Skip to main content

One day before the House Democratic caucus voiced its opposition to President Obama's tax cut deal with Senate Republicans, Speaker Nancy Pelosi focused on the estate tax as adding insult to injury.  But Pelosi isn't alone in shining a spotlight on an estate tax proposal that would drain the U.S. Treasury of billions of dollars.  As it turns out, that is just one powerful argument for restoring the estate tax at a time of budget deficits and record income inequality. Another, as today's pledge by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and 56 other billionaires to give away half of their money highlights, is that nothing will undermine charitable giving more than steep reductions in the estate tax.

First a little background. In 2009, only 1 in 500 American estates paid taxes, generating about $25 billion in revenue. But without new legislation in Congress, in 2011 the estate tax rate would jump back up to its pre-2001 (and pre-Bush tax cut) level of 55%, starting at $2 million per couple. In December, the House voted 225-200 to maintain 2009's rate of 45% beginning at $3.5 million per person or $7 million per couple, a proposal endorsed by President Obama. But as 2009 ended, Jon Kyl led the successful GOP effort to block the bill, ensuring the temporary, one-year expiration of the estate tax on January 1st of this year.

And that effort, one which allowed the estates of George Steinbrenner and Texas billionaire Dan Duncan to escape taxes altogether in 2010, Kyl was aided and abetted by Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln.  With Kyl, the Senator from Wal-Mart Lincoln sponsored the lower 35% rate and $5 million per person exemption agreed to this week by President Obama.  As the Arkansas Times noted:

Please note that the cut in the top estate tax, from 45 to 35 percent, will be worth a cool $9 billion at current values to just the top five Walton estates. 9 BILLION. Who'll pay for that lost revenue (not just from Waltons but Kochs, etc.) over the years? The working schlubs, that's who.

It's no wonder Speaker Pelosi lamented yesterday, "We believe the estate tax in the bill is a bridge too far" which "ends any kind of symmetry between the two sides."

As for Kyl, lower 35% rate and $5 million per person threshold he and Lincoln jointly proposedwas a rest stop on the road to the Republican dream of killing the "death tax" altogether.  As he put it in December 2009:

"It's a problem that doesn't have to exist if they'll just leave the existing law alone and let the rate go to zero, which is where everyone wants it to be."

Well, not quite everyone.

On Thursday, Facebook's Zuckerberg joined the list of American billionaires who've made The Giving Pledge.  "Why wait," he said, "when there is so much to be done?"  Backed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Oprah Winfrey among others, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett six months ago called on the super-rich, "starting with the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, to pledge -- literally pledge -- at least 50% of their net worth to charity during their lifetimes or at death." Given the $1.2 trillion net worth of that select group, as Fortune noted, over time the Giving Pledge could mean a $600 billion infusion into American charities.

For his part, Warren Buffett has also long insisted that the rich and famous have another moral responsibility. During a press conference four years ago, Buffett offered a strong progressive argument in support of the estate tax:

"I would hate to see the estate tax gutted. It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged.

I'm not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth when there are 6 billion people who have much poorer lives. I can't think of anything that's more counter to a democracy that dynastic wealth. The idea that you win the lottery the moment you're born: It just strikes me as outrageous."

America's churches, non-profits, foundations and charities couldn't agree more.  As the data make clear, if the Republicans succeed in reducing or eliminating the estate tax outright, U.S. charities will stand to lose billions.

In 2003, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center documented the hemorrhaging that would ensue.  As the TPC described, "The estate tax encourages charitable giving at death by allowing a deduction for charitable bequests" and "also encourages giving during life."  Its repeal would be devastating for U.S. charities:

We find that estate tax repeal would reduce charitable bequests by between 22 and 37 percent, or between $3.6 billion and $6 billion per year. Previous studies are consistent with this finding, and also imply that repeal would reduce giving during life by a similar magnitude in dollar terms. To put this in perspective, a reduction in annual charitable donations in life and at death of $10 billion due to estate tax repeal implies that, each year, the nonprofit sector would lose resources equivalent to the total grants currently made by the largest 110 foundations in the United States.1 The qualitative conclusion that repeal would significantly reduce giving holds even if repeal raises aggregate pre-tax wealth and income by plausible amounts.

That finding was echoed the next year by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  Ironically, its director then was Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who later served as the chief economic advisor to Republcian presidential candidate John McCain.  (Even more ironic, McCain called for the repeal of the estate tax in 2008, despite two years earlier having proclaimed "most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax" and "in my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.")  As CBO director Holtz-Eakin wrote in "The Estate Tax and Charitable Giving":

Furthermore, the estate tax provides an incentive to make charitable contributions during life. The paper finds that increasing the amount exempted from the estate tax from $675,000 to either $2 million or $3.5 million would reduce charitable giving by less than 3 percent. However, repealing the tax would have a larger impact, decreasing donations to charity by 6 percent to 12 percent.

In 2006, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) provided a sobering assessment of what proposed estate tax reforms would do to philanthropy among the wealthiest Americans.  Whether the estate tax was repealed outright, the size of the exempted assets raised or the tax rate itself dropped, American charities would suffer painful losses of funding:

  • CBO estimated that, had the estate tax not existed in 2000, charitable donations would have been $13 billion to $25 billion lower that year.  CBO found that repealing the estate tax would have reduced charitable bequests by 16 to 28 percent and charitable giving during life by 6 to 11 percent.
  • The amount by which CBO found that charitable donations would have fallen in 2000 exceeds the total amount of corporate charitable donations in the United States in that year  (which equaled $11 billion) and approaches the total amount that foundations contributed to charitable causes ($25 billion).
  • A study by Brookings Institution economists Jon Bakija and William Gale found effects of similar magnitude, as have analyses by various other researchers.

Last year, President Obama proposed raising $318 billion over the next decade by trimming wealthier taxpayers' deductions for charitable giving to 28% from its current 35%. Predictably, Republicans (joined by some Democrats) forecast an apocalypse for donations to charities. As John Boehner ominously (and wrongly) warned, "It will also deliver a sharp blow to charities at a time when they are hurting during the economic downturn."  But as Bloomberg and The Chronicle of Philanthropy each reported, Obama's proposal for 2011 would likely have little to no impact on charitable giving.  As Bloomberg noted:

Not necessarily, say tax and philanthropy experts. They say altruistic or religious motives outweigh tax-shelter considerations among such donors, and cite previous limitations placed on deductions for high earners that they say haven't hurt donations.

Among those previous limitations, as former OMB director Peter Orszag among others recalled, was the same upper income 28% deduction during Ronald Reagan's first term.  As Orszag told reporters in February 2009, the record shows that "what drives charitable contributions is overall economic growth."

But one provision of the tax code - the estate tax - does have huge impact on charitable contributions.  As Warren Buffett implored his fellow members of the gilded class, they should be giving more to charity both during their lifetimes and when they leave their legacies.  And the estate tax is crucial to encouraging them to do both.

** Crossposted at Perrspectives **

Originally posted to Jon Perr on Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 11:04 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Several reforms to consider. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, KenBee, Sunspots
      - Limit the deductibility of charitable contributions from calculating estate taxes to 20% of the estate.  Gates & Buffett have been organizing many of the wealthiest to donate more than half of their wealth from their estate.

      - Have a $20 million cap on the marital exclusion, doing this would only impact combined estates of over $40 million.  This would bring in revenue much sooner as the first of two people meeting their demise happens much sooner than the second of two people.  This also avoid further deferral by the widow or widower by getting married again.

      Have the non taxed portion of the estate become $1 million per person receiving from the estate (no limit on number of people) rather a total from the estate.  This is to encourage the break-up of the wealth to a larger number of people.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 11:22:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Estate tax deal is bad (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HoundDog, Sunspots

      but the payroll tax holiday is worse.  It is a direct attack on Social Security.

      I could buy a parrot and train it to say, `tax cuts,' but at the end of the day, it's still a parrot, not a conservative.

      by MadRuth on Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 11:23:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOPocrisy: private charities v. gov't entitlement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, millwood, LaFeminista

    The same ass-hats that don't want government money going to things like homeless shelters, say they would rather "those" people be channel to private charities.

    Now, they seek to eviscerate charitable contributions, including to their precious "Christianist" groups.

    Fuck you very much, Free Lunchers!

  •  Excellent and clear diary thank you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, millwood, Sunspots

    "Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy

    by LaFeminista on Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 11:15:15 AM PST

  •  Great diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, LaFeminista, Sunspots

    Values have gotten a bum rap. The RW'ers tainted "values" into oblivion. There are values, treasured values, and people are judged by the virtues and values they demonstrate in life, and death. Giving back, paying ti forward, investing in the future, creating enduring value, doing something important with your wealth, charity - these are values we treasure and even the poor demonstrate them every day. We should reward these things with recognition, honor, and gratitude. That will establish a renewed push toward virtuous behavior.

    And an estate tax is virtuous. The estate tax is fundamental to shoring up a free democracy, protecting from the concentration of wealth and proliferation without merit, prevention of dynasties so detrimental to innovation and social thriving.

    Excellent diary. Thanks.

    "Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass... it's about learning how to dance in the rain." (unknown)

    by kck on Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 11:35:45 AM PST

  •  "Dues" vs "Tax" (0+ / 0-)

    Republican pollster Frank Luntz is the one who came up with and pushed the term "death tax" over "estate tax".  And, man, it worked.

    But the left's message master, George Lakoff, counters "taxes" with "dues".

    Suggested Dem talking point:

    "It's time for the richest people on the country to pay their dues for living in the land of the free.  The rest of us do.  All they have to do is imagine that they are paying their country club fees."

    I lifted this practically verbatim from Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant (see below), and it is exactly the frame that will win.  "Taxes" have had a negative connotation since the days of Robin Hood, but dues invoke the idea of putting in your fair share for a privilege you enjoy.


    Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives, by George Lakoff. See also: Cognitive Policy Wonks and The Progressive Strategy Handbook Project

    Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. -Frank Zappa

    by TheGrandWazoo on Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 08:30:34 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site