Out of the blue, because this is clearly the most important public policy issue facing 99 percent of Washingtonians, the Seattle Times editorial board has for the zillionth time editorialized in favor of repealing the estate tax. I think my headline pretty much says it all. But there’s always this:
Not sure why the Blethens are still jonesing on eliminating the estate tax now that their paper is virtually worthless, but Jesus Christ, let it go already.
UPDATE: More on this in the morning, maybe, but I just have to point out what an incredibly dishonest editorial this is, implying that the estate tax forced the McBride family to sell the last farm in Issaquah, when in fact if this was a working farm, it would have been exempt from the estate tax entirely. (The sale price of the land was less than the federal estate tax exemption, and all working farmland is exempt from the WA estate tax.) It once again shows incredible disrespect for their readers.
I’m okay with repealing the federal estate tax if the basis step-up is also repealed and inheritances are taxed as ordinary income of the heirs. I’m not sure what you’d replace state estate tax revenue with, but I’ll trade the state estate tax for a state income tax on high incomes.
The Blethens’ problem is they didn’t have the foresight to buy TV stations. The Seattle Times probably IS worthless. That’s a buggy whip factory Frank owns there. Meanwhile, my Gannett stock is up 120% since I bought it 2 1/2 years ago, because their management had the brains to diversify into broadcast, and what’s more, GCI looks set to pop tomorrow morning now that everyone knows activist investor Carl Icahn has a major stake in the company. A few weeks ago Barrons predicted GCI would hit $40 (I paid $15). So eat your heart out, Frank Blethen, I’m making more money in the newspaper biz than you are! Because I didn’t spend $150 million on a white elephant printing plant.
Hmmm, here’s an interesting reader comment under the editorial:
“What kind of crummy writers does the Times hire? Don’t they do any research at all?
“Are farms subject to the estate tax? No. The value of farms and timberlands are deducted from the taxable value of an estate as long as certain requirements are met. This deduction applies to the land, farm structures and farming equipment. Are there any limits to how much value can be deducted? No. It is an unlimited deduction.
“I thought the story sounded fishy and it took me less than a minute to pull it up from the state tax website. Maybe the times doesn’t have google.”
In fact, quite a number of readers are calling b.s. on this glaring error. Of 16 comments so far, not one is favorable to the editorial.
As for this thread’s headline, I suspect Goldy just blew any chance of being hired by the Seattle Times.
@4 You think? But I meant it metaphorically.
The Blethens DON’T DO METAPHORES.
@5 Reminds me of the private school employee who was fired for blogging about homophones.
Funny how the Times constantly editorializes in favor of keeping anti tax initiatives in place because they’re supported by The Will Of The People, but when the estate tax repeal initiative gets crushed by 60%+ no votes it should be repealed anyway.
Well, just make the federal estate tax no more than 1% of the gross estate and make the State inheritance tax no more than 1% of the remaining after federal estate tax. That should make the Blethens happy.
Or the smart wealthy can strategically offload all their accumulated wealth to their heirs before their death, but that would be
#1: Too obvious
#2: An assault on their ego, or something
If by some stroke of luck (lottery) or luck (bestselling book) I get rich, that’s basically my plan. Setup a trust for yourself, and as you approach the twilight years, start offloading everything not nailed down into trusts for the kids. If I was worth $500,000,000 or $0 on paper the day I actually die, it really doesn’t matter in the end.
No one gives a shit on the other side.
@10 Or even simpler: buy a daily newspaper. Instant zero net worth!
@9 No. Why should multimillionaires pay 1/25th the tax rate that wage earners pay? That isn’t fair.
I wonder if anyone at ST ever reads the comments under their editorials? Such as this one:
“If the Blethens are the poster children for the repeal of the estate tax, then the tax should be tripled.”
In another shabby editorial, now that the dockworkers strike at the Vancouver grain terminal is settled, the Times is criticizing Gov. Inslee for aiding the union. Huh, that’s what Democrats do; I guess they can’t get over the fact their Republican water boy lost.
Even in states where farms are subject to inheritance tax, a little planning can easily eliminate the problem. My wife’s family farm in Nebraska on a large scale. Her father’s generation incorporated the farm and distributed shares to the working family members. There are lots of ways of minimizing or eliminating estate tax issues.
But the Seattle Times gets the award for total ignorance in service of their pet issue.
Lot’s of “financial planners” have made LOTS of money selling gigantic Whole Life insurance policies for estate taxation purposes.
Too bad the Blethen “estate” is gonna be worth about $5 when these brain surgeons get done with it.
12
Maybe you would prefer a yearly tax on accumulated wealth over a certain threshold. Something like a 10% tax on the market value of a person’s total wealth in excess of some amount like $1 million. That surely would change the complexion of accumulated wealth and accomplish your goal.
There is a Chinese wall between the news side of the Seattle Times and the editorial side. The news side has certain standards re fact-finding and fairness, while the editorial side is based on opinions of management, so it can operate as a fact-free zone if it wishes.
18
Yeah, just like the rest of the media.
@17 As I said previously, I’m good with getting rid of the federal estate tax altogether if inheritances are taxed as income without a basis step-up. At the state level, if you want to make estate tax repeal part of a discussion of overall tax reform, I’m willing to listen to proposals, although I’ve long favored the Gates Commission’s preferred option, which is to replace the state sales and B&O taxes with a state income tax. If we had a state income tax in place, it would be feasible to replace the state estate tax by, again, taxing inheritances as income.
The problem with your suggestion @9 is the estate tax is usually the only tax paid on a large part of wealthy people’s income. Their income tends to come from capital gains, which aren’t taxed until assets are sold, and what you’re proposing would further reduce the already lower tax rates the rich enjoy by a factor of 15. The rich neither need nor deserve such a massive tax break, and taxing their income at 1% would, quite frankly, be offensive and insulting to wage earners paying a marginal rate of 25% on their middle-class incomes — incomes that they, unlike the wealthy, had to work for.
We already have massive work disincentives in this country, and as I noted in another thread, increasing numbers of Americans — especially males under age 55 — are dropping out of the workforce because the jobs available now are such low quality, the rewards for working are so meager, and being employed has become such a hassle, that disincentives now outweigh incentives for being employed. In other words, millions of Americans are saying, “take this job and shove it!”
Another issue is, if you lose all the revenues from estate taxes, how do you make up the revenue losses? Whose taxes will you raise? If your answer is “no one’s,” then which government services will you cut? When Republicans are asked this question, they always waffle, give you some vague response, but never any specifics. What you’re likely to get is “waste, fraud, and abuse” but you can’t get them to identify what that is because they don’t know. In real life, what Republicans do is “borrow and spend,” and if they had their way, our government would run on 100% deficit spending and borrowed money.
So, no, your idea of a 1% tax on inheritances isn’t workable, isn’t fair, and isn’t gonna happen. At least, not on any Democratic president’s or governor’s watch.
@17 Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I’ve never said that and I don’t support that. That’s you talking, not me.
@18 You’re both stupid and insulting. I come from a journalism family. Pop Rabbit was a newspaper reporter his entire working life. I went to one of America’s top journalism schools and was working reporter before I became a lawyer and a judge. Just because Fox News and the Seattle Times give journalism a bad name doesn’t make them all rotten. If you’re too lazy or unintelligent to tell the difference between propaganda and journalism, or to seek out reliable news sources (they exist) and thoughtful opinion, that’s your personal problem, as we used to say in the military. This is a free country and people like you have a constitutional right to be idiots if you so choose (you apparently do). That doesn’t give you a prerogative to drag the rest of us down with you. So go fuck your goats. They’re horny and waiting for you!
If , every year, the market value of a person’s estate over and above some amount was taxed at 10%, it would, over time, insure no one could have so much economic power concentrated in a personal estate at the time of death. In the least, it would certainly curtail such massive accumulaions of wealth such as that of the Kock brothers, the Gates, Mr. Peterson, and Mr Buffet.
Perhaps such a plan would work best if enacted on those people whose age exceeded 70 or so, with the intent of whittling-down the big estates to much smaller wealth transfers at the time of death for those affected.
Isn’t that picture of the dog with the gun at its head a copy of a cover of a early Seventies edition of National Lampoon?
@24…
You might want to read Goldy’s post.
Just a thought.
Actually, Goldy’s kinda boring.
University of Missouri – Columbia
As far as a state income tax goes, it will be a long time before it gets enacted in WA. There’s a lot of opposition to it here.
@23 If you want to propose that, and want a debate on that, fine we can debate it. It’ll be an academic debate, because it’ll never happen.
@24 Yes, and Goldy said so. What’s your point? Do you have one?
@27 Then I guess we’re stuck with the tax system we have, which includes an estate tax (which, however, does not apply to family farms).
@26…
…a third-rate shit-hole school.
No wonder you can’t spell Koch (not Kock) Brothers.
Add @31…
…or think critically about STRUCTURAL State revenue deficits.
31
The problem with auto-complete is that it isn’t perfect. That’s the reason for the spelling error.
32
OK, you think you’re wonderful and anyone who doesn’t think like you is stupid. That’s not,very surprising.
30
Yeah,just like talking about a state income tax.
Hey Roger, tell Rujax where you went to journalism school.
Rujax,
Google “America’s top journalism schools” and see what pops up. You might be surprised.
Liberals, love taxes so much…they even like to tax the dead.
@35 I love Thorsten Veblen’s description of Columbia: “The woodpecker hole in a rotten stump called Missouri.”
Back in the 60s, it was a place where one fraternity’s spring ritual consisted of dressing in Confederate uniforms and riding horses through town to express their admiration for Quantrill’s Raiders, and “radicals” were arrested and thrown in jail for selling underground newspapers on street corners.
When some rednecks attacked Quaker anti-war demonstrators at the courthouse with axe handles, the police cited the Quakers for disorderly conduct.
Although I attended most of my journalism classes at the University of Missouri – Columbia, my undergraduate degree is officially a B.A. with journalism and political science majors and an economics minor.
I lacked 2 credits to qualify for a B.J. degree from the U of M – C and didn’t bother to get them because I didn’t need or want that credential. I had already decided to be a lawyer.
correction @38: “Although I attended most of my journalism classes at the University of Missouri – Columbia, my undergraduate degree is officially a B.A. with journalism and political science majors and an economics minor from Western Washington University.”
@37 We’re going to piss on your grave, too.
@22, sorry you missed my feeble attempt at wry humor. Next time I’ll try to make it easier for you.
Replace the tax? Why would we want to put a tax on anything once we have eliminated one? Do you think the Fed or even the state spends you money more wisely or benevolently than you? If we are to eliminate a tax, and replace it with another, what would be the point?
@33, 34, 35, 36…
Sorry Jack…I shot my mouth off before I knew what I was talking about.
Thank you for the correction.
@41 That was a typo. @18 in @22 should be @19.
@42 “Why would we want to put a tax on anything once we have eliminated one?”
Um, to pay for public services we want? I gather you’re one of those drown-government-in-the-bathtub anarchists. Too bad, move to Somalia if you want to live in a stateless society. The fact school, fire district, park, library, etc., levies routinely win elections certainly indicates a majority of people want public services and are willing to pay taxes for them. You don’t have to live here, you know. You have the option of moving to a low-taxes, minimal-services state; there are several to choose from. Why are you still here?