Lazarus and Dives go to Washington

Lazarus and Dives go to Washington

Because my countrymen and I are governed by chattering moles, the estate tax/death tax is once again an issue. Senator Kyl of Arizona has been expressing an urgent need to take steps toward eliminating or reducing that tax, lest the work be undone by a Democratic majority next year. Distinguishing between California’s Senators can be a challenge. I envy the good people of Arizona.
The estate tax extracts up to fifty percent of the value of an inheritance, if that inheritance is of several million dollars or more. Under law passed in 2000, it is currently to be repealed for the year 2010. The tax cut package which the repeal was a part of expires in 2011 so unless the repeal is extended, 2010 will be an anomaly, the only year without and estate tax, and the perfect time to frighten an aging and prosperous spouse with a heart defect. Contact your attorney for details.
The two sides in this debate, the President and some Republicans on one side and the Democrats with a few Republicans on the other, can be expected to speak of the choice in moral terms. When elected officers of the federal government speak of morality we can all sleep soundly, knowing our souls are kept. An exception is needed to prove the rule but won’t be found here.
The first fiction to debunk is that there is a moral aspect to the choice. Other than requiring the poor and working poor to pay all the taxes, the levy of taxes has no moral value. Taxes are always harmful, it is only through the benefits provided through them that government in sum becomes a benefactor of the people or fails to.
It is primarily the weight of taxes overall on the economy and the incentives to the individual that make taxes negative toward the well-being of the governed. In this sense, the estate tax is a pretty neutral one. If current law were left in place, the year 2010 would be the only year without the incentive to breathe. So I propose the following experiment: allow the estate tax to repeal for 2010 and restore in 2011. The impact from the incentive cost of the estate tax can then be measured by the increase in planned deaths during that year.
Of course, the first law of political thermodynamics is that for every effluent there is an equal and opposite influence. When Republicans lie, Democrats are reliable. They will talk about the rich paying their fair share. As false as the moral language attacking the estate tax will be, we will hear equally false complaints about tax cuts for the rich. There is no moral standard for taxation and a fair share. At least not a static one. As a society, we determine our sense of fairness through elections. Right now we seem to have decided that morality requires a more even imposition.
While I tend to disagree with Ambrose Bierce’s conclusion identifying virtue with expediency clearly this is the case for taxes. The goal of tax law is to raise funds efficiently for the government to spend virtuously and expeditiously. The issue, therefore, remains moot until our current leaders go to their divine levy.
The Prattler Wordbook
ESTATE TAX, n. A claim against the heavenly reward. The unloading of a camel after it has passed the gate.
FISCAL, adj. Pertaining to theft.
GRAVITY, n. The compulsion for the flying to fall, the floating to sink and the high-minded to speak.
HEROIC HAPPY DEAD, n. The intestate.
INVISIBLE HAND, n. The signal by which economists guide fiscal policy.
JOBBERY, n. Politics.
KEYNESIAN, adj. Disciplined to limit consumption according to the people’s gluttony.

Saturday, May 20, 2006

From the collection of Richard Samuel West / Periodyssey.