« Silly Me | Main | New Professor at Columbia: Olati Johnson (and Electronic Trespass) »

Frustrating Arguments on the Estate Tax

So far as I can see, most of the political opposition to the estate tax comes from distaste at making the passing of a loved one a taxable event. Yet simple distaste doesn't cut much mustard in debates on tax policy, so it's usually mentioned in a few quick paragraphs or a footnote. Following quite a bit of reading on the estate tax, however, I'm finding myself more and more frustrated by a common argument of some estate tax proponents.

Imagine that a coalition of Jewish kosher food producers, Bill Clinton's health care gurus and Vegans for World Collective Dieting, ever seeking to improve the nation's diet, managed to get a 6000% tax passed on any burger topped with any kind of cheese. In other words, if our former president wanted a Big Mac, he'd be paying upwards of $25 for a few greasy patties and some processed cheese food. Suppose further that you found out that I--having been struck on the head by something very heavy, one supposes, and lost all my libertarian instincts--was in favor of this Fat Tax. When, incredulous, you asked me why, I told you, "Well, look, this tax doesn't have that much effect: after all, only 150 cheeseburgers were sold last year, and all of those to very rich people!" You'd rightly laugh and point out that (a) this is probably because of the tax itself, (b) relatively poorer people get their scathing from not being able to buy cheeseburgers and (c) I'm probably promoting people evading the tax by buying the burgers and bringing their own cheese.

In the hypothetical above, my facts regarding the purchasers of Whoppers might not be untrue as such. Further, I may be right in my conclusion: due to public fear of BSE, actual consumption of burgers may have dropped such that very few people would eat cheeseburgers at a sixth the price. But on its own, the number I gave you is stunningly irrelevant.

So now look at this paragraph from "Policy Watch: Death Watch for the Estate Tax?" by William G. Gale and Joel B. Slemrod. (Note: My copy comes from JSTOR, not the link given.) I'm not picking on them particularly: this argument is typical of the genre.

The supposed impact of the estate tax on family farms and businesses has taken on a hugely disproportionate role in public policy debates. Estate tax opponents note (correctly) that a large proportion of American businesses never make it to the econd generation, but then go on to assert that the estate tax is the reason why. But only a tiny fraction of small businesses and farms are part of taxable estates. It is implausible that the estate tax has an important impact on the proportion of businesses that make it to the next generation.

(emphasis mine) Here we have the Rich Man's Cheeseburger argument. What Prof. Slemrod is saying may well be true: the estate tax may have little to do with intergenerational transfers of businesses. But the statistic quoted on its own does little to support the argument. Certainly if Slemrod is right, we'd expect to see few businesses as part of taxable estates, because donors or donees sell the assets instead of taking them. But if Slemrod is wrong, it's unlikely that we'd see very many farms or businesses as part of taxable estates either. A high rate of tax will encourage the sale of the business prior to death, so that the owner and operator can take advantage of gift tax exceptions for inter vivos transfers.

Even then, the paragraph misstates the anti-estate tax argument. It may be true that the vast majority of American businesses don't get transferred to the next generation for wholly non-tax reasons: for instance, I have no interest in following in my father's business whatever the price. But the perceived injustice of the estate tax doesn't arise from that aggregate figure. If 90% of all sons march to a different drummer but 10% wish to stand in their father's shoes, the existence of the estate tax will indeed have little effect on the overall proportion of firms being transferred. However, it may very well have a large and preclusive effect on the remaining 10%. To the extent that a family firm is seen by the public as being more than the amounts in its ledgers, proponents then seem to be arguing for a tax on sentimental value.

Or suppose that 80% of small businesses and farms are too small to be hit by the tax, 10% are exceptionally profitable (or shelterable) and thus worth retaining notwithstanding the tax, and yet an intermediate 10% are hit by the tax, and these families are forced to give up their businesses. These 10% still constitute a loss. The same "sentimental value tax" objection as above comes into play.

This is not to say that estate tax proponents are empirically wrong. Yet I've spent a fair amount of time searching Westlaw and Lexis for statistics that suggest they're empirically right, and what I've found is the same general argument: only a small number of businesses end up in taxable estates. That answer is particularly dissatisfying, and if anyone can point me to better information, I'd appreciate it.

(For those wondering, my main objection to the estate tax is a perception of unfairness between those taxed. Most liberal arguments focus on the vertical equity between the very least and very most well-off in society. My sense, however, is that much of the anger at the death tax arises from a perceived unfairness between the extremely wealthy and the moderately well-off (and at risk of enough wealth to eventually hit the tax). There is, for instance, a quite possibly apocryphal (i.e., I can't source it) and yet common among Republicans tale of the death of Rose Kennedy, in which her state of residence was found to be Florida rather than Massachusetts for tax purposes. Because death is both certain and (presumed to be) remote, "tax planning" seems easier, more abusive and more likely.

The estate tax proponents I've read, mostly because they're Rawlsians, pay very little attention to this more narrow form of vertical equity. To an extent, it's the "World to End Tomorrow: Women, Minorities Hit Hardest" blind spot translated into the tax context. So long as it's equitable between the top and bottom 10%, who cares if it's not very equitable at the very top?)


Tony, It seems to me that the estate tax is a major problem to small farms and small businesses for one simple reason. A large proportion of the estate with small family farms or small family businesses would be land and buildings. Therefore, the estate tax is a threat to the survival of these small businesses for the simple reason that the small businesses and small farms would have to be liquidated to pay the "death taxes." It also seems apparent that capitalism works best in a free competitive market of multiple choices. Therefore, it is in the best interest of everyone for as many of these small farms and small businesses to survive as possible. Thanks, Hugh Black

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

And like that... he is gone (8)
Bateleur wrote: I tip my hat to you - not only for ... [more]

Law Firm Technology (5)
Len Cleavelin wrote: I find it extremely difficult to be... [more]

Post Exam Rant (9)
Tony the Pony wrote: Humbug. Allowing computers already... [more]

Symbols, Shame, and A Number of Reasons that Billy Idol is Wrong (11)
Adam wrote: Well, here's a spin on the theory o... [more]

I've Always Wanted to Say This: What Do You Want? (14)
gcr wrote: a nice cozy victorian in west phill... [more]

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students