms without any view of the work and effort to earn such salaries. You may be right about the inheritance tax, but high salaries and bonuses may actually be well earned salaries and bonuses. So how do we decide who gets to keep and who must fork over? Perhaps Obama should fork over some of the millions he received in book royalties, because it is more than he needs to support his family. Fairness in this sense is almost impossible to achieve.
I do not believe that he would approve of the inheritance tax. If I work hard and want to give it to my sons then it is mine to do with as I please.
Would you want the government to take 50% of your lifes work away from Nick? I presume he is the major beneficiary of your life's work.
I think you are stretching his quote to fit a liberal point of view. I may construe it to a right wing point of view. I do not see anywhere in his statement that one cannot negotiate the best compensation package that one can get. All he is saying, as I read it, is get the welfare junkies off welfare and quit having the top 10% wage earners pay 80% of the taxes collected. I believe we have rehashed this in pre-election posts.
Partial retraction....after rereading the quote from Abe, I have to back step. I believe he was referring to slavery in this particular quote. With that said I still believe he would oppose the inheritance tax.
I do NOT believe in ANY inheritance tax at all. Should I die with any monies or properties in my possession I have the right to say who gets it...not the government. And, mind you, I have already paid income taxes on whatever I have earned and so any money that I die with has already been taxed. In my view, inheritance tax is a double tax which is unconstitutional. Sorry guys, but I vote no on being double taxed!
Deric is right that inheritance tax is a double tax, provided that the initial tax was paid, but considering all the tax cheats that are being unwittingly exposed by Obama when he selects them for a Cabinet post, it's unlikely that many are paying that initial tax.
There are a great many people who make salaries way above $500,000 via contracts or contacts with the federal government. As the Tom Daschle case demonstrates, $500,000 is chump change for a politically-connected Democrat--the party of the rich--in DC. So if we're going to ask who our tax dollars are ultimately enriching, by all means--let the investigation begin!
To Alan,
-I don't know that there is an an online version, I read the hard copy, and by the way, it was a bit disappointing only pointing out (yet again!) the controversy that surrounds President Lincoln.
-Professional sports are not being bailed out. Many CEO's are. Our money would seem to be going to them.
- The entrepreneurs earn their money, their kids do not. See comment below.
- It is true that exact (fair?) definition of the value of work and compensation is impossible. However, I am not upset with money earned by CEO's who receive no bailout money, but rare it is (perhaps non-existent) that a successful company is not publicly traded and therefore very involved in the repercussions of the bailout money.
I am not at all worried about authors, lectures, entrepreneurs, musicians, actors, etc. making a lot of money, the more the better, they worked for it and earned it according to what the market will pay: BUT their kids did not. IF the companies they own receive government money to help them through hard times, THEN they have to play by gov't rules as they arise (as they are arising now). I am unaware of any bailout money going to President Obama in connection with his book royalties.
It is very true that absolute fairness is impossible to achieve, but gross unfairness cannot go without response otherwise public confidence in our system, however imperfect, erodes, and fast.
To Brian,
I believe that the rules for leaving money to spouses are different than those for leaving money in inheritance to children and others. The spouse is often seen to have walked the same walk and been supportive in the earning of the money, indeed, the spouse often owns the entire estate fully with the deceased and is not an inheritor at all.
Nevertheless, for argument's sake, if the sum (we are not talking about insurance of course) of my bequeath to Nick was over a quarter million, I would not be upset at a heavy 50% tax. If I left him two million, his take would still be $1,125,000 after taxes. That seems like a good bit of money he didn't have to work for.
Remember as well, that neither Utah State government nor federal government recognize legally my connection to Nick. We can own things together, but the lack of domestic partnerships laws make our common holdings much less solid than yours.
As for your last comment in your first post-reply and your second post reply, that is why I titled the blog post "How we interpret it." I believe that Lincoln had a wider social take.
To Deric (and Alan),
I would say that you are not being doubled-taxed.
You are dead and do no longer possess it or anything at all. Your inheritors are now being taxed on money new to them which seems very fair to me. If your idea of this being a double-tax holds, may I assume that you believe that after being taxed by the federal government, the state government, on the SAME original pay check that you believe that being taxed to buy food by the state (who has already levied a tax on your pay check) is ALSO a double-tax? The same goes for all excise taxes, fees, gas taxes, etc that the state levies AFTER already having taxed you on the same sum.
To Alan again,
I am assuming that you are not alleging that corruption, bribes, kick-backs, good ol'boy network benefits, and cheating in general are uniquely the domain of Democrats or even disproportionately so. There is limitless amounts of mud to flung in both directions. This is a morass that I know exists, and I am not foolish enough to think that Democrats are purer when power is in their hands. Certainly Republicans are not either when power is in theirs.
We vote for the parties we vote for because we hold to the general principles of the respective platforms, but surely we understand that power and money corrupt. I believe that power and money are just as apt to corrupt a Dem as a Repub. Party affiliation is no guarantee of moral superiority in these matters. The moral superiority of the platforms is completely another matter and debate.
Point 1:
The inheritance tax is indeed a double tax in that a person pays taxes on income once when alive and again on that income as gift tax when he is dead. It doesn't matter whether the man is alive or dead. It's two taxes just the same. (Sure he won't feel the pain, because he is dead.)
Point 2:
Doug states "We vote for the parties we vote for because we hold to the general principles of the respective platforms." Now I think we agree on something. This is exactly what I was trying to say when some of us would vote for McCain despite some of his alleged moral dalliances. I brought up Tom Daschle and the other tax cheats because I grow weary of DC Democrats advocating higher taxes for everyone, but then won't pay their own taxes.
Point 3: I agree with your point in the difference between bailout CEOs and non-bailout CEOs, but as a side note, some of these banks did not ask for TARP money, but for whatever reason were forced to take it anyway.
Point 4: If one believes that inheritance is bad for an inheritor because s/he didn't work for the money, then a 50% inheritance tax is no better than a 1% inheritance tax. The tax should be 100% if one believes inheritance to be wrong.
For example, a $100 million inheritance = $50 million inheritance at a 50% tax rate.
Even a 99% tax rate leaves a cool $1 million, resulting little need to work hard. A 50% rate just means inheritance is 50% wrong.
Just pass the Fair Tax and be done with it.
Alain's repost Point One: We will have to agree to disagree based on semantics. I just maintain that it is not any longer a possession of the deceased.
Repost Two: Agreed. I underscore that I only wanted to take on the notion that one would vote for McCain based on the morality that he personally exemplified, not that of the party. I may have not been clear enough at the time.
Repost Three: I wonder what the 'for whaever reason' reasons might be.
Repost Four: Of course the principle you discuss is correct. It goes the other way too; no inheritance tax whatsoever. I find that, however, very troubling. As with most political decisions, compromise is what helps to alleviate absolutisms that polarize to the point of disunion. I figure we (as a political people) probably decided at some point that some tax was appropriate and we have quibbled over details ever since. Of course the real
question remains ought we have one at all or not. It seems Brian and Deric vote no, I vote yes...and you? You have declared yet.
Post a Comment