Monday, Weekday with Steve Scher (KUOW m-f, 9-11a) will host an hour on I-920 and the estate tax with Bill Gates Sr. arguing against the sketchy roll-back attempt with Frank Blethen, the slightly unstable publisher of the Seattle Times.
Will it be a Slugfest of the Geezers? A King Kong vs Godzilla match-up? (or would that be King Coot vs Wackzilla)?
We're hearing, unfortunately, it won't.
We were excited that they'd be duking this out in a place where the hoi poloi could hear them. These guys are the leading proponents of argument on the subject of the estate tax- they've been matched up many times before- but it's usually in the Rainier Club or a Chamber luncheon or some other place a blogger doesn't have the clothes for.
We were fantasizing Blethen grabbing Bill's old turkey neck and yelling, "Death tax, you motherfucker!" but we've now heard that KUOW was touchy about it being characterized as a High Noon showdown, and tremblingly insisted that Gates and Blethen have a sober, thoughtful discussion.
But an insider told BlatherWatch, "It will still be must-listen radio. There's at least a 25 percent chance that Blethen's head will explode within five minutes of coming into contact with the all-but-divine Gates Sr.
I-920 is the initiative to repeal the state's only progressive tax- the estate tax. It's another one of those efforts by some rich guy bankrolling a piece of legislation that would benefit his bottom line.
This time it's Martin Selig, the real estate gazillionaire who has hired Dennis Falk, a disgraced ex-Seattle cop and John Bircher to run the campaign. Read all about this right-wing travesty here or here.
Why burn bandwidth with old stupid cut and paste? We know you can do better - you might as well quote Styblehead for us.
Posted by: meow | October 20, 2006 at 09:34 AM
yeah Brian- you've got a mind- write something original, or get your own blog so you can pay for the bandwidth posting old e-mail jokes. It wasn't that funny 3 years ago, when it first made the rounds.
Posted by: blathering michael | October 20, 2006 at 11:04 AM
I had to cut a check to the IRS and the state department of revenue when my parents died (this was in 2000, before there was *any* reform of the estate tax--my parents' estate was obviously larger than the average American's, but in 2000 the exemption was $675K, not $2M). And I lean libertarian. So you'd think I'd be all for this--but am voting no. I think it's a terrible idea. Why?
1) If there HAS to be an estate tax, let it be levied at the state level, not the federal level.
2) If this passes, the rich will STILL have to pay estate tax to the feds. As it currently stands, state estate tax is mostly credit against federal estate tax--so I don't think this will actually save the rich much, if at all--and the money will go to DC instead of Olympia.
3) Reform is better than repeal in this case, I think... I'd still like to see estates able to discharge their tax liability after death by donation to charity...
Posted by: lukobe | October 20, 2006 at 11:55 AM
I'd like the cutoff to be around $5 million . . . anybody with property or a small business probably reaches $5 million pretty easily. I know that seems like a lot to those of us who are still working on our first million, but it really isn't. Look at how much real estate and other assets have increased in value in just the last ten years . . .
I don't begrudge families the ability to leave assets behind. I'm for taxing the estates of the really rich which are well beyond even $5 million. But, I think $5 million is still fair to tax.
Also, I appreciate Gates campaign against the repeal of the estate tax. But, really now, does his son have to worry about money? Ever? I think Gates knows he can afford to take the high road here . . .
I am not voting to repeal the tax even if I want it changed.
Posted by: joanie | October 20, 2006 at 06:22 PM
Isnt Gates saying that he thinks his kids SHOULD pay taxes on what they inherit because they will have grown up in the lap of luxury?
Posted by: sparky | October 20, 2006 at 08:10 PM
You could tax Bill's Children 100 per cent and they would make it with their smarts, wit and education.
Posted by: Mike Barer | October 21, 2006 at 12:30 AM
Sparky, that's exactly what he's saying.
I'm saying that Junior would still be a billionire regardless how much money he had to pay for his dad's estate. And his sisters will never have to worry either.
Compare that with the parents of children who expect to take over mom and dad's business or property management or other smaller estate to continue to make it.
That's why I'm concerned that we tax the established wealthy and not ask kids to start over completely or risk losing a small business when parents die.
A lot has been written lately - in response to the disappearance of the middle class and hardship minorities are having building wealth - that wealth is built inter-generationally. One generation gets a house and the next uses the equity in the house to get another one or start a business or whatever.
But it takes an asset to get another asset . . . unless, of course, you are - as Mike sort of said - a very talented person. If your asset is your creativity, talent or some other special means, you may make it anyway. But, a lot of talented people fail just as people who inherit money don't always keep it.
Still, generational help is one way ordinary hard-working people can create wealth that grows as it is handed down.
Also, Bill went to public schools until Lakeside. If you read about Lakeside, you will find that they were on the cutting edge of computers way before public schools had the means to get on board. It was through help from the wealthy clientele of Lakeside that computers and computer training was introduced at Lakeside very early.
Imagine what some of our kids could have done if they had had that opportunity. So Bill's ability to start Microsoft was definitely aided by his financial ability to attend Lakeside - an expensive private school. And, dad's ability as a lawyer, guaranteed a contract with IBM (if my memory serves me well) that was airtight and kept Bill in the game.
I remember discussions in those years how IBM lawyers drew up contracts that weren't nearly so beneficial to subcontractors and others.
So, back to the point of estate taxes, I just don't want to take away from families who are on tract to create lasting wealth that ability to keep building it. Once they get to the $5m or $10m mark, taxing them heavily seems fair to me. By then, the kids should have the money, the assets and the expertise to handle it. A family-estate plan should be sitting next to the business plan.
I don't begrudge these people their money and I don't want to see business/property sold if it can be helped.
Sorry, I didn't intend this to be so long. Wish I had a dollar for every word I've posted on Blather . . . :)
Posted by: joanie | October 21, 2006 at 11:01 AM