Let us not neglect the fact that the *Estate* tax (there is no inheritance tax) collects about $30b a year right now, so it isn't doing much in the way of redistributing wealth. What's more, regressive loopholes in the income tax are huge compared to Estate tax revenue. I even surprized myself when I did this:
http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/snapshots/archive/2002/0417/snap04172002.h tml mbs > > > > >Democratic foes of repeal advocate the redistribution of wealth, ``an > >old Marxist idea that has been rejected everywhere in the world but > >still has appeal'' in the United States, Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said > >Tuesday as debate began. > > Good old Gramm, past master in the uses of the Big Lie in political > rhetoric. Gramm's comment is, of course, stunningly and redundantly > contrary to fact, most obviously because most other developed countries > engage in much more redistribution of wealth than the US (though I was > distressed to learn that Italy has repealed its inheritance tax). > Second, > "redistribution of wealth" is not only not a specifically Marxist idea > (much too timid a social change from a Marxist standpoint), but it's one > that obviously precedes Marx (e.g., an article in the most recent > American > Prospect notes that pre-Marxist James Madison wrote in favor of > progressive > redistribution to combat social stratification). > > Propagandist Gramm has also been flogging the "death tax" chestnut, even > arguing the "immorality" of "taxing death," oblivious to the fact that > although 100% of the U.S. population (eventually) die, only 2% pay the > inheritance tax. > > And yet Democrats largely cede the moral high ground to reactionary > ideologues like Gramm by not challenging such absurd claims. > > Gil >
