Death Tax Failure

The death tax, aka “estate tax” was, briefly, 0 for 2010, then rose to 35% of an estate’s value above $5 million for 2011 and 2012.  Next year—in addition to the fiscal cliff of the Obama tax increases and the Obama sequestration that occur on 1 Jan—the death tax is set to rise again, to a usurious 55% of anything above $1 million.

Never mind that this theft of a parent’s hard-won legacy, intended to be for the benefit of the his sons and daughters, simply leads to market distortions by those rich enough to be able to follow the Warren Buffet example of transferring wealth to, for instance, charitable organizations (good for them, though), and so avoiding—legally and appropriately—sending revenue unnecessarily to the Federal government.

Consider the choices lesser lights—Joe the Plumber with his business, for instance—are forced to make instead.

When [Mr Wurzelbacher] begins to consider retirement with perhaps $10 million of lifetime wealth, he can reinvest the profits in the business (which means growth and more workers) or live lavishly in retirement and spend the money down to zero.

In the first case, he is smacked with federal…death taxes that can take away half of the wealth.  In the second instance, he pays no tax.  A new study by the Joint Economic Committee Republican staff estimates that because of this disincentive to save and invest “the estate tax has cumulatively reduced the amount of capital stock in the US economy by roughly $1.1 trillion.”

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama insists that this is entirely fair—that death tax is needed for his redistribution programs.  Despite those choices and loopholes.

As the WSJ notes, though (the above link), there is a moral question here, too:

The levy makes Uncle Sam up to a half-partner in the proceeds of successful businesses.  That is on top of the property and income taxes and other assessments that owners pay year after year.  … What is truly unfair is when a family-owned enterprise has to be sold at auction to pay the death tax to the IRS.

Obama has yet to address this moral question in any serious fashion.  Keep that in mind as you go to the polls.

A Do-Nothing Senate

Recall the mandate to move to the right of center that our Congress received in the 2010 elections, when the people transferred 63 seats in the House of Representative and 6 in the Senate from the Democrats to the Republicans—a majority of those transfers to Tea Party Republicans, hence the mandate to move to the right.  Despite that outcome, though, the Senate remained under the control of the Democrats.  What has the Senate done in response to those instructions from its bosses?  The figure below, from The Wall Street Journal, tells the tale of the Progressives’ insubordination.

This illustrates the work the House has done these last two years in response to those instructions and the (not insignificant) numbers of House Democrats who actively supported that work.

On top of this dereliction, the Senate has refused to do its own work:

[T]he Senate failed to pass any budget in 2012. Or 2011. Or 2010. …more than 1,200 days.

And

The Senate also failed in 2010 and 2012 to pass a single appropriations bill.  …that hadn’t happened before in the 150-year history of the current spending process.  This year the Senate even failed to enact a national defense authorization bill, which almost never happens.

Senate Progressives have announced that they’ll continue their refusal to perform in 2013 [emphasis in original]:

Chuck Schumer (D, NY) warned that Democrats will stop any attempt at bipartisan tax reform next year, calling the idea “obsolete.”

We can’t afford even two more years of this Progressive refusal to perform, much less four more years of an incumbent President’s arrogance.

The Current State

…of our economic “recovery.”

Here are some numbers, from The Walls Street Journal.

  • GDP grew at a (preliminary) 2% rate in the third quarter…
  • That rate means that growth for the first nine months of this year was only 1.7%
    • Slower than last year’s 1.8%
    • Which was slower than the year before’s 2.4%
  • Consumer spending provided most of the third-quarter lift…but consumers can’t continue if the overall economy doesn’t grow fast enough to raise incomes faster
  • The other big third-quarter growth driver was Federal government spending
    • Rose 9.6%
    • Overall government outlays rose 3.7% and accounted for about 0.7 percentage points of that 2% GDP increase
  • Economist David Malpass calculates that growth in private output was closer to 1.3%. The private economy isn’t “doing fine…
    • Non-housing related investment contracted by 1.3%.
    • But business investment is a leading indicator of future job and wage growth.

Finally,

  • [T]he typical growth rate at this stage of the previous nine recoveries (13 quarters) averaged 16.8%
  • The rate for this recovery is 7.2%.
  • That’s about $1.2 trillion in foregone output.

A Modern Concept of “Morality”

Leaving aside what led these folks to take on such debt in the first place, what a difference in the concepts of honor and morality is displayed below, both across generations and within the newer generation.  Think about what values were being taught….

On the one hand, we have these two examples [emphasis added].

Ms Cyndee Marcoux, a Massachusetts librarian, says she feels trapped.  She co-signed student loans for two of her three children—and both of them are struggling.  One, Jocelyn Marcoux, 30, says she has given up on paying back the loans that allowed her to graduate from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte in 2005.  An import-export agent for a freight company, she says she struggled to pay for child care and medical expenses for an autoimmune disease she developed.  “If I had known the amount of money I would have to pay a month, I wouldn’t have gone,” she says.

The younger Ms Marcoux feels she is taking a calculated risk, because her husband owns their home and she has little savings. “If they sue us, they can’t get anything,” she says.  But her mother sees things differently; she even moved in with her 83-year-old mother to pare expenses and make payments on Jocelyn’s loans.  “I have to,” she says. “I co-signed them.

So, the child quit and dumped the whole obligation onto her mother.  Having little of present value other than her income stream that can be taken by creditors, Marcoux the Younger feels no obligation to do the right thing, solely because it’s the right thing to do.  Yet her mother hasn’t quit, isn’t “taking a calculated risk,” and isn’t reneging on the joint obligation.  The mother understands the nature of commitment: “I have to.”  Even when there are no material consequences for not honoring it.

I also have to wonder two things: what was the mother teaching the daughter early on, and what prompted the daughter (and mother) to sign loans that they did not understand?

and

[G]randparents are getting pulled into the debt morass too; some of them co-signed when a student’s own parents didn’t qualify to help out.  Pam Gerke, a 49-year-old divorced fourth-grade teacher in Davison, MI, owes $98,000 on her own student loans—too much, she says, for her to co-sign her daughter’s loans for beauty school.  So Ms. Gerke’s mother, Darlene Kuhn, did so instead.

After the daughter dropped out and quit making the $200-a-month payments on her debt in 2010, the 72-year-old Ms. Kuhn took over. She says she fears her credit rating will fall, so she draws from the $1,400 a month she collects in Social Security—her only income since retiring.  “I tried to do a good deed,” she says.  Indeed, both Ms. Kuhn and Ms. Gerke say they are bitter about the whole experience. (The daughter declined to return phone messages.)  “My mother would rather not eat than not pay her bills,” Ms. Gerke says.  “I’m mortified as a mother and a daughter.”

Once again, the child feels no obligation to honor her commitments.  It’s too hard, apparently.  But morality and integrity aren’t too hard for her grandmother.

I have to wonder here, too, what values were being taught.  Also, how did the loan of the mother-between-the-grandmother-and-granddaughter get so large?

On the other hand, we have these [emphasis added].

Bob Stinson, 65, retired from his job as a FedEx Corp plane-maintenance scheduler in 2003.  Two years later, he co-signed for the first chunk of about $50,000 in student loans for his daughter Tiffany, a dental assistant with an associate degree.  Although Mr Stinson had stopped working due to degenerative arthritis, he and his wife were enjoying a comfortable retirement at their home outside Michigan City, MS, he says.

But after getting her bachelor’s degree, Tiffany Stinson had to sidetrack her plans to go to dental school to help her mom recover from serious surgery.  She says she stopped making her $1,200 monthly student loan payments when “I couldn’t pay for stuff right then.”  She has since resumed making partial payments….

A family emergency—not a personal convenience emergency—caused an interruption, but now the child, the primary borrower, is trying to catch up, instead of walking away and dumping it all on the co-signer.

And

[S]ome borrowers are simply working on paying off their debt faster—in part, to help get co-signers off the hook.  Valentina Fleer, a 29-year-old opera singer in New York, faithfully has made $864 monthly payments on about $90,000 in private student loans that helped her graduate from Barnard College and Manhattan School of Music in New York.  She says her father co-signed for some of the loans because “it was only way I could get the money.”

But her parents are Russian immigrants, and Ms Fleer says she didn’t feel that she or her parents fully understood their commitment when they applied for the loans.

“Today, she says, the debt “just hangs over me.  I make those payments because I don’t want any backlash hanging over them.

As before, I have to wonder why they made the loan commitments if they didn’t understand what they were doing.  But, more importantly, Ms Fleer is honoring her commitment and actively declining to dump it onto her co-signer.

Consumption and Inequality

Some on the left worry about income inequality as though that matters.  It is, though, equality of opportunity that provides everyone the path to increasing prosperity.  Even though we begin life with an equal endowment of inalienable rights—including the right to seek our own happiness as John Adams described it—it is the implementation of those rights, equality of opportunity, that lets us capitalize on and so to maximize, our unequal endowments of ability, temperament, luck.

One way to assess the increasing prosperity of all is to look at consumption.  Hassett and Mathur do this in their paper, “A New Measure of Consumption Inequality,” a copy of which can be found here.

Some numbers will illustrate.  First, a snapshot of the general situation:

Per cent of Total US Consumption

 

Year 2000

Year 2010

Bottom Fifth of Households by Pretax Income

8.9%

8.3%

Middle Fifth

17.3%

17.1%

Top Fifth

37.3%

38.6%

That’s remarkably stable.

Now, the trend in consumption:

Increase in US Consumption from 2000 to 2010

Bottom Fifth

14%

Middle Fifth

6%

Top Fifth

14.3%

Despite the recessions of the early 2000s and since 2008, household consumption actually has increased, and the bottom fifth by pretax income increased their consumption by quite a bit, despite the claimed unfairness of income inequality.

Now, some illustrative items of consumption, focusing on the bottom fifth of American households:

Per cent of Households with the Indicated Item

 

Year 2001

Year 2009

Computer

19.8%

47.7%

Dishwasher

17.6%

30.8%

Microwave

74.9%

92.4%

Washing Machine

57.2%

62.4%

Air-Conditioning Equipment

65.8%

83.5%

6 Rooms (Other than bath) in the House

21.9%

30.0%

 

Odd, that—overall relative share, by those unequal income groups, of consumption of items like these has remained quite stable across over time.  Moreover, despite that income inequality (which has grown, as it typically does, during recessions, does not act as a limiting factor in consumption capacity.  Apparently unequal incomes don’t matter that much to well-being.  Household quality of life for is improving for all groups.

Of course, this does not mean that the lower income groups don’t need help—they often do, especially during economic dislocations; their resource margins are much thinner.  But that help is most effective as temporary hands up, not in the form of permanent wealth redistribution programs.  The latter simply address a non-existent problem.