“Tax me,” writes Abigail Disney, a philanthropist and heiress to the Walt Disney fortune, in an opinion piece in USA Today supporting the reinstatement of the estate tax.
“The estate tax incentivizes people like me to do good with our wealth because there is no estate tax on donations to charity,” writes Ms. Disney, who founded the Daphne Foundation, which makes grants to fight poverty in New York City, and a charity called Peace Is Loud, to encourage women around the world to find nonviolent ways to end conflict.
Her charitable activities, she says, “rely on a tax code that supports a vigorous nonprofit sector, a vital part of our society that is bigger and stronger because of the many millions of dollars that flow into it as a result of the estate tax and other tax provisions.”
Ms. Disney joins Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and other wealthy Americans who believe Congress was wrong to let the estate tax expire this year.
Charity is not the only reason Ms. Disney supports a tax on the estates of the richest Americans.
“I have watched the gap between rich and poor driven to historic highs by a tax policy that has exacerbated our deficit and eviscerated our basic capacity to provide schooling, emergency services, and clean water and air for one and all, ” she writes. “The estate tax is the cornerstone of a progressive system that leaves wealthy heirs with ample funds while providing the government with the resources it needs to build an environment for the common good. By preserving it, we not only restore billions in revenue to the national treasury—we also restore our most cherished collective ideals as a nation.”
Should more nonprofits and donors take a stand on the estate tax? Let us know what you think by adding your comments.
0 Responses to A Philanthropist’s Case for Restoring the Estate Tax
spaletta - September 1, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Interesting that she is not supporting the tax because she wants to pay taxes, but rather that it motivates her to give the money away. I agree with creating motivation for giving money away, but there has been some rumblings from the administration that charitable gifts will be limited as tax deductions. If that becomes the case, is an inheritance tax still a good idea? The government has proven to be the least efficient way to move money to worthy causes.The best thing we can do is to create a culture where giving is at the center of our society and there are a multitude of motivators that get people to give. Not just the avoidance of paying taxes. By the way, the government is not reinstating the inheritance tax to create more giving, their goal is to create more tax revenue.
philippeboucher - September 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I recommend that you read the whole opinion piece written by Abigail Disney as Philanthropy provides the link to USA TODAY: contrary to what spaletta writes she is supporting taxes and she makes a strong, eloquent and very convincing case for them. Of course the goal of taxes is to provide more tax revenue to redistribute and invest. I am not going to go into the details of the present tax structure, why it is grossly unfair and contributes to a dangerously widening gap between an ultra minority of very, very, very rich and a majority of very, very poor. I recommend reading a recent column by James Surowiecki in his New Yorker’s financial page (Aug 16 & 23, page 33): Soak the very, very rich…along with the piece about the Koch brothers in this week’s issue.
philippeboucher - September 1, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Here is the link to Surowiecki’s piece:http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/08/16/100816ta_talk_surowiecki
a7_476bc9_2 - September 1, 2010 at 5:02 pm
I hear so much about the estate tax being called the “death tax,” somehow planting the vision of grieving family members being shook down at the cemetary before they can pay their last respects. Well, in place of the “death tax” I would call it the “lottery tax” for two reasons:1) The dead don’t pay it, their heirs do.2) If I won the lottery, I would have to pay my state and local taxes. The heirs of the rich won their lottery by being born into a wealthy family. Good for them, but their lottery winnings should be no more priviledged than mine. Besides, $3,500,000 is sheltered from the get-go. That’s not draconian confiscation by world standards, and the only way to enjoy money is in a stable society.During my Army career I worked and traveled in 3rd World countries in which the upper 1% lived well, but only by employing private armies, driving armored cars, and constructing reinforced bunkers. That is not the future I want for my country and it’s a fate that the very rich think impossible only at their peril and all of our misfortune.
judrand10 - September 2, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Is this fight to keep estates from being taxed just another ruse of the rich to keep it all in the family?What percentage of all estate monies go to charities? If it’s a significant percentage (and not just to prestigious institutions that will bear the beneficiary’s name), then it sounds good. Why can’t the estate tax laws allow for funds going to charities to be exempt but all other destinations are taxed accordingly?