The Mars family.
Mars North America's sales in 2008 were $30 billion and Jacqueline Mars is the richest person in New Jersey, according to Forbes.com. Her net worth is estimated at $11 billion. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Mars family has poured millions into lobbying on taxes as well as other issues.
In June, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority approved a Business Employment Incentive Program (BEIP) grant of nearly $500,000 to a subsidiary of Mars North America - the major candy company. This was a reward for bringing 36 jobs paying an average of $80,000 per job from Nevada to New Jersey. These new jobs would be located in Mount Olive, New Jersey, just north of Bedminster where Jacqueline Mars, co-owner of the company, lives.
The Mars family also wants to be rewarded for their wealth by having the federal estate tax eliminated. Jacqueline Mars and her brothers, Forrest Jr. and John, have been part of an effort by super-rich families to gut the federal estate tax for at least eight of the last 12 years, according to United for a Fair Economy (UFE) and Public Citizen's 2006 report on these families, Spending Millions to Save Billions. Other like-minded individuals include the families who own Wal-Mart, Nordstrom's and Gallo Wines.
The fight over the shape of the federal estate tax has been raging for years. And if you are very wealthy, this is a good year to die because heirs get every cent of the family wealth instead of sharing it with the government. By dying this year, George Steinbrenner's heirs will inherit an additional $450 million (assuming 2009 rules).
In 2001, President Bush championed a 10 year phase-out of the tax that culminated in the elimination of the federal estate tax in 2010, then the return of the tax to pre-2001 levels in 2011.
Only the wealthy pay this tax. Under the Bush estate tax phase-out, in 2009, the first $7 million for a couple ($3.5 million for an individual) is exempt from the tax. An individual with between $3 million and $7 million in assets is wealthy - not middle class. That's just common sense, but those who want to kill the tax cloud the debate with claims that it hurts the middle class, family farms and small businesses.
According to United Fair Economy, only two in a thousand people paid the estate tax in 2009. Lee Farris of UFE further explained in a point-counterpoint with the conservative Heritage Foundation that, "in 2009, two children of a wealthy couple could each inherit more, tax free, than the average American earns in two lifetimes. But unlike the lucky heirs who won the genetic lottery, these Main Street workers will be paying taxes on all of their earnings." Also, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, found that under 2009 rules, only 110 small businesses and farms in the whole country would have to pay the estate tax. And almost all would have enough cash assets to pay the tax.
What is the connection with the states? Prior to the 2001 federal estate tax cut, every state levied an estate tax tied to the federal estate tax. In addition, some states levy a separate state inheritance tax. The state-level taxes that were tied to the federal tax code are called "pick-up taxes" because these allow the states to pick up part of the tax revenue that would have been paid to the feds through an estate tax credit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains that these state estate taxes did not increase total estate tax liability because estates received this dollar-for-dollar credit that reduced federal taxes owed by the amount paid to the state.
In 2006, Jacqueline's brothers who live in McLean, Virginia, spent $180,000 lobbying the Virginia legislature to eliminate the state's estate tax, according to a September 27, 2007 article in The Roanoke Times. They were successful and each brother saved an estimated $1.6 billion in estate taxes they would have paid to Virginia upon their death.
Unlike Virginia, New Jersey and 21 other states continue to tax inheritances. Many of these states, including New Jersey, made the financially sensible move to decouple from the 2001 tax cut changes and continue their pick-up tax, rather than cutting essential services for residents.
In the fall, Congress will continue to debate what shape the estate tax will take after this year where no federal estate tax exists. It is the least well off in New Jersey and around the country who need help - not the wealthiest corporations and individuals.
8 comments:
The record clearly reflects that Rush Holt is fiscally irresponsible. For instance, his Federal Budget Testimony from March, 2009, during economic turmoil, applauded the fact that the budget sought to make the R&D tax credit permanent, but, as his voting record reflects, on several occasions when he was in the minority, he, and the most extreme Democrat partisans in Congress, repeatedly voted against making critical tax cuts permanent, and extending similar tax credits to small businesses in the district. Our collective interests are not consistently attended to by the current career politician.
Rush Holt mentioned in congressional testimony that "[f]rom 2005 through 2007, federal research obligations decreased 7.8 percent in constant dollars. Between Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 alone, total federal research spending dropped by 4.8 percent in constant dollars. The Congress must take some responsibility for this funding situation. In Fiscal year 2008, Congress slightly increased the investment in NSF by 2.5 percent, far short of the 8 to 10 percent increase that was provided in earlier versions of the appropriations bills and less than the 3.8 percent inflation that year. At the same, DoE’s Office of Science received 5.8 percent increase, far less than the 15 to 18 percent increase in earlier versions of these bills. I urge the Budget Committee and the Congress to take a different approach this appropriations cycle.”
Apparently, the comment here shows that discretionary spending was attended to by both the Republican and Democratic majority, and the opponent was opposed to that endeavor, certainly an extreme position that does not reflect the general interests of district taxpayers. What is the "different approach" the opponent suggests, even more debt and deficit spending? Is that taking "responsibility for the funding situation?" This is fiscally irresponsible at a time of rising debt and deficits. It shows a blatant and reckless disregard of fiscal discipline at a time when all of our attention should be focused on eliminating the debt and deficit for us, and posterity. The opponent wants to compound the debt issue with increased taxpayer spending on pet projects for his fellow scientists.
Many leading economists would say your wrong. Now is not the time to worry about deficits, the slow pace of the economic recovery calls for more spending to help boost the economy along so that the country does not repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression, when he yielded to those who wished to stop spending and reduce the deficit. The result of Hoover's action was a deepening and worsening of the the depression that made the depression last longer than it should have.
Rush Holt is a fine Congressman who represents his district well, he deserves to be re-elected.
Aratus 271,Your talk about fiscal responsibility during the worst recession since the depression is rather ironic and truly hypocritical.
Where were you when Bush went through the biggest surplus in decades and ballooned the deficit in his 8 yrs in office?
The first stimulus bill was passed under his leadership, and the second under Obama's. This country would be in far worse shape and with double the unemployment figures without that help.
If the major banks had been allowed to fail along with GM and AIG, you would be on a bread line with all the rest of the critics out there.
Most of the tarp money has been returned with interest.
Rush Holt is my congressman, and he did exactly what he should have done. He acted responsibily in supporting our President's efforts to get this country back from the brink.
Your motive in commenting to the article is just to try and discredit Congressman Holt with a lot of fancy sounding data.
We are slowly recovering from this recession as our President has been predicting. We can't turn our backs on our fellow citizens in need and we have to have regulations in place that will prevent another economic meltdown.
Once this country is solidly back on track, and people are back to work, then we deal with the deficit. That is what the majority of credibile economists have advised, and I'll take their educated opinion over yours any day.
Rush Holt is a progressive, they,
the progressives, want to bankrupt
our country in the interest of
"social justice"--which, as per
Kerry and the Clintons, is DO AS
I SAY, NOT AS I DO". Holt needs
to be voted out along with all
the other Dems.
NOVEMBER'S COMING!!!
I'd rather be a progressive than a closed minded neanderthal.
All you so called conservatives out there. Where were you when Pres. Bush went on his spending spree?
What about the 2 wars he started that have added to the bankruptcy in this country and loss of life. How about Katrina? Very proud moment for George.
This country was in great shape when Bush came into office and far worse when he left.
Remember... we were on the brink of a depression when Obama took over, and 18 mos. later things have steadily improved.
All Republicans do is just criticize Obama and call him a socialist, nazi,and accuse him of anything and everything to try and delegitimize him. You all sound like are a bunch of hypocrites. No ideas, no credibility.
Thank you, Rush Holt for standing up to all you critics out there and doing what's right for Americans.
I can only imagine what things would be like if John and Sarah had been elected. Talk about the blind leading the blind!!
Excellent article. Useful to know how the financial elite pull the strings of politicians.
The estate tax is actually the fairest tax of all as you are not taxing a person. Of course the complaint is that it hurts farmers & small businesses by making it difficult to pass the business on to the heirs. But basically we need to ask 2 questions. How much time, work, etc did you contribute to this business and are you going to continue to operate it. Based on the answer, the tax could be zero. We have to start out with the premise that the heirs have no more right to the inheritance than the government and it is up to them to prove otherwise. I am not saying that they should get nothing. I am not against an exemption amount.
Post a Comment