Charlie Copeland keeps threatening to move out of Delaware. Why doesn’t he?
In this week’s GOP address Deborah Hudson acts like it would be a bad thing if Charlie Copeland up and left.
Representative Deborah Hudson Delivers The GOP Weekly Message
March 18, 2016
“Hi, I’m State Rep. Deborah Hudson.
“Delaware is one of 19 states that impose either an estate tax or an inheritance tax.
“Among all the levies placed on citizens, the estate tax is one of the most offensive, essentially taxing a person because they died. It’s all the more objectionable because these assets – such as homes, farms, and businesses – are things on which the decedent has already repeatedly paid taxes.
“It’s time for this to end.
“Aside from ideology, there is good reason to repeal Delaware’s Estate Tax, which has proven to be a minor, unpredictable, and volatile source of revenue.
“In fact, the Advisory Council on Revenues – formed by Gov. Jack Markell under Executive Order 47 – cited these issues when it called for repealing the tax last year.
“Our Estate Tax has one of the highest thresholds in the nation, applying only to high-value estates. However, this distinction is another argument for repeal.
“The Estate Tax creates an incentive for top income-earners to either move or declare residency elsewhere. The council concluded that the movement of a small portion of these citizens – and the elimination of their overall tax contributions – could result in a net loss to the state.
“Additionally, estates with large values do not necessarily belong to the rich. Many farms and small businesses, while having large monetary values, are cash poor.
“Delaware previously repealed this tax about 10 years ago, but it was temporarily reinstated in 2009 as part of a budget deal. General Assembly Democrats reneged on that agreement, making the tax permanent three years ago.
“Delaware Republicans believe the state should not be in the business of grave-robbing, nor inserting itself between the departed and their rightful heirs.
“House Bill 149, which seeks to abolish the Death Tax, has been on the House Ready list awaiting action since June. It deserves to be debated on it merits.”
And take Debbie Hudson with you.
The estate tax isn’t about revenue; it’s about aristocracy.
“In fact, the Advisory Council on Revenues – formed by Gov. Jack Markell under Executive Order 47 – cited these issues when it called for repealing the tax last year.”
Good old Jack. A real hero of the working man. I wonder if he’ll be sticking around this Estate Tax hell hole?
Exactly–that was the committee that Jack stacked with Chamber types and his own henchmen. They decided to gut a tax break for seniors in order to get rid of the Estate Tax. It’s called ‘revenue neutrality’.
But what about the children?!?!?! Won’t anybody think of the children (of people with estates worth over $5.5 million)!?!?!
Speaking of children… In 2009 Gerret Copeland asked Delaware Chancery Court to resolve an issue of how two trusts were to be distributed among the grandchildren upon the termination of the trust, “termination” meaning exactly what you think it means. A bit ghoulish, but probably the fiscally responsible thing to do. Read the opinion for the details. The document gives some insight into the structure of the trusts.
Come on El?? Stacked it with Chamber types and his own henchmen… Townsend was on that committee as well.
The transmission from generation to generation of vast fortunes by will, inheritance, or gift is not consistent with the ideals and sentiments of the American people.
The desire to provide security for oneself and one’s family is natural and wholesome, but it is adequately served by a reasonable inheritance. Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security. In the last analysis such accumulations amount to the perpetuation of great and undesirable concentration of control in a relatively few individuals over the employment and welfare of many, many others.
Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.
Creative enterprise is not stimulated by vast inheritances. They bless neither those who bequeath nor those who receive. As long ago as 1907, in a message to Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt urged this wise social policy:
“A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like tax would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.”
A tax upon inherited economic power is a tax upon static wealth, not upon that dynamic wealth which makes for the healthy diffusion of economic good.
Those who argue for the benefits secured to society by great fortunes invested in great businesses should note that such a tax does not affect the essential benefits that remain after the death of the creator of such a business. The mechanism of production that he created remains. The benefits of corporate organization remain. The advantages of pooling many investments in one enterprise remain. Governmental privileges such as patents remain. All that are gone are the initiative, energy and genius of the creator—and death has taken these away.
I recommend, therefore, that in addition to the present estate taxes, there should be levied an inheritance, succession, and legacy tax in respect to all very large amounts received by any one legatee or beneficiary; and to prevent, so far as possible, evasions of this tax, I recommend further the imposition of gift taxes suited to this end.
Because of the basis on which this proposed tax is to be levied and also because of the very sound public policy of encouraging a wider distribution of wealth, I strongly urge that the proceeds of this tax should be specifically segregated and applied, as they accrue, to the reduction of the national debt. By so doing, we shall progressively lighten the tax burden of the average taxpayer, and, incidentally, assist in our approach to a balanced budget.
Back in 2009, the Controller General’s Office estimated that the state would reap $26 million per year from the re-establishment of the estate tax. It is projected to produce about $4 million this fiscal year. Clearly, tax attorneys in Delaware have done an outstanding job counseling their clients on how to avoid paying it (e.g., establish residency in Florida). Let’s leave it in place as an incentive for Charlie Copeland and his ilk to depart the state.
As a respected member of the Delaware Tax Bar said to me back in 2010: People will figure out how to duck the estate tax. Instead, raise the top marginal rate on the income tax. If you’re not making a good income, then you don’t have to pay the higher marginal rate on income.
Therein lies the irony. People like Copeland, who are the only ones above the $5.5 million exclusion, would rather pay a fortune to armies of tax accountants and lawyers for complex trusts, rather than pay a dime back to Delaware. They are tormented by the idea that a penny from that dime might end up helping out a poor person.
Bane, many here suffer from confirmation bias. They like Bryan Townsend so he gets a pass (again). If it was anyone else, the criticism would go on for days.