[lbo-talk] A New Name for "Estate Tax"?

[Michael Hoover]

>>> furuhashi.1 at osu.edu 02/17/06 9:50 PM >>>
it is probably  
impossible to teach Americans that the "estate tax" only taxes people  
who can and will hire multiple lawyers, accountants, and investment  
advisors to do estate planning.  The only asset most Americans have  
at the end of their lives is their home, their "real estate."  When  
they hear the term "estate tax," they probably hear it as a tax on  
their only "real estate," the house they live in, just because both  
terms have the word "estate" in them.
Liberals and leftists complained that conservatives re-christened the  
estate tax: the "death tax."  Criticism is probably misplaced.   
my hypothesis is that "estate tax" sounds no  
better than "death tax" to average American ears.
Liberals and leftists need a new name that clarifies who pays this  
tax: e.g., the top 1 percent tax. the hyper-rich tax, the billionaire  
tax, or some such name.
Yoshie Furuhashi
<<<<<>>>>

opportunity tax...

'equal' opportunity considered cornerstone of - what does one call
it - contemporary/modern/liberal/capitalist/political, heck, usually 
just democratic - in mainstream parlance - society, conservatives 
today even extol virtues of 'classlessness', meaning society in which 
individual effort not - obviously - as marx used term, one based on 
collective ownership...

both liberals and conservatives express belief in equality beyond
that which is 'formal', meaning status people ostensibly have
either as humans (that natural law/rights thing) or in eyes of law
(14th amendment equal protection/treatment thing in u.s.), neither
of which address their 'opportunities, the circumstances in which
they live and the chances/prospects available to them...

equality of opportunity concerns initial conditions, starting point of
folks' lives, consider use of sporting metaphors to convey sense of
'equal start' in life or that life should be played on 'equal playing
field', as such, concept of opportunity has ineqalitarian implications,
equal opportunity advocates neither expect nor intend all runners to
finish a race in line together simply because they left starting blocks
at same time...

indeed, 'equal start' ostensibly legitimizes unequal outcome, meaning
that unequal performance is pared down to differences in ability,
after all, premise/promise of equal opportunity comes down to
opportunity to become unequal...

what is called 'inheritance' - certainly beyond a particular level - violates
principle of equal opportunity in that it allows inequalities bred by social
circumtances (as, quite obviously, does poverty)...

while both liberals and conservatives are hypocritical where equal 
opportunity is concerned (i'd curtail inheritance much more sharply than
so-called 'estate' tax ever did with its imposition upon 1-2% of estates),
concept is attractive in offering prospect of removing obstacles standing
in way of individual development, a *right* that many/most people believe
all should possess...

in theory, both liberals and conservatives (and most folks, generally) accept/
promote idea that careers should be open to talent, that promotion should
be based on ability...

of course, family is one of major obstacles to equal opportunity, 'inheritance' 
(or lack thereoff) ensures that people do not have equal start in life, 'public' 
incursions into family is iffy in u.s. given 'sanctity' of family stuff, but 
'opportunity' tax is actually quite limited means of 'regulating' family life,
involving little state intervention, posing little 'threat' to individual freedom...
mh