When my father passed away five years ago I was named the administrator of his estate. Dad was a widower, and his will stipulated that his estate would be distributed to his three children and four step-children. I remember one of the heirs made a comment to me about whether there would be anything to distribute once taxes had been paid. As a matter of fact, I responded, there would, since no tax would be levied on his estate at all.
My father was not a wealthy man, but he lived a very comfortable upper middle class lifestyle. Still, the total value of his estate at the time of his death was well below $1 million, the threshold below which no estate taxes were levied back then. From a financial standpoint, my siblings, step-siblings, and I received a nice, five digit bump in our finances that year, all tax free.
I was reminded of this experience this morning as I read the business section of the Chicago Tribune. This year, for the first time in nearly 100 years, there is no federal estate tax at all. That is great news for the heirs of George Steinbrenner. His estimated net worth at the time of his death earlier this week was $1.15 billion. Last year, Steinbrenner’s heirs would have distributed the healthy sum of $630,000,000 among themselves (not counting possible state taxes). This is the amount their inheritance would have been after federal estate taxes had been levied. As nice as $630,000,000 sounds, it’s nothing compared to what Steinbrenner’s heirs will receive now, since the billionaire Yankees owner chose this year to die. His heirs will now receive $1,150,000,000 (less possible state taxes). This is money that they personally did little or nothing to earn.
At the beginning of 2010, there were about 400 billionaires who were citizens of the United States. Four of those billionaires have died this year. One of them, Dan Duncan, had a net worth of $9.8 billion. The tax on his estate last year would have been $4.4 billion, leaving his heirs the healthy sum of $5.4 billion to share. Since Duncan died this year, however, they will share the entire $9.8 billion. Of course, as oilman Bunker Hunt famously said following his and his brother’s failed attempt to corner the silver market in the early 1980’s, “a billion dollars isn’t what it used to be.” (Bunker Hunt would have known all about the evils of estate taxes, since he inherited his wealth from his father, H.L. Hunt, and he still came out a billionaire.)
Due to the elimination of the estate tax on billionaires this year, the national treasury has received about $6,133,000,000 less from just four estates than it would have received last year. Add to this amount the value of estate taxes on the nation’s millionaires who have passed away this year, and the total would come to between $25,000,000,000 and $30,000,000,000.
This is about 30 times the total 2010 budget for the Small Business Administration. Think about that when you try to get a loan for your next entrepreneurial venture.
It is more than twice the total 2010 budget for the Department of the Interior. Think about that when you see the sad state of repair and lack of ranger services in some of our national parks, forests, and sea shores.
It is about the same or a little more than the 2010 budget for the Department of Energy. Think about that when you wonder why the United States does not invest more in alternative energy sources.
It is more than half the amount allocated to the Department of Education. Think about that when your school district eliminates music and arts programs, and you wonder why the United States is laying off qualified teachers rather than increasing pay so that we can attract the very best to this all-important profession.
It is almost half the amount budgeted for the Department of Transportation. Think about that the next time you drive on a crappy, poorly patched highway, or complain that Amtrak trains go only half as fast as the trains in Europe, Japan, and even China.
Don’t worry about the Department of Defense, though. The estate tax would have only funded about 5% of its $663 billion budget, an amount that is as large as the rest of the world’s defense spending combined.


Salon.com
Comments
Thanks for breaking this down. Let's hope things are better fixed next year.
George Steinbrenner took financial risks and became a very wealthy man as a result of his wisdom, luck, and business acumen. His children, on the the other hand, did not do anything to deserve that wealth other than have the good fortune to be born into that family.
Even with an estate tax, Steinbrenner's heirs will be very wealthy men and women inheriting hundreds of millions of dollars. Do they really need to add hundreds of millions more? Is our society better off that two or three individuals double their hundreds of millions of inheritance, or are we better off if half of it goes toward paying for things that benefit society as a whole?
^ ^
O O
---
The problem is not how much he was worth or how much each of his heirs will get. The point is that the money belonged to him to do with as he wished. It's not the governments money.
The government didn't earn it, invest it, put it at risk in a business, or anything else. All they are doing is hanging around like a pick pocket waiting on someone to die so they can collect their spoils.
Could the government use money to pay some bills? Sure look at the debt that has been run up over the last 100 years. They could also say the same thing you say to your kids when they want something you don't have the money for. NO.
But will they do that? No. They don't have the balls to say sorry NEA (or insert your favorite program here), you can't have any money this year. However, they won't do that. They will just hope your doctor lets you die next year.
And the heirs still receive a lot of money -- hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum.
You are seriously comparing this to a sales tax? Please!!
The redistribution of wealth at issue here is upward - from the middle class to the wealthy.
Do you think the government did anything to provide Steinbrenner with edcuated, healthy workers or prosperous customers? Protected their food or water supply? Safeguarded their working conditions? Ensured they had time to go to baseball games by enforcing some forty hour work week? Ensured they had the money by enforcing some sort of "minimum wage" law? Then you are clearly an idiot who doesn't understand that we live in a free market society.
They certainly didn't provide the regulatory mechanisms that allowed the Yankees to broadcast their games over the airwaves to millions of customers. The untrammeled free market decides who gets to use what portions of the broadcast spectrum.
All government does -- and all it can do -- is steal money from hard-working Americans, then use it to pay for abortions for gay illegal immigrants. Until you understand this, I'm not inviting you to my Tea Party.
And imagine, for a moment, that a cabal of billionaires got together and cornered all the cash in the country (except, maybe, for a few hundred dollars for each of us). Would it not be in the best interests of the country to tax it and redistribute it?
The problem was that in feudal England, large estates were falling to pieces, castles falling apart, and nobody was allowed to enter the land, develop it, build a new castle, plant crops or what have you, because the land was owned by family-X for perpetuity, even if family X was killed-off in a battle in France and there were no more living heirs. THere were bank accounts with hundreds of thousands of pounds of gold, accumulating interest, with nobody around to claim it.
The English King, favoring economic development, decided that if nobody claims said money or land or buildings for like 80 years or what have you, that the money goes to the state and it can keep the cash and auction off the land.
The NY TImes had a recent article about modern Estate law and how it has done away with the Rule against Perpetuities, thus bringing us closer to early-feudal conceptions of aristocracy and nobility, how capital and land can be "owned" by a family in perpetuity, with others excluded from using or possessing it, even if the family lives abroad and never manages the property, even if the family line is extinct and there is nobody there to claim it.
In so many ways, we are going back to decentralized, Feudal style economic and political arrangements. Its eerie, because very few people see this and when you say "feudal" to them, they dont think of a legal/economic system, but instead think of knights, dragons and medieval torture devices. Sad. They will become serfs and not even realize it...
How much would Steinbrunner's heirs have paid to the tax man? My guess is a hell of a lot less than (size of Estate) x (tax rate). There would be trusts and transfers and other means of reducing the tax bite.
Our tax code is far too complex. Everywhere there are thousands of pages of deductions, exemptions, special cases.