Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Sunday, April 02, 2017


Why we have an inheritance tax

by Tom Sullivan

Inheritance taxes date back to ancient Egypt, according to several sources. The earliest of several short-lived inheritance taxes in the United States date back to its founding, the last of those being rescinded in 1902. The Internal Revenue Service explains what happened next:

The years immediately following the repeal of the inheritance tax were witness to an unprecedented number of mergers in the manufacturing sector of the economy, fueled by the development of a new form of corporate ownership, the holding company. This resulted in the concentration of wealth in a relatively small number of powerful companies and in the hands of the businessmen who headed them. Along with such wealth came great political power, fueling fears over the rise of an American plutocracy and sparking the growth of the progressive movement. Progressives, including President Theodore Roosevelt, advocated both an inheritance tax and a graduated income tax as tools to address inequalities in wealth. This thinking eventually led to the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and the enactment of the Federal income tax. It was not until the advent of another war, World War I, that Congress would enact the Federal estate tax.
Winston Churchill observed that death duties are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich.”

The topic comes up this morning on the news that Donald Trump's 36 year-old son-in-law, Jared Kushner, will oversee a White House Office of American Innovation to "overhaul the federal government" and "fix government with business ideas." The government desperately needs this, Stephen Colbert quipped, because "somebody keeps putting totally unqualified people in charge of really important stuff."

"The government should be run like a great American company," Kushner told the press. His "SWAT team of business executives" (Washington Post) will, Matthew Norman of The Independent snarks, "apply the commercial mores that have done so much for US wage growth and job security." Perhaps Kushner will also sort out the Israel-Palestine question on his lunch break.

Kushner, as Colbert points out, was born into a wealthy real estate family and married into a wealthy real estate family. He got into Harvard "despite poor grades" the same year his father donated $2.5 million to the school and made "similar one-off donations to Cornell and Princeton." This makes him well-prepared to teach America how to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. To advise the Office of American Innovation, Kushner has recruited "Apple chief executive Tim Cook, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Salesforce chief executive Marc Benioff and Tesla founder and chief executive Elon Musk."

When Kushner bought the New York Observer in 2006, he hired Gawker founding editor Elizabeth Spiers as editor-in-chief. On Thursday, Speirs offered her observations on Kushner's qualifications for his latest White House job.

At the Observer Speirs inherited an office computer of Kushner's: a recent-vintage Mac loaded, counterintuitively, with a Windows operating system. Her IT tech explained that Kushner preferred the Windows OS, but liked the Apple box for its design:
“So he was basically using a $2,500 desktop as a monitor?” I asked. The IT guy shrugged.
It was a vanity object for Kushner, and a metaphor for his view of the Observer. Speirs explains that even after the paper had its first profitable quarter, Kushner wanted to lay off staff to further goose the returns. He would not put money into the paper to build for the future, saying, “Why should I put more money into the Observer when I could invest in a software company?”

Why buy a newspaper and expect it to work like a software company? Speirs asks. She suggests Kushner in his new role will again attempt to misapply to government lessons from industry that don't apply, say, to maintaining a nuclear arsenal. This is the same forward-looking bureaucrat whose office expects to be "modernizing the technology and data infrastructure of every federal department and agency" when those offices, Speirs suggests, are still using floppy disks because Congress won't appropriate the money for the upgrades.

Kushner’s claim to business knowledge, beyond admiring Silicon Valley, boils down to his work for his family’s commercial real estate company, which is hardly comparable to a government institution. And if industry dynamics are not transitive across the board, expertise isn’t, either.

On that count, I don’t even know how to quantify Kushner’s expertise, anyway. Yes, he ran the company — which he inherited, not uncommon in New York’s dynastic, insular real estate world. But he was sure he had the goods. When I worked for him, I didn’t think he had a realistic view of his own capabilities since, like his father-in-law, he seemed to view his wealth and its concomitant accoutrements as rewards for his personal success in business, and not something he would have had in any case. To me, he appeared to view his position and net worth as the products of an essentially meritocratic process.
Speirs concludes, "You could construe my evaluation as a reasonable observation by an outsider with a set of 'fresh eyes,' but you’d be nuts to hand me a billion-dollar commercial real estate company because of it." Or appoint someone to remake American government who doesn't know how it works.

Churchill gets the "idle rich" wrong, or else England's rich are not as insatiable as America's. The problem with the "idle rich" here is not their propensity to drop out of the labor force. It is inflated egos that convince them their wealth is proof of capabilities that are not there, and that encourage them to seek greater fame and fortune mucking about in affairs for which they are ill-prepared. Donald Trump and his family are proving the Dunning-Kruger effect is not limited to individuals with limited education.

Here's how the Office of American Innovation might present itself on television: