avatar
Beyond Tax Relief for the Prosperous Few


Mark Weisbrot

The

political success of the Bush Administration’s tax cut strategy will depend on

how much they can deceive people as to who gets what. Most Americans, no matter

how much they hate paying taxes, do not believe that the richest people should

be first in line when it comes to getting tax relief.

The

estate tax (dubbed the "death tax" by Republicans in order to make it

sound sinister) is something that 98 percent of Americans will never have to

worry about. That’s because they do not leave enough assets to be taxed when

they die. A married couple can already exempt $1.35 million, and this rises to

$2 million by 2006. And anything that is left to a spouse is tax-free.

Mr.

Bush has proposed to abolish the estate tax. The largest beneficiaries of this

generosity would be about 2400 estates that pay half of the tax. The lucky heirs

would save an average of about $3.4 million each.

Call

it a "Head Start" program for the rich. But the Bush Administration

has a different spin: it’s all a valiant effort to spare family-owned businesses

and farms from being broken up on account of the "death tax."

Reality

check: 94 percent of farms, of any size, are not subject to estate taxes. Small

farms and businesses have higher exemptions and other special treatments, and

there are very few estates that are made up primarily of these assets. In 1998,

there were only 776 taxable estates- – less than 1.6 percent of the total– in

which the majority of the estate consisted of family-owned business assets. The

number was even smaller for farms.

The

tax-cutters have also proposed to fix the "marriage penalty," under

which some married couples pay more income taxes than they would if they had

filed individual returns. But here, too, Mr. Bush’s solution is skewed toward

upper-income households– some of which already benefit from a "marriage

bonus," as opposed to a penalty.

The

harshest effect of the marriage penalty falls on low-income households who

qualify for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. We are talking couples who

earn less than $15,000 each, who can easily lose more than $3000 a year when

they get married. Mr. Bush’s tax overhaul will not get rid of this inequity.

A

detailed analysis of the whole $1.6 trillion tax cut, as done by the Citizens

for Tax Justice, shows that 43% of it would wind up in the hands of the richest

1% of taxpayers: those with an average income of $915,000 would get an average

tax cut of $46,000 a year. For the bottom 60% of taxpayers (income less than

$39,000), the average tax cut would be $227.

Of

course, there is a case to be made for shifting the tax burden– in the other

direction. And fortunately, there is a sizeable source of tax revenue yet

untapped: financial and currency transactions. A very small tax on the buying

and selling of stocks, bonds and currency would barely be noticed by long-term

investors, but would discourage speculative trading. Such a tax would not only

raise a good deal of revenue, but would help get rid of some of the waste and

instability in our bloated financial markets.

In

case the projected budget surpluses turn out to be smaller than predicted, a

"speculation tax" would supply the necessary revenue for a tax cut to

those who most need and deserve it: the majority of Americans, who have not

shared in the economic growth of the last quarter-century.

Mark

Weisbrot is Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in

Washington and Co- author, With Dean Baker, of "Social Security: the

Phony Crisis" (University of Chicago, 2000)

 

Leave a comment