> Tyler Cowen writes in the WSJ, “ It isn't clear that the estate tax raises much, if any, revenue. The very rich engage in tax-avoidance strategies. The appare

> Tyler Cowen writes in the WSJ, “ It isn't clear that the estate tax raises much, if any, revenue. The very rich engage in tax-avoidance strategies. The apparent revenue raised is often offset by a lower intake from income and capital gains taxes. Furthermore, it has been estimated that the costs of implementing tax-avoidance strategies are roughly equal to the (gross) revenue raise.” Cowen is merely repeating the talking points of the propaganda campaign against the estate tax planned in the mid-90s: Yet in order to win over a specific audience to the issue, conservative discourse began to shift toward another frame,[1] as can be seen in important reports on the estate tax written by conservative analyst Bill Beach. Beach had been specifically brought to the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, thanks to funds raised by Alabama estate planner Harold Apolinsky, who formed the American Family Business Institute (AFBI) in 1992 to lobby against the estate tax. ... In a 1996 backgrounder ... [Beach] offered three main arguments for repeal: the estate tax is a diminishing source of revenue; it fails to achieve its purported goals of wealth redistribution; and the tax does more harm than good in lost productivity, lost jobs, and decreased revenue through other taxation.[2] As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Beach was also the source of the myth that small businesses and family farms were suffering from the tax, and the same campaign carefully developed the term 'death tax', which they credit with much of their success. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, the cited article will change forever how you read political commentary on any issue, as you realize that much of it, including by unwitting lay people, is parroting propaganda developed by special interests. > ... even if this premise is not true (that there’d a positive net difference in the revenue raised), that’s assuming that the rich will maintain the same level of spending before they die, which may not be the case if they will get taxed on it when they die. This seems very speculative. I've heard so many arguments with a similar argument: 'don't tax the wealthy or they will do X'. For example, the Reagan administration and others at the time argued that reducing taxes on the wealthy would increase their productive use of the funds, causing wealth to 'trickle down' to everyone else. As it turned out, cutting taxes on the wealthy (and thereby relatively increasing the burden on everyone else) made the wealthy wealthier (surprise!), and everyone else's income has been stagnent since then. The wealthy need to do their fair share and make the same sacrifice as everyone else; they are not a special case. ---- [1] "frame", as in a way to 'frame' an issue or debate [2] "Death and Taxes: Issue Framing and Conservative Coalition Maintenance" by Richard Meagher: https://www.psqonline.org/article.cfm?IDArticle=19132 https://www.psqonline.org/article.cfm?IDArticle=19132