Daniel

“One $7 million advertising campaign ran this advertisement: “When you die, the IRS can bury your family in crippling tax bills. It can cost them everything.” The ad was later criticized by FactCheck.org, an independent watchdog run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center for presenting a “misleading picture of who is actually affected by the estate tax since the vast amount of families are not affected by the estate tax.” The media campaign was particularly fierce and misleading when it came to family farms and businesses. According to one ad: “The death tax is killing American businesses.... To pay the death tax, many are forced to sell.”
It is striking that this campaign was so effective considering that it was based on such blatant distortions of the truth. Opponents of the estate tax repeal had written their own reports and op-eds explaining the limited application of the estate tax and the protections—real and potential—for family farms and businesses. These received little attention. To this, Luntz had a theory. As he explained in a New Yorker interview with Nicholas Lemann: “If you introduce a subject using language that will produce a strong opinion, no subsequent information will get people to change their minds. This is particularly the case when the competing claim is based on numbers — like in the estate tax where opponents of reform argued about lost revenue, high exemption amounts and the small percentage of the public likely to be subject to the tax. But discussing numbers is never a winning strategy.” Describing politicians who talk about numbers, Luntz added: “It’s like quicksand; the more you struggle the deeper you sink.”
― Ray D. Madoff, The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy

“The tax system benefits these wealthy heirs in another way as well: by hiding these tax benefits from the public. Gifts and inheritances are not only received free of income tax; but their receipt is also free of reporting requirements. This lack of reporting helps perpetuate the myth that the tax liability of the wealthy is more burdensome than it is.
To illustrate: a person with a $1 million salary (subject to about $325,000 in income taxes) also receives a $10 million inheritance. Under current reporting rules, only the $1 million salary is reported on the taxpayer’s return, giving the impression—to the taxpayer, the IRS, and the public—that the taxpayer is paying income taxes at a rate of 32.5 percent. On the other hand, if the taxpayer were required to report the $10 million inheritance (even if it weren’t subject to tax!), it would be easier to see that the actual tax burden is less than 4 percent of the income acquired in that year. If we add more zeros to the inheritance, the tax liability shrinks even more.”
― Ray D. Madoff, The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy

“Third, DAFs (donor-advised funds) allow private foundations to avoid the public scrutiny that Congress wanted them to have. If a private foundation makes a direct donation to a hate group or other questionable charity, that information is available to the public through public disclosure of tax returns. But if the private foundation wants to avoid this disclosure, it can simply make a distribution to a DAF, then make the donation to the hate group from the DAF, and no one is the wiser.45 While DAFs do publish their distributions, they list them over thousands of pages, and the information is disconnected from any particular donor.

45. Charitable gifts to hate groups can have devastating effects both within and outside the United States. Proposed legislation in Uganda imposing the death penalty for homosexuals was supported by significant charitable donations from United States taxpayers, many of which came from donor-advised funds. — Lydia Namubiro, “Charity Loophole Lets US Donors Give Far-Right Groups $272m in Secret,” Open Democracy (July 5, 2023).”
― Ray D. Madoff, The Second Estate: How the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy

“Putting it all together, we define populism as a political style that sets ‘sacred’ people against two enemies: ‘elites’ and ‘others’. In this special issue, our contributors do not necessarily take up this definition and, in some cases, they may critically depart from it. Even so, our contributors do, in different ways, reflect on the roles of religion in the stylistic inflections of populism. It is worth underlining that the definition of populism that we present here is intentionally broader than cases that involve religion. Furthermore, it points to the quasi-religious connotations of populism. It, therefore, can be used in the analysis of any kind of populism, potentially foregrounding how even the most secular styles of populist politics will inevitably instantiate distinctions between the ‘profane’ and the ‘sacred’.”
― Daniel Nilsson Dehanas, Religion and the Rise of Populism