INHERITANCE TAXES' MORAL BASIS

It is understandable that U. S. senators, all
but three or four of whom are millionaires,
wish to shield their heirs (and other rich
folks') from inheritance taxes. By doing so,
they are continuing the process begun in the
Reagan administration of shifting taxes from
the wealthy to the already overburdened
middle class. It goes along with the prevailing
social Darwinism of the day. You can't really
blame them. You don't blame a coyote for
stealing chickens. It's his nature. You blame
whomever leaves the hen house open!

Much of the present confusion about finan-
cial entitlement comes from a popular mis-
understanding of economics. Peter Drucker
(in Post-Capitalist Society), points out that
"There is no such thing as 'profit.' There are
only costs: costs of the past (which the accoun-
tant records) and costs of the uncertain future.
And the minimum financial return from the
operations of the past that is adequate to the
costs of the future is the cost of capital."
People can amass fortunes by holding back for
themselves the future costs on resources,
environment, and human populations arising
from their activities and irresponsibility.

The billions of dollars of taxpayers' money now
required to clean up thousands of toxic waste
dumps are only the tip of the iceberg. And that
doesn't speak to the costs in health and lives
due to those sites and other pollution. There
isn't a city in the U. S. of over 100,000 people
that drinks pure water from public sources.
And there are very few under that size that do.

If we ever clean up our rivers and streams, that
will entail an additional public expenditure of
colossal proportions. Some folks got very rich
dumping their toxic trash into our air, land and
water. Now we all get to pay for it. Is that fair?
And inheritance taxes to help pay a share of
those costs are unfair? Give me a break! (You
have no more right to pollute the air I breathe
than I have to urinate in your drinking water!)

Certainly, not all rich people are polluters,
(though there are few that aren't corporate stock-
holders.) Some adjustment in inheritance taxes
may be legitimate, but their complete elimination
is neither called for, nor fair. It is one thing to
protect family farms and businesses that could
be threatened by taxes. That, clearly, should be
done. It is another thing to shelter huge fortunes
built on government (taxpayer) subsidies and
cost-plus contracts. Every major industry
continues to break environmental and workplace
safety laws. Under this administration, they do it
openly, with impunity.

All of our major industries have been financed
at one time or another in whole or in part, by the
taxpayers. If you want to see how this worked
for the railroads, read The Robber Barons, by
Mathew Josephson. Bill Gates' fortune rests on
the computer industry, whose basic research
and development was paid for by our friendly
government, during and after World War II.
The Department of Defense, at our expense,
also developed (with Al Gore's encouragement,)
the Internet. Gates was smart enough to hitch
a ride on these technologies, and should be re-
warded accordingly. (He also has been found, by
a federal judge, to have been breaking the law,
along the way.) Shouldn't we taxpayers also
benefit for our part in Mr. Gates' good fortune?

The same is true of wealthy farmers in Calif. (and
elsewhere) who depend on government irrigation
developments. Without that water (now needed
more and more by the cities), their land is close to
worthless. Boeing would not have started up in
Seattle without cheap electric power from the
Bonneville Dam built by the federal government
during the great depression, and cheap aluminum
powered by the same BPA.

The government built airports for the airlines, and
interstates for the truckers (and motel chains). The
interstate highway system also gave rise to rapid
growth of the suburbs, housing, the auto industry,
and all the supporting industries. And on and on.

There is no self-made man or woman. The G. I.
Bill educated millions of veterans, lifting many of
them from the working class into the professions.
It led to a knowledge explosion that continues
today, resulting in widely shared economic growth.
Peter Drucker credits the G. I. Bill as the most
important single factor in our econmic expansion
and prosperity following WW II.

The public paid heavily for all of this, and is still
paying. Shouldn't we be reimbursed for some
part of our investment? Let's set a reasonable
cap (say $10 million) on a family's exemption
from inheritance tax, and give the bulk of the
rest back to child care, health care, education,
and the environment. Money is like manure.
It needs to be spread around to do any good.

Unlike manure, money is also power. It buys
laws and lawmakers. Power corrupts. Fewer and
fewer of our young people are bothering to vote,
because they understand this equation. (We are
hoping that may change, this election.) Our
democracy is rapidly becoming a plutocracy,
controlled by and for the monied folks. As has
often been said, there is no more justification
for inherited economic power than there is for
inherited political power. The two are obviously
interchangeable, but we tolerate the one, while
we would be justifiably horrified by the latter!
Go figure.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net