The Debate Over the Estate Tax: "A Monkey in Intellectual Combat with Its Banana"

Over at the Washington Monthly:

The Washington Monthly: Guest: Steve Benen: THE WRONG GUY TO MAKE THE CASE....A Senate vote on a full repeal of the estate tax is slated for this week (probably Thursday), and as part of its coverage, the Washington Post ran dueling op-eds on the issue from Sebastian Mallaby and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Readers can decide for themselves who makes the stronger case, but I think Ezra captured the heart of the debate when he noted that it's "a bit like setting a monkey in intellectual combat with his banana."

Nevertheless, picking Sessions to take the lead on this is an odd choice for Senate Republicans, especially in light of the Alabama senator's embarrassing background on the issue.

Federal troops aren't the only ones looking for bodies on the Gulf Coast. On Sept. 9, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions called his old law professor Harold Apolinsky, co-author of Sessions' legislation repealing the federal estate tax, which was encountering sudden resistance on the Hill. Sessions had an idea to revitalize their cause, which he left on Apolinsky's voice mail: "[Arizona Sen.] Jon Kyl and I were talking about the estate tax. If we knew anybody that owned a business that lost life in the storm, that would be something we could push back with."

If legislative ambulance chasing looks like a desperate measure, for the backers of repealing the estate tax, these are desperate times. Just three weeks ago, their long-sought goal of repeal seemed within reach, but Katrina dashed their hopes when Republican leaders put off an expected vote. After hearing from Sessions, Apolinsky, an estate tax lawyer who says his firm includes three multi-billionaires among its clients, mobilized the American Family Business Institute, a Washington-based group devoted to estate tax repeal. They reached out to members along the Gulf Coast to hunt for the dead.

They found plenty of Katrina victims -- but none that was hit with the estate tax. For what it's worth, despite the hyper-wealthy conservative interests who have bankrolled this fight for years, it appears proponents of a full repeal are a few votes short. There's still an irresponsible "compromise" measure under consideration, but if things go as they should, this absurd initiative should be defeated by week's end.

"Setting a monkey in intellectual combat with its banana." That is good.

Note that things are no better on the right as you try to ascend the intellectual chain of being: estate-tax repeal advocates--Ed Prescott, Greg Mankiw, Jeff Miron--all talk about how some deficit-neutral combination of estate-tax repeal and other tax increases, or estate-tax repeal plus some combination of spending cuts would be a good deal. But that's not what's on offer, is it? They never make the case that the benefits to estate-tax repeal are bigger than the costs of adding another 0.4% of GDP or so to our long run fiscal gap.

Comments

[Irving Karchmar]

A very informative post and blog :) Thanks for taking the time to make all this mumbo jumbo make a little sense.

[Mike]

thanks for the info, now I got to understand the taxes a lot better :)

[Ed]

"Note that things are no better on the right as you try to ascend the intellectual chain of being: estate-tax repeal advocates--Ed Prescott, Greg Mankiw, Jeff Miron..."

Sorry, but I'm confused: which of these three are the monkeys and which are the bananas?

[andres]

Actually, those three are the chimpanzees on the de-evolutionary scale of right-wing economics, so to speak. The only "homo habilis" of right-wing economics published way back in 1776, now that I think about it.

The problem with even intelligent advocates of free-market policies is that they can propose an endless amount of amendments to the core policy in order to make it fair (e.g., income tax increases to offset estate tax repeal, increased funding for poorer public schools to offset the drain caused by vouchers, etc) in the full knowledge that the proponents on the lower end of the evolutionary spectrum will never incorporate such amendments.

Needless to say, that inconvenient tripping point is never mentioned. Hopeless social democrat that I am, I too could come out with a proposal for vouchers that is padded with so many caveats (no voucher funding for religious schools or religion classes, no selective admissions, equal amount of school funding for a long-period before vouchers are incorporated, etc.) that it would make economic sense even as it totally eliminates political support from the so-called conservative wing. So how long will Prescott, Mankiw, Miron, etc. continue to fool themselves? Or are they trying to fool the swing public?

[PaulC]

Sessions on the estate tax: "It tells people that it's better to spend freely during their lifetimes than to leave assets for their children and grandchildren"

Do you need the estate tax to tell you this? Yes, there are good reasons to save, and you certainly want some assets available at the time you retire. But after you retire? Are we supposed to be saving so we can die rich?

After you retire, I think the right thing to do is spend as freely as you can manage. You cannot predict exactly when you'll die, but ideally you should die broke. That's good for the economy, and it's a reward for a life of industry. By that time, if your grown kinds are waiting for a handout, then you have really and truly done something wrong.

[otto]

I suppose the best argument for zero estate taxes would be that the defence of enormous unearned income inequality is the real front line of the defence of capitalism.

"First they came for the Duke of Devonshire, and I did nothing", etc.

[A. Zarkov]

The estate tax does a poor job of retarding the perpetuation of great wealth across generations. The really rich know how keep control of their vast wealth in the family. I could take estate tax advocates more seriously if they also wanted to reform the many abuses associated with Trusts, like the Spendthrift Trust. This kind of trust can (depends on the state) make the beneficiary virtually “judgment proof.” Think of Reginald Van Gleason III, the Jackie Gleason character who was a good-for-nothing playboy. In many places Reggie can run someone down with his car and laugh all the way to his next installment payment (I’m exaggerating, but only a little). That leaves the real reason for the estate tax: we want the money. Government ain’t much fun without gobs of money to spend, especially on your friends (yeah that means Republicans too). In a rare moment of candor for a politician, John Anderson came clean during his run for the presidency in 1980. When asked about the unfairness of people getting pushed into high tax brackets with raging inflation, he replied: “we want the money.”

[Terminator_X]

1. I'd like to know who is funding the American Family Business Institute; the dude who owns the corner store won't be paying the estate tax, so which "family businesses" are represented by this institute?

2. A. Zarkov -- You raise the only plausible argument for repeal of the estate tax, i.e., it's avoidable by those who engage in sophisticated planning. But those who seek to avoid the tax must engage in bona fide transactions to do so; hence, the need for lawyers, etc. The biggest loophole involves life insurance trusts (explanation provided upon request). I'm not sure why you say that spendthrift trusts are abusive with regard to the estate tax; if the beneficiaries have no actual control over the corpus of the trust, why should it be in their taxable estate? Could you please elaborate?

[PaulC]

A. Zarkov: "The estate tax does a poor job of retarding the perpetuation of great wealth across generations."

The police do a poor job of investigating muggings, but it won't stop me from filing a report. You have to do something.

If there are more effective tools to breaking up dynasties, then by all means let's have them too. But at least the estate tax can tap some of that concentrated family wealth. If something is too big to stop, at least harness it to do some good.

I'm not sure why you think "estate tax advocates" (i.e. "advocates" of the status quo) are against trust fund reform. I'm not a big fan of idle scions whatever form they take.

[rea]

"It tells people that it's better to spend freely during their lifetimes than to leave assets for their children and grandchildren"

Is that supposed to be an argument AGAINST the estate tax? It sounds lke Republican tax policy in a nutshell, to me . . .

[jd]

I personally happen to be against the estate tax. However, I think that an inheritance tax would be a wonderful thing.

[Ellen1910]

Inheritance tax? But then, to avoid the tax rich people would bear more children, and the planet would soon become overpopulated.

[Matt]

Taxing assets has been proposed and I see nothing wrong with it, it solves problems and would need to have all the usual rules of progressivity.

If government has some duty to tax assets, why wait until the owner is dead? Why not tax them as they accumulate on a year to year basis.

There is one advantage in taxing assets. It gets at the folks who hide net income in re-investment, continually from year to year, so they can avoid paying for the government services that they willingly extract from Washington.

But, even for true believers in wealth re-distribution I still do no understand why the money is not extracted on a year to year basis. Why wait? Do it every five years if you want, dead or alive.

[PaulC]

> But, even for true believers in wealth re-distribution I still do no understand why the money is not extracted on a year to year basis.

Because there's no law on the books to do so. If you can figure out a way to get one passed, I'm not going to stop you. The question being debated is how to keep a longstanding law on the books, not fantasies of how to do better. You seem to think that "true believers" would be happier taking a small step backwards than at least staying in the current situation that already allows deleterious levels of familial wealth concentration.

[PaulC]

This is another one of those issues where advocates use contradictory claims to make their case. We're to believe two things:

a) The estate tax is ineffective because the rich just hide their money.
b) The estate tax is unjust because it destroys family businesses.

OK, which is it? If it was really am ineffective law, then the alleged victims would be untouchable. I don't care if your business is a family farm. If you're overseeing that much wealth, you have a fiduciary duty to pay enough to get good tax advice. If your farm's margins are too low to pay an accountant, then your margins are too low period. Find another business to be in. That's capitalism.

The estate tax is clearly at least effective enough to get some money from large estates sometimes. It's effective enough to get a projected $28 billion in revenue this year. It's more effective than just repealing it and doing nothing.

The estate tax cannot be a ferocious lion and a toothless wonder at the same time. If it were truly a toothless law, we wouldn't have a constituency eager to repeal it.

[Matt]

PaulC,

What I am saying is start from the sound theoretical foundation, even if unachievable. Then ask how close one can get to the the ideal.

For example, a compromise may be offered in letting folks opt out of some estate taxes if they declare asset values for taxation in previous years. The idea may have appeal when the alternative is a disruptive one time tax, or a costly blind trust.

An idea, I might add, that I didn't bother to conjure up at all until you opened the discussion for me.

[PaulC]

> What I am saying is start from the sound theoretical foundation, even if unachievable.

Understood. What I'm saying is circle the wagons and hang onto whatever shreds of progressivity may remain. It is worth developing a theoretical framework, but the change of implementing it right now is nil, and I believe in focusing effort where it is effective.

[dale]

"a) The estate tax is ineffective because the rich just hide their money.
b) The estate tax is unjust because it destroys family businesses."

Well said Paul. And as always, we are not dealing with theory but with contiuous right wing efforts to eliminate taxes on the most wealthy Americans and shift present and future financial support for our government to working people.

the same folks who argue for repeal of the estate tax will soon be renewing their call for reductions in social security benefits.
Screw em.

[SteveBreeze]

Funny how ignored in the estate tax debate is the tax paid by family members on the deceased’s 401K. This money is of course taxed as regular income, even those funds that are capital gains and dividends. Funny how this tax is not a source of "unfairness" to the ruling economic elite.

[A. Zarkov]

If you have a vast family fortune then you set up a foundation, and your heirs get to control the money by controlling the foundation. For smaller, but still significant fortunes good estate planning will avoid taxes. Advocates of keeping the estate tax with a low deduction (say) less than two million really want to raise revenue. Remember Clinton wanted to *reduce* the deduction from $600,000. Let’s face it, $600,000 or even two million is not much in today’s world. You can spend over a million buying a modest track home in many parts of the country. But what’s really the point of not eliminating the estate tax? It’s all about revenue and taxing the middle class. This is why the Buffets and Gates of the world will push for keeping the estate tax, they know they aren’t going to pay it.

The Spendthrift Trust is not abusive with respect to tax avoidance, but with respect to cheating creditors. The executer of the trust simply refuses to pay the debts of the beneficiary. The extent to which the beneficiary can harm people and get away with it varies from state to state. Look at the book by Adkisson on “Asset Protection” or take a law school course on Wills and Trusts (my daughter just finished one). It’s amazing how much you can cheat people or even avoid taxes with trusts. Warning: the whole topic of offshore trusts is confusing with Adkisson and law professors saying contradictory things about offshore trusts.

[dale]

The Buffets and Gates certainly will pay the ET. It is in no way a middle class tax. About one half of one percent of families will be taxed when inheriting wealth.

Certain avoidancec schemes do lower the effective rates paid. All the more reason to not "reform" the ET to higher exemption levels.

[Faisal N. Jawdat]

I thought it was the death tax? Which confuses me: congress wants to reduce taxes on income because taxes disincentivize people from earning an income, but want to reduce taxes on dying because... ?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/opinion/06tue2.html

June 6, 2006

The Estate Tax, Back on the Agenda

Still giddy over the passage last month of a $70 billion income tax cut for affluent Americans, Senate Republicans are hoping this week to go further, and gut the federal estate tax. And they'll probably try to accomplish this gift to the super-rich under the guise of compromise.

Their fondest wish would be to permanently repeal the tax. But planning, during a time of war, to give away nearly $1 trillion over 10 years may look too radical even for this crowd. So the senators are also considering a so-called middle-of-the-road approach. Sponsored by Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, the "compromise" would drastically raise the thresholds at which the estate tax kicks in, while slashing the estate tax rate. Together, those changes would cut taxes for the wealthiest families by $652 billion between 2012 and 2021, the first full decade of the proposed cut. Because the government would need to borrow to make up for that lost revenue, the tax cut would also cost all taxpayers some $175 billion in higher interest payments.

And for what? Fully 71 percent of the additional benefits would go to people who stand to inherit more than $10 million. Almost all of the rest would apply to estates worth more than $5 million.

There is no economic justification for doing this, any more than any tax cut can be justified when the economy is growing and the government is running a big deficit, as is now the case. The notion that small businesses and family farms are unfairly targeted by the estate tax is nonsense.

There is no moral justification for cutting estate taxes. Much of the wealth taxed after death has never been taxed because profits on stocks, bonds, real estate, artwork — you name it — are not taxed until an asset is sold. Obviously, people with big estates never got around to selling their assets.

And yet, some multimillionaires, and their Congressional supporters, have the gall to say that the wealthy should not be "penalized." Estate taxes imposed after one's death are no more of a penalty than income taxes withheld from paychecks....

[anne]

"Let’s face it, $600,000 or even two million is not much in today’s world."

Well, $2 million is an income above $120,000 a year from the Vanguard long term investment-grade bond fun. But, the estate tax does not even begin till $4 million which would be an income over $240,000 a year from the Vanguard fund. Not enough? Try $6 million :)

[liberal]

A. Zarkov wrote, "It’s amazing how much you can cheat people or even avoid taxes with trusts."

This is a very important topic.

Is there any reason in common law/etc that legislation cannot be written that would terminate these abuses?

Similarly, is there really a good reason (economic) for corporations being able to own one another?

[A. Zarkov]

“The Buffets and Gates certainly will pay the ET. It is in no way a middle class tax.”

Sure they will pay some ET, but the bulk of their estates will pass to a foundation. Actually the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation already exists.

BTW, look at Ingvar Kamprad, the Swedish Industrialist who founded Ikea. According to Swedish business weekly Veckans Affärer, he is the richest person in the world. Yet he likely pays very little tax, even while alive, in Europe! The high tax heaven American liberals love. A few weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal described the web of companies Kamprad has set up along with a charitable foundation. He no longer owns Ikea, all those retail stores are now franchises that pay a fee into the complex web. But the foundation gives away almost no money. He has effectively avoided most taxes, although we don’t know exactly how much he pays because the web makes his fortune opaque. Don’t you think control of this vast fortune will pass to his heirs?

“About one half of one percent of families will be taxed when inheriting wealth.”

If you lower the exemption to below a million, lots of middle class people will be affected. Of course if the ravages of globalization continue, along with millions and millions of new immigrants from the world’s under class, perhaps one day we will have a small middle class in the US.

[A. Zarkov]

“Well, $2 million is an income above $120,000 a year from the Vanguard long term investment-grade bond fun.”

You are comparing a stock ($2 million) with a flow $120,000. I don’t get it. People with a $120,000 per year income, almost surely amass assets over $2 million after working a lifetime. When I said $600,000 is not much in today’s world I meant that as total assets, not a yearly on-going income.

[anne]

Well, $4 million is an income above $240,000 a year from the Vanguard long term investment-grade bond fund. Precisely, and $6 million is an income above $360,000 a year from the fund. Care for $8 million? What is enough to make ends meet? But, oh the family farm, oh, the family fund. What are we to do with the family cows and cowletts. Save our cowletts $8 million cowletts :)

[anne]

Oh, oh, oh, the estate tax begins, really begins, above $4 million. Really, really.
Save the family cowletts; they need $8 million :)

[DuckedApe]

Terminator X: www.citizen.org has published a report, "Spending millions to save billions: the campaign of the Super Wealthy to Kill the Estate Tax"; they name 17 families, their contributions to lobbying "foundations" (lobbying expenditures of $490 million since 1998), and other interesting information.

[A. Zarkov]

liberal:

“Is there any reason in common law/etc that legislation cannot be written that would terminate these abuses?”

Well I should think so, but don’t hold your breath, because people are distracted by the debate on the ET which the rich avoid. Fool around with trusts and you start to get into the real power of the wealthy.

BTW you don’t need a trust to cheat people. Many taxi cab companies in New York City incorporate each cab separately and then (somehow) transfer out the assets leaving an empty shell. So when the cab injures someone, there are no assets to grab for compensation in suit. But wait, can't you “pierce the veil of an under capitalized corporation?” In theory yes, in practice no. Years ago I discovered this New York City taxi scam and described it to my daughter. Fast forward to about 5 years to one of her corporate law class. They covered this very case. It’s famous. The taxicab company won because they kept good records. So now we know the secret, you can create an empty shell of a corporation and get away with it as long as you keep good records and do all that pro-forma corporate stuff. When I asked some NYT reporters where the money went from the individual taxi corporations, they said: “funny we asked the same question.” They never got an answer. Something is really rotten in the great New York bastion of liberalism. (Don’t tell anyone, but I think many of these cab companies are owned by the Russian Mafia immigrants)

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=4655&exhibition=7&u=16%7C3%7C...

Eastern Kingbird Feeding Young
New York City--Central Park, The Pool.

Save our family cowletts :)

[Tom DC/VA]

Zarkov - good posts.

As usual, the real scandal isn't what is illegal, it's what is legal.

[anne]

Zarkov is clever :) however the point of wealth from the stance of having a personal endowment is that various asset classes can readily be turned to income producing assets. So, the Vanguard long term investment-grade bond fund is a fine proxy for the income that can be gained from an estate. But, what of the cowletts, the dear family farm cowletts :) Save our cowletts.

[save the rustbelt]

IF we were to design a tax, would we make it?

easy to avoid, but at a high cost in professional fees

causes individuals and businesses to complete convoluted transactions to accomplish the avoidance, rather than economically efficient transactions

gives a huge reward to life insurance companies, in response to their huge lobbying efforts

siphons more money away from productivity to the pockets of lawyers

creates huge compliance costs after death and causes disportionate work for the IRS (maybe the IRS could be put to better use collecting errant income tax money?)

So who IS the monkey and what banana are we reaching for?

[PaulC]

A. Zarkov: "You can spend over a million buying a modest track home in many parts of the country."

Nonsense! A million will buy a small home in only a few parts of the country, such as where I live in the SF Bay Area. Even here, a million would get you a nice home in San Jose, Santa Clara, or Sunnyvale, including parts with good school districts. $750,000 *will* get you a tiny house; but that leaves $250,000 for renovation. In nearby Los Altos or Palo Alto, it's true that a million will at best get you a teardown on a tiny plot. Note: as late as 2003, it might have got you a home you could move into with few repairs.

Even the more affordable parts of the SF Bay Area are in no way typical of the US. A million will get you a new McMansion on a 1/2 acre in many parts of the US with enough nearby jobs to make it feasible. In truly remote places (and there are many) a million will go much farther.

Of course "modest" is subject to interpretation, but "modest track home" suggests an image of austerity that is in no way consistent with what a million will get you. There is nothing modest about living in an expensive area even if your home is tiny. There are benefits factored into the cost.

[IWasJustThinking]

The estate tax is an ideal way for a deficit-financed government of a lightly taxed population to have a final settlement of accounts with its more fortunate citizens. The wealth of a decedent-- what's left over after a lifetime of earning, spending and investing-- is a pretty good measure of the extent to which that person benefited from the economic opportunities available to US citizens. Since the government did not collect enough taxes from the decedent, and everyone else, during the person's lifetime to balance the budget, a top-up should be paid at death.

This top-up should be paid by every estate worth more than, say, $100,000. It should be progressive, starting at a low rate of 5%, rising in steps to maybe 15% at the $2 million level.

These relatively low rates of tax would discourage avoidance and make the tax seem more like a final surcharge than double-taxation.

It is projected that $50 trillion will be passed across generations over the next 40 years. If the government collected 10% of that, to recover the amount by which its citizens were under-taxed during their lifetimes, one generation's fiscal deficit would not be passed to the next.

Just to round out the picture, death should be treated as a realization event for capital gains. Unrealized gains would be considered to be realized and taxed at the capital gains rate before imposing the estate tax. Second, an estate's charitablke contributions should be paid with after-tax dollars. A charitable contribution is no substitute for the decedent's obligation to pay his/her share of the federal debt incurred during his/her lifetime.

[PaulC]

save_the_rustbelt: "easy to avoid, but at a high cost in professional fees"

I call that the expanding service economy. You make it sound as if these fees amount to dissipated wealth. In fact, the fees go directly to salaries of tax advisors and financial planners. Maybe there's not much sympathy for such people (who may have six figure incomes) but they're still working people--they get a W2 every year and that's where most of their money comes from. I'd rather they had the money than have it accumulated in large hereditary estates. They'll spend it on expensive remodels of their million dollar "modest track homes" and some will go to contractors, their workers, the minimum wage employees who sells those guys coffee at the 7/11 etc.

Obviously, the above is not an ideal wealth redistribution system, but I don't see how it improves matters to eliminate it.

[Ari]

Anne, that baby kingbird is huge! What are the parents fe/eingd it? And, we can always emempt cowletts from an estate or an estate from cowletts.

[A. Zarkov]

PaulC:

Look at today’s California market in places like Burlingame, Palo Alto, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Piedmont, the Oakland Hills (Rockridge and Montclair), Orinda, Lafayette, Danville, San Ramon and Pleasanton. If you really want to see sticker shock, try Santa Barbara. I don’t know southern California that well, but prices there are comparable. You’re right in some of those places a million (don’t forget that includes closing costs, loan fees etc) would get you more than a modest track house. It would get you a track house. You can easily spend a million in a place like Livermore. You’ll get a track house, but it will be near 2,600square feet and have a two-car garage, but not much land. Moving east, look at Bergen county New Jersey. I went shopping for a house there more than two years ago and virtually everything with more than two bedrooms was $800,000 asking. Put in closing costs and two-years inflation and you easily get over a million. I also looked in Stamford Connecticut, same picture. Then there is New York City where a one-bedroom apartment goes for over a million. Finally look at the Washington DC northern Virginia area (where I lived for 14 months). Small townhouses some with no garage $700,000. A small house in Vienna, Oakton, and Fairfax with no garage $800k-950k. These houses have modest interiors—Formica counters, one-zone heating in a two or three level structure, shallow closets, old plumbing and tiny kitchens with old appliances, and cheap carpet over plywood floors.

These are places were a lot of people want to live and 20-30 years ago middle class people could afford them (maybe not Piedmont). Zillow puts my old place in Oakland (rebuilt from the fire) at $1.3 million, which had about 1,500 square feet, detached garage, and ¼ acre. It cost me $60,000

Of course I’m not looking at slums, you can still get a good deal on a cardboard box over nice heated subway grating in Manhattan, but not below 96th street. Alas even that box now is expensive in the better neighborhoods, if you can even get it. There are only so many subway gratings to go around.

[PaulC]

I cannot dispute any of A. Zarkov's specifics, but it comes down to what you mean by "modest" and "many parts of the country." All the places you mention are outliers. There's nothing "modest" about living a restored Eichler in Palo Alto, even if it is tiny. People live in the places you list because they want to. They are not hurting. People who prefer a big house can find other parts of the country where it costs well under a million.

[anne]

What nonsense about wealth; inheriting an estate of $4 million on which there is no tax because the estate tax only begins at $4 million, means that $4 million in the Vanguard long term investment-grade bond fund will give a yearly income of more than $240,000. A yearly income of $240,000 is enough to live nicely, nicely indeed, in any city in America. Imagine, inheriting $4 million and even having a job as well....

[liberal]

A. Zarkov wrote, "BTW you don’t need a trust to cheat people."

Right, but in my post you'll see I made reference to corporations, also.

[liberal]

PaulC wrote, "$750,000 *will* get you a tiny house; but that leaves $250,000 for renovation."

Issue of course is land not the structure.

[A. Zarkov]

liberal:

“Right, but in my post you'll see I made reference to corporations, also.”

That’s why I included the taxicab example. Thinly capitalized corporations can be a real menace to the public. I suppose the cure is some kind of disclosure rule—a scarlet letter to warn you that this company is a potential deadbeat. A lot of people don’t realize they should not work for a thinly capitalize company either. Before taking a job, one should exercise due diligence on your employer's financials. Alas virtually no one does that, and they learn the hard way.

[Mark]

the politics of envy is more destructive to the human mind than meth.

[dale]

the politics of greed is more destructive to the human mind than meth.

That was simple.

[hnrtkioph54tk0pr]

This is an absolute idiocy. The tax will be repealed, clear as the sun will come out tomorrow. It is needed to oppose gay marriage. Or to combat Osama ben Whatever. Or to fight drugs. Or something. You think the owners of this country won't find the words to say to their tenants to lower their (owners) and increase their tenants' share of taxes?