November, 16 2010, 11:15am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Susan Roth, 301-530-3539, prsue@rothpr.com
Anne Singer, 202-271-4679, anne@annesingercommunications.
Small Business Owners Say 'Yes' to Estate Tax - Tell Opponents 'You Don't Speak For Us'
They Join United for a Fair Economy in Asking Congress and White House for Permanent Restoration of a Robust Tax on Inheritance
BOSTON
A group of small business owners and entrepreneurs today spoke out
in support of the estate tax, insisting that opponents of the tax have
misrepresented the interests of small businesses for their own agenda.
Coming from four different industries in four different states, these
business owners explained their support for a federal tax on inherited
wealth during a
conference call organized by United for a Fair Economy
(UFE) this morning. Each of the speakers has also signed UFE's "Call to
Preserve the Estate Tax." Amid reports of possible compromise on the
expiring Bush tax cuts, the fate of the federal estate tax remains
unclear as Congress decides this week on a tax package that will go to a
floor vote next month.
"I don't know any small business owners who are worried about
paying the estate tax," said Dave Eiffert, a signatory to United for a
Fair Economy's Call To Preserve the Estate Tax who co-founded the
Snoqualmie Falls Brewery outside of Seattle with a group of business
partners in 1997. "Opposition to the estate tax is largely pushed by
families who have enormous estates. They pay huge sums to spread
misinformation and use small business people as their poster children.
In my view, repealing or cutting the estate tax is just another
billionaire bailout that will line the pockets of the heirs and
heiresses of multi-millionaires and billionaires." The brewery employs
20 people and has annual sales of $1.2 million. "Like almost all small
business owners, I do not expect to owe the estate tax. Next time you
hear someone say small business owners oppose this tax, don't believe
them."
paying the estate tax," said Dave Eiffert, a signatory to United for a
Fair Economy's Call To Preserve the Estate Tax who co-founded the
Snoqualmie Falls Brewery outside of Seattle with a group of business
partners in 1997. "Opposition to the estate tax is largely pushed by
families who have enormous estates. They pay huge sums to spread
misinformation and use small business people as their poster children.
In my view, repealing or cutting the estate tax is just another
billionaire bailout that will line the pockets of the heirs and
heiresses of multi-millionaires and billionaires." The brewery employs
20 people and has annual sales of $1.2 million. "Like almost all small
business owners, I do not expect to owe the estate tax. Next time you
hear someone say small business owners oppose this tax, don't believe
them."
Of the 5,500 estates expected to pay any tax under the 2009 rules,
only about 100, or 1.8%, of those estates will have a majority of their
assets in a small business or farm, and of those 100, the vast majority
have sufficient cash to pay the tax.
only about 100, or 1.8%, of those estates will have a majority of their
assets in a small business or farm, and of those 100, the vast majority
have sufficient cash to pay the tax.
Jean Gordon co-owns Frostyaire of Arkansas, an agricultural
freezing and cold storage company bought by her parents in 1950 in
Little Rock. Gordon spoke out in favor of the estate tax, saying "At
Frostyaire, our decisions about hiring employees, purchasing equipment,
and expanding the business are not based on tax policy but on the
number of customers and the amount of product they have to store with
us. The best way to help small businesses like ours is to put more
money in the hands of the middle class who will spend the money as
customers of our businesses, rather than cutting the estate tax to
ensure that very wealthy heirs can have a larger inheritance. If
Frostyaire becomes more profitable, I would be happy to pay the tax as
my family's contribution for being part of the American economy."
Frostyaire has 45 employees and two freezer warehouses. Gordon, who has
also signed UFE's Call to Preserve the Estate Tax, expects she will
owe no estate tax under 2009 rules.
freezing and cold storage company bought by her parents in 1950 in
Little Rock. Gordon spoke out in favor of the estate tax, saying "At
Frostyaire, our decisions about hiring employees, purchasing equipment,
and expanding the business are not based on tax policy but on the
number of customers and the amount of product they have to store with
us. The best way to help small businesses like ours is to put more
money in the hands of the middle class who will spend the money as
customers of our businesses, rather than cutting the estate tax to
ensure that very wealthy heirs can have a larger inheritance. If
Frostyaire becomes more profitable, I would be happy to pay the tax as
my family's contribution for being part of the American economy."
Frostyaire has 45 employees and two freezer warehouses. Gordon, who has
also signed UFE's Call to Preserve the Estate Tax, expects she will
owe no estate tax under 2009 rules.
John Russell, a real estate developer from Portland, OR, said, "I
am one of the tiny fraction of small business owners who will owe the
estate tax, and that's fine with me. My success would not have been
possible without investments by the federal government, along with the
city and state, in redeveloping downtown Portland - particularly the
investments in light rail and streetcar systems. Federal tax incentives
like accelerated depreciation and selling tax credits to investors
helped me attract investment and lower our cost of doing business. I
see the estate tax as a way to pay some of those public investments and
tax incentives back to society - to help make success possible for the
next generation." His company, Russell Development, owns and operates
six office buildings and provides employment for about 50 people.
Russell has signed UFE's Call to Preserve the Estate Tax.
am one of the tiny fraction of small business owners who will owe the
estate tax, and that's fine with me. My success would not have been
possible without investments by the federal government, along with the
city and state, in redeveloping downtown Portland - particularly the
investments in light rail and streetcar systems. Federal tax incentives
like accelerated depreciation and selling tax credits to investors
helped me attract investment and lower our cost of doing business. I
see the estate tax as a way to pay some of those public investments and
tax incentives back to society - to help make success possible for the
next generation." His company, Russell Development, owns and operates
six office buildings and provides employment for about 50 people.
Russell has signed UFE's Call to Preserve the Estate Tax.
Russell added, "Small businesses do not pay the estate tax. Let's
be clear: the estate tax is not a small business or farm issue that has
bubbled up from the grassroots. This is an orchestrated effort funded by
some of the richest families in the country who want to get out of
paying their fair share. These wealthy individuals have used small
businesses and farms as the all-American icons to promote and front
their cause, but the facts just aren't there to back that up."
be clear: the estate tax is not a small business or farm issue that has
bubbled up from the grassroots. This is an orchestrated effort funded by
some of the richest families in the country who want to get out of
paying their fair share. These wealthy individuals have used small
businesses and farms as the all-American icons to promote and front
their cause, but the facts just aren't there to back that up."
"I'm one of the 0.25% of the population who will owe the estate
tax," said Jerry Fiddler, whose high-tech business, Wind River Systems,
employed 2,000 people at its peak, before being bought by Intel for $850
million in 2009. Fiddler, a signatory to UFE's Call to Preserve the
Estate Tax, is now a venture capitalist specializing in green technology
starts ups. "Most small businesses don't come anywhere near the $3.5
million exemption. The traditional mom and pop businesses - the grocery
store, the dry cleaner, the bakery, my dad's fabric shop - just don't
have that kind of value. And most businesses, once they're beyond a
certain size, diversify their assets so paying some estate tax does not
threaten the business. The idea that we should throw out the whole
estate tax, or raise the exemption even higher than three and a half
million, on the basis of a few edge cases, is offensive, and not the way
we should make tax policy. As a small business owner and creator, I do
not want the estate tax thrown out in my name."
tax," said Jerry Fiddler, whose high-tech business, Wind River Systems,
employed 2,000 people at its peak, before being bought by Intel for $850
million in 2009. Fiddler, a signatory to UFE's Call to Preserve the
Estate Tax, is now a venture capitalist specializing in green technology
starts ups. "Most small businesses don't come anywhere near the $3.5
million exemption. The traditional mom and pop businesses - the grocery
store, the dry cleaner, the bakery, my dad's fabric shop - just don't
have that kind of value. And most businesses, once they're beyond a
certain size, diversify their assets so paying some estate tax does not
threaten the business. The idea that we should throw out the whole
estate tax, or raise the exemption even higher than three and a half
million, on the basis of a few edge cases, is offensive, and not the way
we should make tax policy. As a small business owner and creator, I do
not want the estate tax thrown out in my name."
Given the 2009 exemption of $3.5 million per spouse, the estate tax
is paid by the wealthiest 0.25% of the population. Lee Farris, UFE's
Estate Tax Policy Coordinator noted, "Small businesses are largely
protected from the estate tax already. Multiple business-friendly
special provisions in the law mean most small businesses and farms do
not have to pay the tax. Those provisions allowed any given small
business or farm estate to pass on up to $9 million untaxed in 2009.
That's why, out of 2.4 million deaths in 2009, only about a dozen were
small business or farm estates with a lack of cash to pay the estate
tax." Farris added, "It makes no sense to set tax policy for our entire
country based on the exception rather than the rule. It's irresponsible
to shift costs onto millions of Americans by giving massive tax breaks
to thousands of wealthy heirs. That's why UFE is mobilizing our members
this week to call Congress."
is paid by the wealthiest 0.25% of the population. Lee Farris, UFE's
Estate Tax Policy Coordinator noted, "Small businesses are largely
protected from the estate tax already. Multiple business-friendly
special provisions in the law mean most small businesses and farms do
not have to pay the tax. Those provisions allowed any given small
business or farm estate to pass on up to $9 million untaxed in 2009.
That's why, out of 2.4 million deaths in 2009, only about a dozen were
small business or farm estates with a lack of cash to pay the estate
tax." Farris added, "It makes no sense to set tax policy for our entire
country based on the exception rather than the rule. It's irresponsible
to shift costs onto millions of Americans by giving massive tax breaks
to thousands of wealthy heirs. That's why UFE is mobilizing our members
this week to call Congress."
UFE as an organization supports the Harkin-Sanders-Whitehouse
Responsible Estate Tax Act, which includes a $3.5 million exemption per
spouse and a graduated rate going from 45% up to 65% on estates over
$500 million ($1 billion for couples). UFE opposes the Lincoln-Kyl
proposal with its $5 million per spouse exemption, which would cost $130
billion more over 10 years than even an extension of 2009 rates. UFE
also opposes the Feinstein proposal for an unlimited farm exemption,
which would create a loophole allowing wealthy individuals to shelter
their wealth by buying farms; this would drive up the price of farmland
and hurt small farmers in the end.
Responsible Estate Tax Act, which includes a $3.5 million exemption per
spouse and a graduated rate going from 45% up to 65% on estates over
$500 million ($1 billion for couples). UFE opposes the Lincoln-Kyl
proposal with its $5 million per spouse exemption, which would cost $130
billion more over 10 years than even an extension of 2009 rates. UFE
also opposes the Feinstein proposal for an unlimited farm exemption,
which would create a loophole allowing wealthy individuals to shelter
their wealth by buying farms; this would drive up the price of farmland
and hurt small farmers in the end.
Some 6,000 Americans have signed UFE's Call to Preserve the Estate
Tax; 2,000 signers expect to owe the estate tax themselves or come from
families that have already paid the tax. Among the signers are also more
than 600 owners of small businesses and farms, including all four small
business people on today's call.
Tax; 2,000 signers expect to owe the estate tax themselves or come from
families that have already paid the tax. Among the signers are also more
than 600 owners of small businesses and farms, including all four small
business people on today's call.
United for a Fair Economy challenges the concentration of wealth and power that corrupts democracy, deepens the racial divide and tears communities apart. We use popular economics education, trainings, and creative communications to support social movements working for a resilient, sustainable and equitable economy. United for a Fair Economy believes another world is possible. We envision a global society which respects the humanity, rights, and creativity of all people.
LATEST NEWS
Top G20 Ministers Back 2% Wealth Tax for Global Billionaires
"It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods."
Apr 25, 2024
Ministers from four major economies on Thursday called for a 2% wealth tax targeting the world's billionaires—who currently only pay up to 0.5% of their wealth in personal income tax—to "invest in public goods such as health, education, the environment, and infrastructure."
Fernando Haddad, Brazil's finance minister; Svenja Schulze, Germany's minister for economic cooperation and development; Enoch Godongwana, South Africa's finance minister; Carlos Cuerpo, Spain's minister of economy, trade, and business; and MarÃa Jesús Montero, Spain's first vice president and finance minister, made their case in an opinion piece for The Guardian.
"The argument behind such tax is straightforward: We need to enhance the ability of our tax systems to fulfill the principle of fairness, such that contributions are in line with the capacity to pay," they explained. "Persisting loopholes in the system imply that high-net-worth individuals can minimize their income taxes."
"What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."
Brazil, Germany, and South Africa are all Group of 20 members while Spain is a permanent guest. The ministers noted that "Brazil has made the fight against hunger, poverty, and inequality a priority of its G20 presidency, a priority that German development policy also pursues and that Spain has ambitiously addressed domestically and globally."
"By directing two-thirds of total expenditure on social services and wage support, as well as by calibrating tax policy administration, South Africa continues to target a progressive tax and fiscal agenda that confronts the country's legacy of income and wealth inequality," they wrote.
The ministers continued:
It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods. One of the key instruments that governments have for promoting more equality is tax policy. Not only does it have the potential to increase the fiscal space governments have to invest in social protection, education, and climate protection. Designed in a progressive way, it also ensures that everyone in society contributes to the common good in line with their ability to pay. A fair share contribution enhances social welfare.
With exactly these goals in mind, Brazil brought a proposal for a global minimum tax on billionaires to the negotiation table of the world's major economies for the first time. It is a necessary third pillar that complements the negotiations on the taxation of the digital economy and on a minimum corporate tax of 15% for multinationals. The renowned economist Gabriel Zucman sketched out how this might work. Currently, there are about 3,000 billionaires worldwide. The tax could be designed as a minimum levy equivalent to 2% of the wealth of the superrich. It would not apply to billionaires who already contribute a fair share in income taxes. However, those who manage to avoid paying income tax would be obliged to contribute more towards the common good.
The five ministers cited estimates suggesting that "such a tax would potentially unlock an additional $250 billion in annual tax revenues globally—this is roughly the amount of economic damages caused by extreme weather events last year."
"Of course, the argument that billionaires can easily shift their fortunes to low-tax jurisdictions and thus avoid the levy is a strong one. And this is why such a tax reform belongs on the agenda of the G20," they added. "International cooperation and global agreements are key to making such tax effective. What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."
Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott reported Thursday that "Zucman is now fleshing out the technical details of a plan that will again be discussed by the G20 in June. France has indicated support for a wealth tax and Brazil has been encouraged that the U.S., while not backing a global wealth tax, did not oppose it."
The French economist told Elliott that "billionaires have the lowest effective tax rate of any social group. Having people with the highest ability to pay tax paying the least—I don't think anybody supports that."
Except the billionaires, of course. "I don't want to be naive. I know the superrich will fight," Zucman added. "They have a hatred of taxes on wealth. They will lobby governments. They will use the media they own."
A few months ago, no one wanted to talk int. taxes, let alone on the super rich. Now we have a process (#G20), finance ministers (\ud83c\udde7\ud83c\uddf7 \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7 \ud83c\uddff\ud83c\udde6 \ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddf8 & others) supporting it, \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddea in part & everyone agreeing that proceeds should help fund climate and dev: https://t.co/ZldF557pAL— (@)
The ministers' opinion piece follows the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank's Spring Meetings last week, during which anti-poverty campaigners pressured the largest economies to address inequality with policies like taxing the superrich and to pour resources into the global debt and climate crises.
"The IMF and World Bank say that tackling inequality is a priority but in the same breath back policies that drive up the divide between the rich and the rest," Kate Donald, head of Oxfam International's Washington D.C. office, said last week. "Ordinary people struggle more and more every day to make up for cuts to the public funding of healthcare, education, and transportation. This high-stakes hypocrisy has to end."
Oxfam America policy lead Rebecca Riddell declared Thursday that "extreme inequality stands in the way of solving our most urgent global challenges. We need to tax the ultrawealthy."
"Read this brilliant new op-ed on the case for a global tax on billionaires, by ministers from Brazil, Germany, South Africa, and Spain," Riddell added, posting the piece on social media.
Keep ReadingShow Less
200 Rights Groups Call On Biden to End 'Cruel' Expansion of Immigrant Detention
"This suffering does not advance any rational policy goal," said the advocacy groups. "It merely exists to further the political goal of deterrence, which is cruel, inhumane, and misguided."
Apr 25, 2024
Citing ample evidence of human rights abuses in U.S. immigration detention centers, 200 advocacy groups on Thursday demanded that the Biden administration reverse course on a planned expansion of detention facilities and said President Joe Biden's "further entrenching" of the government's reliance on detaining migrants marks "an utter betrayal" of his campaign promises.
The president's signing of a spending bill last month provided $3.4 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), clearing the way for the agency to make space to jail 41,500 immigrants per day in facilities across the country.
After Biden campaigned on ending the use of for-profit detention centers, said the groups, he took office at a time when fewer than 15,000 people were being held in immigration detention facilities—which gave him "a remarkable opportunity to wind down a wasteful and abusive system."
But after the president's 2023 and 2024 budget requests signaled an intention of reducing detention funding—with ICE itself recommending that numerous facilities be closed due to "critical staffing shortages that have led to safety risks and unsanitary living conditions"—Biden last year requested supplemental detention funding as commentators and Republicans in Congress hammered the administration for allowing so-called "chaos" at the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Your FY2025 budget request sought funding for 34,000 beds instead of the 25,000 sought in the two previous cycles," wrote the groups, including Amnesty International USA, the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), and the Texas Civil Rights Project. "The result is unsurprising: the FY2024 spending bill you signed provides ICE $3.4 billion to jail an average of 41,500 immigrants per day, historically high funding surpassing all four years of the Trump administration."
The groups, which provide legal aid and other assistance to people who have been detained as migrants, said many of their clients "carry lifelong scars from the mistreatment and dehumanization they endured because of the United States' reliance on detention, mostly through private prisons and county jails."
The administration is seeking to expand a system, said the groups, in which the jails and prisons used have been found to "operate under insufficient standards."
The organizations cited a 2018 ACLU reportthat found inadequate medical care contributed to the deaths of more than half of the detained immigrants who died in custody between December 2015-April 2017; a 2021 case in which an LGBTQ+ man reported "physical and homophobic verbal abuse" at a facility in Louisiana; and the finding by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) that the use of solitary confinement in detention centers "regularly meets the United Nations' definition of torture."
Biden signed the spending bill two weeks after Charles Daniel, a 61-year-old migrant from Trinidad and Tobago, died at a detention center operated by the private contractor GEO Group after being held in solitary confinement for four years. ICE has placed people in solitary confinement over 14,000 times in the last five years, according to PHR, for an average of 27 days each; U.N. experts say exceeding 15 days in solitary confinement constitutes torture.
"This suffering does not advance any rational policy goal," said the groups on Thursday. "Detention does not provide an efficient or ethical means of border processing, and it certainly does not indicate to migrants that they are welcome in the United States. It merely exists to further the political goal of deterrence, which is cruel, inhumane, and misguided—as even the most punitive forms of detention have been proven not to deter people from seeking safety or a better life."
Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks government data, found that as of April 7, more than 61% of ICE detainees have no criminal record, while "many more have only minor offenses, including traffic violations."
"Increasing the incarceration of immigrants is a grave mistake," said the groups, "and we urgently implore you to reverse course."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bernie Sanders to Netanyahu: 'It Is Not Antisemitic to Hold You Accountable'
"Please, do not insult the intelligence of the American people by attempting to distract us from the immoral and illegal war policies of your extremist and racist government," said the Vermont senator to Israel's prime minister.
Apr 25, 2024
Jewish U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders issued a scathing statement Thursday pushing back against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's characterization of burgeoning protests on American university campuses as "antisemitic," declaring, "It is not antisemitic to hold you accountable for your actions."
"No, Mr. Netanyahu. It is not antisemitic or pro-Hamas to point out that in a little over six months, your extremist government has killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000—70% of whom are women and children," said Sanders (I-Vt.). "It is not antisemitic to point out that your bombing has completely destroyed more than 221,000 housing units in Gaza, leaving more than one million people homeless—almost half the population."
"Antisemitism is a vile and disgusting form of bigotry that has done unspeakable harm to many millions of people," continued Sanders, who lost family members to the Nazi Holocaust. "But, please, do not insult the intelligence of the American people by attempting to distract us from the immoral and illegal war policies of your extremist and racist government. Do not use antisemitism to deflect attention from the criminal indictment you are facing in the Israeli courts."
No, Mr. Netanyahu. It is not antisemitic or pro-Hamas to point out that in a little over six months your extremist government has killed 34,000 Palestinians and wounded more than 77,000 – 70% of whom are women and children.
You will not distract us from this immoral war. pic.twitter.com/oDaiyU4ipD
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) April 25, 2024
Sanders' statement came a day after Netanyahu
falsely described student protesters speaking out against Israel's catastrophic war on Gaza as "antisemitic mobs" and likened the demonstrations to "what happened in German universities in the 1930s."
"It has to be stopped," Netanyahu said of the campus protests, which have faced violent police crackdowns.
Students at Columbia, Princeton, the City College of New York, the University of Texas at Austin, Northwestern, and other schools nationwide are demanding that the institutions divest from any companies that are participating in or benefiting from Israel's war on Gaza and publicly support an immediate cease-fire.
On Wednesday, hundreds of UT Austin students walked out of their classrooms and marched to the main lawn of the campus before police officers with horses and riot gear
arrived on the scene, arrested dozens, and assaulted some protesters.
"One woman said she saw a large police officer place his entire body weight to detain a young woman protesting," The Texas Tribunereported. "Law enforcement was also seen kneeling on individuals' backs and necks, pulling their hair, and in one case punching a protester in the nose."
Jeremi Suri, a professor of history at UT Austin, toldAl Jazeera that contrary to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's claim, there was "nothing antisemitic" about Wednesday's protests.
"These students were shouting 'free Palestine,' that's all," said Suri. "They were saying nothing that was threatening. And as they were standing and shouting, I witnessed the police—the state police, the campus police, the city police—an army of police almost the size [of] the student group... many were carrying guns, many were carrying rifles, and then, within a few minutes, this group of police stormed into the student crowd and started arresting students."
In his statement Thursday, Sanders emphasized that criticism of Israel's massively destructive assault on Gaza cannot be conflated with antisemitism.
"It is not antisemitic to note that your government has obliterated Gaza’s civilian infrastructure—electricity, water, and sewage," said Sanders, who earlier this week voted against a foreign aid package that included $17 billion in additional U.S. military assistance for Israel.
"It is not antisemitic to realize that your government has annihilated Gaza's healthcare system, knocking 26 hospitals out of service and killing more than 400 healthcare workers," he continued. "It is not antisemitic to condemn your government's destruction of all of Gaza’s 12 universities and 56 of its schools, with hundreds more damaged, leaving 625,000 students with no education."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular