F
fakename
Guest
Is it absolutely necessary that the rich pay their fair share tax-wise?
Just wondering, if this is a magisterial issue or if it is not.
Just wondering, if this is a magisterial issue or if it is not.
Is it absolutely necessary that the rich pay their fair share tax-wise?
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I would think so. Of course, the debate is about how much constitutes a fair share.
For example, the rich pay 15% on capital gains. So do the middle class. So do the poor. The rich, of course, are more apt to have capital gains than the others. Do we increase the tax on capital gains for everyone? (And in the process discourage capital investment?) Or do we tax capital gains at different amounts depending on the total amount received?
Do we tax interest income at the same rate as wages and salaries? A widow living on interest income will be adversely affected by a higher tax rate, a rich person not so much.
But actually, I don’t think that it is a magisterial issue. Tax rates seldom are.
For example, the rich pay 15% on capital gains. So do the middle class. So do the poor. The rich, of course, are more apt to have capital gains than the others. Do we increase the tax on capital gains for everyone? (And in the process discourage capital investment?) Or do we tax capital gains at different amounts depending on the total amount received?
Do we tax interest income at the same rate as wages and salaries? A widow living on interest income will be adversely affected by a higher tax rate, a rich person not so much.
But actually, I don’t think that it is a magisterial issue. Tax rates seldom are.
E
Erich
Guest
The Fifth Commandment tells us, “Honor thy father and thy mother” – and it is because of this Commandment that CCC 2234 tells us, “God’s fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it.” This means we must obey all legitimate authority.
CCC 2240 tells us:
Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country
ay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47
That said, CCC 2236 tells us, “The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.”
But… as the previous poster alluded to, what constitutes a fair share? From this article:
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
…
There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially. What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen.
…
Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class? No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago.
CCC 2240 tells us:
Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country
ay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46
The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47
That said, CCC 2236 tells us, “The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.”
But… as the previous poster alluded to, what constitutes a fair share? From this article:
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
…
There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially. What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. For example, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of total taxes paid—has risen.
…
Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class? No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago.
F
fakename
Guest
Actually, having looked it up, I’m pretty sure that it isn’t a magisterial issue since it seems absurd that a tax policy as such, would be a matter of Church teaching: after all the middle ages didn’t have a progressive tax system.
The progressivity of a tax is measured by distributive justice and that doesn’t imply a progressive tax in the sense that I seem to be using it.
For instance, the rich should pay more since they were favored by society and so should contribute to the social burdens greater (right?). So therefore, even a flat tax would work since 4% on 1 million is greater than 4% on 10?
The progressivity of a tax is measured by distributive justice and that doesn’t imply a progressive tax in the sense that I seem to be using it.
For instance, the rich should pay more since they were favored by society and so should contribute to the social burdens greater (right?). So therefore, even a flat tax would work since 4% on 1 million is greater than 4% on 10?
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
And of course there is also the matter of defining both “fair” and “rich.”
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Everyone should pay their fair share rich and not so rich alike.“render unto God what is God’s,render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s”…
M
Marie77
Guest
If it is not in the “CCC 2nd Ed”, it is not a teaching of the Magisterium.
Jesus never taught “forced redistribution of wealth”.
Those of us who are not rich cannot “covet thy neighbors goods”, or support the “stealing of our neighbor’s goods” through - forced redistribution of wealth.
We all have an obligation to help our family members and the poor to the best of our ability.
Greed is sinful.
We must pay our taxes, and VOTE for politicians who are fair and not morally corrupt. As voters in the USA, we determine our elected officials and judges.
CCC - “1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”
CCC - "1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.
CCC - "2411 Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons and between institutions in accordance with a strict respect for their rights.
Commutative justice obliges strictly; it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted.
Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.
One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community, and from **distributive justice which regulates **what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs.
The real problem is government waste, unneeded government programs, abuses and corruption in decent government programs, too many federal employees (wages, benefits and retirement costs), etc.
This all wastes/costs billions.
We are now over $15 Trillion dollars in debt, with no end is sight.
This all needs to be turned around through the election process so that we can help only those truly in need, rather than those looking for a free ride.
J
JackQ
Guest
I don’t know if it’s a magisterial issue, but if you want to adequately fund government as we know it in the U.S. we’ll have to have a tax hike on the wealthy. Of course, we could always just become a banana republic, then we won’t have to do that. But if I’m going to live in a banana republic, then I’m going to need warmer weather than where I live now, specifically, in a place where bananas grow.
1
1ke
Guest
No it is not a magesterial issue. What makes you think it is?
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
- Interest is taxed at the same rate as other ordinary income (including wages). There are basically two exceptions: a.) Municipal Bond interest (not taxed by the federal government or the state issuing the bond–i.e. California will tax interest paid on Oregon muni bonds.) and b.) Treasury Interest which is not taxed by the states–though it is tax by the federal government.
Lets restrict the reduced rate to those who actually take there capital and start a new business, invest in a start up business, or provide additional capital to an existing company to help it expand or stay in business, but lets not give it to people who simply swap existing paper shares.
That’s my two cents.
Mark
S
sedonaman
Guest
I have looked at the IRS data on numbers of tax returns and amounts paid for the quintiles and found, surprise! surprise!, those above median income pay ALL the income taxes. The inescapable conclusion is that according to the government, these are what constitute “the rich”.
“Fair” is highly subjective, and each person has a different definition. It implies strongly that they are not paying all of their fair share. It also ignores the fact that the rich are powerful because of their wealth and will use their power to escape high taxes. When Microsoft was just getting really big, they did no lobbying, and suddenly became the subject of an anti-trust suit by the government. The following year, they learned their lesson and lobbied. Conclusion: high taxes are an incentive to lobby. The rich can also pass the added taxes to those of us lower on the economic pyramid. We will then find the average taxpayer will have his taxes go up. If you doubt this, all you need do is compare the original 1916 tax tables with one from the '60s and ask how the average Joe got into the 48% tax bracket.
If the government actually succeeds in confiscating more of their wealth, there will be less for them to provide capital to create/expand business. IOW, you can’t punish the rich and wonder where the jobs went.
One thing we must remember is that the Church is universal and speaks to many countries, not just America. So when the Church says that taxes should be levied on those who can afford to pay, she is probably addressing those nations that tax the poor.
J
JimG
Guest
I understand your position. It seems though, that restricting the lower cap-gains rate to those who actually invest in new or existing businesses would mainly benefit venture capitalists, who are already rich. The idea has merit, but it would sure lead to more complaints from the occupy wall street crowd. Also, it would deny the lower tax rate to a lot of middle class people who use 401-K’s and pension plans to accumulate retirement savings.
As for interest, I think maybe it should not be taxed at all. I know some older widows who really are dependent on this income. When the Fed reduces rates on savings from 4% to 1%, their income is cut by 75%.
M
manualman
Guest
It’s is practically Exhibit A under the definition of “prudential judgement.”
Nevertheless, I have a strong opinion and y’all get to hear it!
I find it the most absurd of stupidity to argue that taxing capital gains the same as wages will “discourage investment.” If that is true, then will not the higher taxes on wages (especially the middle and upper brackets) “discourage working hard?”
It looks pretty clear cut to me that capital gains is all about making sure those already rich stay that way at the expense of those who aren’t.
Nevertheless, I have a strong opinion and y’all get to hear it!
I find it the most absurd of stupidity to argue that taxing capital gains the same as wages will “discourage investment.” If that is true, then will not the higher taxes on wages (especially the middle and upper brackets) “discourage working hard?”
It looks pretty clear cut to me that capital gains is all about making sure those already rich stay that way at the expense of those who aren’t.
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I got off on a tangent so don’t take anything below personally as a response to anything you said specifically.
Is there a time when the wealthiest americans didn’t shoulder the vast majority of the income tax burden? Compare the rates and brackets since its adoption in 1913 and tell me when this was not true? Why not make the same comparisons you do above with data prior to 1980? It might be interesting and instructive?
What are the poorest americans going to pay that tax with? According to the IRS summary of individual income tax data for 2009 the bottom 50% of taxpayers had just 13.5% of the nations adjusted gross income and paid 2.3% of the income tax. The income split point for this group was $32,396 in adjusted gross income–that’s the maximum income anyone in this group made and you could probably safely bet that the majority made quite a bit less than that. After you take away 7.65% social security and medicare for that year–just what would you have them pay tax with? What would be fair? Should they go hungry so that the rich can pay a lower tax rate? Just how squalid do you want there housing to be? I don’t get all the angst over this. Rates on the richest americans have fallen from a high of 90% to todays high of 35% and somehow they’re still being robbed and treated unfairly. Really? The person being treated unfaily–is the person who used to make a decent living working at the shoe factory–who had his job shipped to Asia because some business owner can use cheap (read practically slave) labor and child labor, and factories that are not required to meet the same enviromental regulations, etc., etc., etc. The person being treated unfairly is the rank and file worker who watched their wages stagnate while the executives of the companies lined their pockets with exhorbitant salaries–often while running a company into the ground. There’s another course of study --compare executive compensation to that of the average worker over the past 60 years–and then tell me just who is being treated unfairly?
Here is one of the cunards I always hear: When Regan cut income taxes government revenues doubled. The implication is that income tax collections went up–which is not true–they actually declined after the cuts. It is true that government revenue went up–but that is due in part to a social security/medicare tax increase. It seems disingenious to claim that revenues went up in the 80’s because of the income tax rate decrease when we raised the social security rate. I am sorry I don’t have the actual numbers handy–they’re at home. I also believe that if you check the history prior to the 1980’s you will see government revenues doubling each decade regardless of the tax rates–another reason why it is unfair to assert that the Regan tax cuts led to a doubling of revenue in the 1980’s. To paraphrase Newt: “I know among [conservatives] you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable” Here is the uncomfortable fact–non of us want to pay taxes, yet all of us want the government services–we want decent roads and safe bridges, we want our kids educated, we want our possessions protected, we want sewer and safe water at our house, we want safe food, we want courts and jails, we want our borders secured. And I guarantee that if you lost your job tomorrow and you couldn’t find another job you’d want unemployment also. We just don’t want to pay for it. Here’s another uncomfortable fact–america created jobs and had healthy ecomomic growth rates even when tax rates were higher. People still started businesses and worked hard–no one looks at the tax rate and says oh I’m not going to try to work for myself, to make a better living, to make more money–because my tax rate will be too high.
Anyway…
Peace,
Mark
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I’m not sure I agree. None of the businesses we work with has received any money from a venture capitalist. They started out of someones home, or someone took their life savings and started a new business or bought a business or franchise, or they borrowed money from a bank to do the same. I think it would benefit many small mom and pop businesses. I am not sure the occupy wall street crowd would object to this.
And those people saving in 401(k) and pension plans don’t pay income tax on their earnings–so they already effectively receive a -0-% rate on all the income their retirement plan makes.
As for your argument for interest–couldn’t I say–this about any type of income? I’m really dependent on my wages. When I lost my good paying job and had to take a low paying job Iost 75% of my income–maybe it shouldn’t be taxed? I guess I am just not sure why there should be a distinction here.
Peace,
Mark
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I have looked at the IRS data on numbers of tax returns and amounts paid for the quintiles and found, surprise! surprise!, those above median income pay ALL the income taxes. The inescapable conclusion is that according to the government, these are what constitute “the rich”.
What years data are you looking at? I see no year in which this is true. Virtually all–I’ll give you that but not all. As of 2009 97.3% but not 100%. Your conclusion seems far from inescapable.
“Fair” is highly subjective, and each person has a different definition. Absolutely. It implies strongly that they are not paying all of their fair share. It also ignores the fact that the rich are powerful because of their wealth and will use their power to escape high taxes. When Microsoft was just getting really big, they did no lobbying, and suddenly became the subject of an anti-trust suit by the government. The following year, they learned their lesson and lobbied. Conclusion: high taxes are an incentive to lobby.
Could you explain how this is the conclusion from the Microsoft story? An anti-trust suit has nothing to do with taxation. I could understand the conclusion being: Wanting to force all competitiors out of business by blackmailing computer manufactures is an incentive to lobby–the taxes thing just seems like a non sequitur.
The rich can also pass the added taxes to those of us lower on the economic pyramid. We will then find the average taxpayer will have his taxes go up. If you doubt this, all you need do is compare the original 1916 tax tables with one from the '60s and ask how the average Joe got into the 48% tax bracket. Could you elaborate what you mean? And I’m currious about your definition for “the average Joe” the 48% tax bracket covered 1965-1969 (in the 60’s) in order to get into that bracket you needed taxable income of $40-44,000 and if you adjust that for inflation that’s in the range of $244-313,000 depending on the year. That’s a far cry from the “average Joe”. In actuality the average Joe if his family made the medium income for 1968 of $8,630 (and thats before allowable deductions and exemptions) would have paid tax at graduated rates ranging from 14% to a max of 22%.
Why did you chose 1916 (its not the orginal – I beleive you want 1913 for that) was it because it had a relatively low top rate of 15%? Of course the following year, 1917, that top rate jumped to 67%. That top rate bounced around quite a bit in early years. But lets work with 1916. Couldn’t quickly find the median income for 1916 but I did find the average salary for the decade was $750 a year. The personal exemption for a single person was $3,000 and for a married couple $4,000. So you needed to make more than that in order to be subject to income tax in 1916 at a rate of 2%. Taxable incomes above $20,000 were subject to an additional tax. The average Joe would have paid no income tax.
So first the average Joe did not get into a 48% tax bracket in the 1960’s and I am unclear how this proves the rich will pass their taxes on to us? This looks more like the government expanding it’s tax base i.e. lowering the point at which your income is subject to taxation. I see nothing that indicates the tax rates on the rich were reduced as this expansion of the tax base took place–thereby shifting the tax burden–can you elaborate?
If the government actually succeeds in confiscating more of their wealth, there will be less for them to provide capital to create/expand business. IOW, you can’t punish the rich and wonder where the jobs went. We can debate this–how many of the rich actually invest their money in businesses and provide capital to them. Many do, but many also just invest in paper–in things like IBM,Walmart and Microsoft stock. This provides no capital to those companies. Many businesses start in the garages, basements, and homes of people who are not “rich” and these people grow their businesses slowly and hopefully create jobs and become rich along the way. Finally taxes are not “punishment”. The rich benefit most from the taxes–they transport their products on our highways, they have a stable society in which to sell their goods and/or ply their trade, they have a relatively educated workforce, they have a society that protects their wealth from theft, they make much greater use of our legal system, they register trademarks and patents and have those protected, and one could go on–for this they pay taxes. That is hardly punishment.
S
sedonaman
Guest
The original tax tables for 1913 are on the 1040 for that year:
When the net income shown above on line 3 exceeds $20,000, the additional tax thereon must be calculated as per schedule below:
INCOME. TAX.
1 per cent on amount over $20,000 and not exceeding $50,000
2 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .” 50,000 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ” 75,000
3 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .” 75,000 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ” 100,000
4 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .” 100,000 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ” 250,000
5 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .” 250,000 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ” 500,000
6 “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .” 500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thank you. The difference between “virtually all” and “all” [2.7%] is not that significant in my mind, so my conclusion seems reasonable to me.
Of course that’s one of the incentives for the business, but the goal of the politician is to raise money for re-election.
If businesses successfully lobby to get their effective taxes lowered, who makes up the difference? It has to be those who cannot afford to lobby, IOW, those of us on the bottom who cannot pass them on.
My mistake. From memory, I meant 1913, the first year of the income tax. Besides 1913, the earliest tax schedule I have is for 1969. While the average Joe would have paid nothing in 1913, his rate went up significantly between then and the 1960s, which is my whole point.
I included state income taxes in my figure. As I said about business above, if the rich escape taxes, who makes up the difference?
I think this is a mistaken idea. Stocks are not just pieces of “paper” any more than the deed to your house is just a piece of paper. I think you are looking at only the visible. Companies do care what their shares are selling for because a lot of them own their own shares, plus a higher price per share allows a company to borrow more and expand than shares that a lower in price. No?
Then why are we discussing the topic of this thread instead of something like, “Should we raise taxes on everyone to balance the budget?” About 20 years ago, the *Wall Street Journal *carried an article [wish I’d kept a copy] about a study that showed that the average person is willing to hurt even himself just to “stick it” to the rich. It seems to me there is a lot of envy and more than a little psychology going on in the way taxes are levied.
M
manualman
Guest
I have a better example for you on this front. Here in Illinois we have democratic governor and legislators that like to paint themselves as realy populist men of the regular guys. They recently jacked up taxes in this state by 66% (and still can’t balance the budget). They made a big deal about how the rich and the corporations were going to be paying their fair share.
But the reality is the opposite. The tax increases went through on everybody. But the enormous corporations with the deep pockets immediately lined up and started demanding exceptions or they would leave the state. And they are generally GETTING them. So the end result with the Democrats is exactly the same as what they accuse the republicans of: The well connected get the breaks, the tax increases only come for the middle class guys with no direct influence. Same reason so many working salarymen pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffet. They get to pay at 15%. The guys working for a paycheck in a skilled field pay more. Makes zero sense.
S
sedonaman
Guest
To understand why, you have to think like a politician. Back about the time Californians were recalling Gov. Gray Davis because of the dire financial straits the state was in, the federal government offered $3 B to help them out. What did the legislature do? It retrieved $3 B in new spending plans that had been shelved due to lack of money before the offer.
Thx. That’s why I think of politicians as “ThOpp-ers” – Think Opposite of what they say to learn the truth.So, I rest my case.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but Buffett takes a little over 100,000 in actual dollars as a salary; he takes over $1M in stocks which he sells and then qualifies for the capital gains rate of 15%.
Another thing about Buffett. There is no mystery as to why Buffett says the rich should be taxed more. From the GEICO website: “In 1996, GEICO became a wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, headed by Warren Buffett, one of the country’s most successful investors.” geico.com/about/corporate/at-a-glance
One way the rich have been able to avoid high death taxes is to buy life insurance. Life insurance benefits pass tax-free to the policyholder’s beneficiaries [IOW, heirs].
GEICO sells life insurance: “Life insurance helps provide you peace of mind and can provide your family with financial stability and security when it matters most.” geico.com/getaquote/life.
So Buffett stands to gain from high death taxes by selling more life insurance to rich people. This will increase the value of GEICO stock. Needless to say, he can avoid those taxes by buying some insurance for himself.
Nothing like being able to feather your own nest. Apparently, it is more profitable for Buffett, et al, to lobby for special favors than to actually make money the old fashioned way.
So, it makes sense if you help write the rules.
- Status