text: CLOSE Here is the full audio of Chuck Grassley's answer to a Des Moines Register reporter's question concerning the estate tax. The "booze or women or movies" quote begins at the 4:10 mark. Jason Noble/The Register 
   
   Reporters wait for the arrival of senators for vote on the tax bill on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on December 1, 2017. (Photo: MARI MATSURI, AFP/Getty Images) 
   
   If the tax reform packages that have now passed the U.S. House and Senate become law, at least one thing appears likely: The federal estate tax will be slashed and perhaps eliminated altogether. 
   
   That will represent a victory for Republicans in Iowa’s congressional delegation, who have consistently opposed the tax and argued it unfairly lumps in the state’s farmers with some of the country’s richest families. 
   
   But a review of federal tax data and nonpartisan research on the subject shows that family farmers and small business owners represent a tiny share of estate tax payers, and that the taxes they owe rarely force them to sell land or quit farming. 
   
   The number of Iowans paying the estate tax actually numbers in the dozens each year, out of roughly 1.4 million who file federal tax returns each year. IRS data from the last five years shows the number of Iowa taxpayers owing estate taxes ranged from 32 in 2012 to 61 in 2015, and that the vast majority of those probably were not farmers or small business owners. 
   
   Buy Photo Protesters gather outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
   
   Despite that evidence, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a member of the tax-writing Finance Committee in the Senate, has long presented the estate tax as a potentially ruinous burden on farmers and small business owners. 
   
   “The federal estate tax may force family members to liquidate to pay the death tax,” Grassley said in a statement released earlier this year. “It’s harder than ever for families to pass down the family-run farm or business from one generation to the next. The death tax creates financial hardship for family businesses to survive and thrive.” 
   
   The estate tax is a 40 percent tax on wealth assessed when a person dies, and currently is applied to assets above $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples. The House and Senate bills double those exemptions to $11 million and $22 million, and the House version abolishes the tax completely in 2024. 
   
   ““I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”” U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa 
   
   In a statement after the House bill passed, U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican from Iowa’s ag-heavy 4th District, cheered the changes, arguing the estate tax “often falls hardest on family-owned farms and small businesses.” 
   
   Likewise, U.S. Rep. David Young, a Republican whose district includes the Des Moines metro, has highlighted changes to what Republicans often call the “death tax.” 
   
   In a newsletter sent on Friday, Young called it a "myth" that "repealing the estate tax is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans." 
   
   Rather, he wrote, "The estate tax (sometimes called the death tax) negatively impacts farms and businesses all over the 3rd District. ... Death should not be a taxable event and families should not have to fear the Internal Revenue Service and more taxes making it more difficult and costly to pass on the farm or family business to the next generation." 
   
   That view, in fact, has been a GOP talking point for a generation or more. President George W. Bush made the exact argument in 2001 when pushing tax cuts that raised the estate tax exemption and lowered rates. 
   
   “To keep farms in the family, we are going to get rid of the death tax,” Bush declared back then. 
   
   CLOSE Senate Republicans have approved a massive tax overhaul that provides more than $1 trillion in tax cuts over ten years. USA TODAY 
   
   Few farmers affected 
   
   The arguments from Grassley, Young, King and others, however, don’t match the reality found in federal tax data – particularly for Iowa. 
   
   The estate tax applies to around 5,000 taxpayers across the entire country each year, and very few of them come from Iowa. Of the Iowans subject to the tax, only a fraction are actually farmers, and a vanishingly small number of them face a tax bill requiring them to sell off farmland or other assets. 
   
   Buy Photo Paula Egan of Des Moines stands with protesters gathered outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
   
   No data is available breaking down the occupations or asset types held by the Iowans subject to the estate tax. But national data shows farmers and owners of farm assets make up a tiny share of estate tax payers. 
   
   According to IRS data from 2016, just 682 tax filers in the entire country who owed estate taxes owned any farm assets. That represents about 13 percent of the 5,219 estate tax returns in which taxes were owed. 
   
   And even that figure likely overstates the number of primarily farm operations subject to the tax. A 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service projects that just 65 farm estates annually across the U.S. face an estate tax liability. Less than a quarter of these, the congressional report finds, have insufficient cash to pay their tax bills. 
   
   A U.S. Department of Agriculture analysis published earlier this year found a somewhat higher number of farm estates owed the tax in 2016: 0.4 percent, or about 160 nationwide. 
   
   Kristine Tidgren, the assistant director of the Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation at Iowa State University, said she’s not aware of any Iowa estates forced to sell land since the estate tax exemption was raised to its current level in 2012. 
   
   Buy Photo Protesters gather outside the Neil Smith Federal Building in downtown Des Moines Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, to protest the Republican Tax Reform Plan. (Photo: Rodney White/The Register) 
   
   “I haven’t come across any examples of an Iowa family that had to sell the farm to pay the estate tax,” Tidgren said. “I don’t think the current estate tax system threatens family farmers.” 
   
   The USDA report puts hard numbers to the tax liability faced by the few farms subject to the estate tax. 
   
   Operations the USDA classifies as small family farms (those with annual income under $350,000) face an average tax bill of about $620,000, or 11 percent of their total value of the estate. For mid-size farms (with annual income between $350,000 and $1 million), the average bill is $3.7 million, or about 24 percent of the estate’s value. 
   
   Tidgren said the farmers facing such a bill are typically diversified — perhaps with an off-farm job or business and liquid assets like stocks and bonds in addition to real estate and equipment. 
   
   “With the price of land, there are some farms in Iowa that definitely have to worry about the estate tax, and they might end up having to pay some,” she said. “But generally those are larger operations and oftentimes they have other assets outside of the farm property.” 
   
   The number of small businesses impacted by the estate tax is similarly small. That same Congressional Research Service report finds about 94 estates annually that hold half or more of their assets in a small business that heirs will continue to operate after the owners die. And fewer than half of these don’t have the cash on hand to pay the tax. 
   
   All this means, in essence, is that lawmakers’ argument for abolishing a tax that generates tens of billions of dollars annually is based on the challenges faced by perhaps a few dozen farm estates and a few dozen more small businesses across the entire country. 
   
   When asked for data supporting Grassley’s view, his Senate office offered a report from the American Farm Bureau Federation, which showed that rising land values in recent years have increased the number of farms potentially subject to the estate tax. 
   
   That report found Iowa farms with as few as 625 acres — encompassing as much as 30 percent of farms in the state — could be subject to the tax in 2016. 
   
   This analysis overlooks key factors, however. For one, it applies an exemption level of $5 million, which is roughly the exemption for an individual. For married couples, the first $11 million in assets are exempt from the tax. Using the Farm Bureau’s analysis but applying an $11 million exemption suggests only farms with more than about 1,400 acres might face the estate tax. Ten percent or less of Iowa farms are that size. 
   
   The Farm Bureau analysis also does not account for various deductions available that can drive an estate’s taxable value below the $5 million threshold. Of the 120 Iowa taxpayers who filed an estate tax return in 2016, 118 claimed deductions and 44 actually owed taxes. 
   
   Young, King and 1st District U.S. Rep. Rod Blum voted for the House version of tax reform containing the estate tax repeal. Grassley and Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst likewise voted for the Senate version, and Grassley this year co-sponsored standalone legislation to permanently abolish the estate tax. 
   
   In a Nov. 29 interview, Grassley was adamant about the need for change, even if farmers and small business owners represent a tiny minority of estate tax payers. The reason, he said, is as much philosophical as practical. 
   
   An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders. 
   
   “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
   
   The seven-term senator runs an operation in Butler County with his son and grandson and frequently describes himself as a farmer. When asked if his own family farm would be subject to the estate tax, Grassley initially said it would not. 
   
   Then, after mulling it over a moment, he backtracked, noting that if he and his wife died on the same day the estate would be subject to the $5.5 million exemption rather than the $11 million exemption and likely would have to file an estate tax return. 
   
   What the changes might mean 
   
   Should the tax reform package ultimately pass with language doubling the exemption or ending it all together, Tidgren said one likely effect would be simplifying farmers’ financial planning. That’s particularly true for those who end up owing little or nothing, but must take complicated steps to get there. 
   
   U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Dec. 2, 2017 (Photo: David R. Lutman, Special to Courier Journal) 
   
   “There is a lot of expensive planning going on to try to reduce any liability that you have. That’s just smart business,” she said. “So the one thing I would say about the proposals on the table is they would definitely reduce the need for the vast majority of our farmers to worry about it at all.” 
   
   Grassley echoed that point in a statement to the Des Moines Register, citing estate tax-related planning as a major headache for farmers and business owners. 
   
   “Family farmers, small businesspeople and others that may be affected by the estate tax understand that it is law, so many are forced into spending large sums of their hard-earned dollars on lawyers and accountants to avoid its impact instead of reinvesting in their business,” he said. “This means that while many don’t end up paying the tax, it still has a negative effect on the economy.” 
   
   Beyond that, of course, pulling back or eliminating the estate tax would save billions for the richest Americans. Seventy-two percent of estate tax payments come from the top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers; 42 percent comes from the top 0.1 percent. 
   
   How the estate tax works 
   
   The estate tax is a 40 percent tax on assets assessed when a person dies. The rate and income levels subject to the tax have bounced around a lot over the last two decades, but under current law it kicks in on assets above $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for couples. 
   
   How might that play out in real life? Imagine a couple with assets — property, stocks, cash savings, etc. — valued at $21 million. When the surviving spouse dies, the estate would owe $4 million in estate taxes — 40 percent of the $10 million above the $11 million exemption. 
   
   (This is just an example; there are several available deductions that could drive down the tax liability even further.) 
   
   The tax bill that passed the Senate last week doubles the exemption to the tax, so that it’s applied only to an individual’s estate above $11 million or a couple’s estate over $22 million. In the example given above, the couple would no longer be subject to the estate tax at all; their assets are below the $22 million exemption. 
   
   The House’s tax reform package, passed in November, is even more generous: It doubles the exemptions starting in 2018 and then abolishes the tax altogether in 2024. 
   
   The Senate version would reduce government revenues by $83 billion between 2018 and 2027, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. The House approach would reduce government revenues $150.7 billion over that time. 
   
   The House and Senate must now reconcile the differences between their bills and send a final version to President Donald Trump. 
   
   Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2nnLxD2 ||||| Grassley: Ending Estate Tax Recognizes Investors Over Spenders 
   
   Enlarge this image toggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP J. Scott Applewhite/AP 
   
   Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, commenting on the GOP tax overhaul, tells The Des Moines Register that ending the estate tax is about rewarding people who invest over those who spend everything they earn on "booze or women or movies." 
   
   A promise to end the so-called death tax has been a bulwark of Republican electoral politics for decades. A House version of the bill would do just that by 2024; however, the Senate's version of the tax overhaul, which narrowly passed the chamber early Saturday, would keep it, but instead double the current exemption to $11 million from $5.5 million per individual. For married couples, the current exemption is already at $11 million. 
   
   "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it's on booze or women or movies," Grassley, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, told the Register on Saturday. 
   
   The senator's remarks elicited a harsh response on social media, with one Twitter user commenting: "I'm sure those folks would love to invest, but they're a bit preoccupied just trying to make ends meet." 
   
   The elimination of the estate tax benefits a tiny fraction of taxpayers. The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that for 2017, fewer than 2 in 1,000 estates will owe any estate tax, or about 0.2 percent. 
   
   Grassley has been an especially strong proponent of ending the estate tax, claiming that it hurts Iowa families trying to pass their farms from one generation to the next. But in an editorial published over the weekend, the Register wrote: "a review of federal tax data and nonpartisan research on the subject shows that family farmers and small business owners represent a tiny share of estate tax payers, and that the taxes they owe rarely force them to sell land or quit farming." 
   
   The Hill writes: ||||| 
   
   Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) questions Neil M. Gorsuch during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post) 
   
   As Republicans continue to sell the details of their tax bill, some are reaching for more colorful language to liven up complex policies that tend to put the average voter to sleep. 
   
   Case in point: Over the weekend, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) hashed over the plan with his home state’s largest newspaper, the Des Moines Register. Turning to the party’s idea of doing away with the estate tax, Grassley framed the current law as a hindrance to responsible saving. 
   
   “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley told the Register in a story published Saturday. “As opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
   
   The estate tax, often described by Republicans as the “death tax,” is levied only on the very rich, passing on assets of more than $5.5 million for individuals and $11 million for married couples. The current tax on estates is 40 percent of an individual’s wealth at death. 
   
   Grassley, a Senate Finance Committee member responsible for writing the tax proposal, was immediately slammed by critics over the comments. 
   
   The suggestion — that anyone not socking away their savings in the bank or investments must be profligately throwing their money away — played directly into the critique that Republicans are disconnected from the majority of working Americans. 
   
   [Analysis: Why aren’t you paying the estate tax? Maybe because you bought 311,000 bottles of whisky.] 
   
   “Darn straight, Sen. Grassley,” former Hillary Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote on Twitter. “If we gave that money in middle class tax cuts, they’d just waste it on hookers and blow. right?” 
   
   Said Holly O’Reilly, a national “March for Truth” organizer: 
   
   Dear @ChuckGrassley You spelled “food and childcare” wrong. Pull it together. Sincerely, America 
   
   On Monday, Grassley said his point about the estate tax had been taken out of context and sought to expound on his thoughts. 
   
   “My point regarding the estate tax, which has been taken out of context, is that the government shouldn’t seize the fruits of someone’s lifetime of labor after they die,” he said in a statement. “The question is one of basic fairness, and working to create a tax code that doesn’t penalize frugality, saving and investment. That’s as true for family farmers who have to break up their operations to pay the IRS following the death of a loved one as it is for parents saving for their children’s college education or working families investing and saving for their retirement.” 
   
   [Democrats fume over ‘absurd’ GOP tax bill full of last-minute handwritten edits] 
   
   Under the Senate tax plan passed early Saturday morning along partisan lines, the exemptions are raised to $11 million per individual and $22 million per couple. The House version of the bill does the same but also axes the tax completely in 2024. 
   
   In Grassley’s home state of Iowa, the estate tax has been particularly fraught with controversy. Republicans have often argued that the 40 percent government tax creates a cost-prohibitive situation for farmers hoping to pass their farms on to heirs. 
   
   “Death should not be a taxable event and families should not have to fear the Internal Revenue Service and more taxes making it more difficult and costly to pass on the farm or family business to the next generation,” Rep. David Young (R), a Des Moines-area congressman, wrote on Friday in a newsletter to constituents. 
   
   But according to the Register, the actual numbers do not support that narrative. Citing 2016 data from the IRS, the newspaper determined 5,219 tax returns were affected by the current estate tax. Only 682, or 13 percent, of the tax filers owned farm assets. 
   
   The paper also referred to a 2015 report from the Congressional Research Service noting that only 65 farm estates in the United States annually are touched by the estate tax. 
   
   Grassley and other congressional Republicans have long maintained that even if farmers are not affected by the tax directly, the planning involved is an additional strain. 
   
   “[M]any are forced into spending large sums of their hard-earned dollars on lawyers and accountants to avoid its impact instead of reinvesting in their business,” he told the Register. “This means that while many don’t end up paying the tax, it still has a negative effect on the economy.” 
   
   This post has been updated. 
   
   More from Morning Mix: 
   
   Billy Bush says there were 8 witnesses to Trump’s ‘Access Hollywood’ comments 
   
   James B. Comey, Sally Yates and Eric Holder defend FBI after Trump’s Twitter attack ||||| Tweet with a location 
   
   You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| Tweet with a location 
   
   You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more ||||| As arguments for repealing the estate tax go, Chuck Grassley certainly … has one. Actually, the senator from Iowa has two, one on principle and the other based on scolding people over how they use their own money. Guess which one got the most attention this weekend? 
   
   In comments published by the Des Moines Register on Saturday, Grassley explained why the Senate version of tax reform includes a traditional Republican repeal of the estate tax: 
   
   Grassley was adamant about the need for change, even if farmers and small business owners represent a tiny minority of estate tax payers. The reason, he said, is as much philosophical as practical. An estate tax effectively and unfairly taxes a person’s earnings twice, he argued: first when they earn it and again when they die. And, he added, it penalizes savers without touching spenders. “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley said, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.” 
   
   If Grassley wants to stop boozers and womanizers, he’d have his hands full just focusing on his Capitol Hill colleagues. Nothing says “I’m a man of the people” like attempting to craft laws to punish people for their social activities, amirite? 
   
   This is everything right and wrong with the current Republican tax-reform effort in a nutshell. His first argument on the estate tax is dead-on correct. The estate tax’s true offense to ordered liberty is that it double-dips. Accumulated wealth exists from earnings already subject to taxation, and further taxation by passing the estate to one’s heirs is an injustice that in some cases needlessly complicates an already emotional process. It’s a form of double jeopardy, at least in principle. 
   
   In the very next breath, however, Grassley commits the same sin that has plagued the tax system for decades, which is Congress’ desire to commit social engineering through it. The point of limited taxation is that the money belongs to the people who earned it, not the government elected by those people. If I want to spend my money on dinner with a woman, the latest Roman-numeral cookie-cutter superhero flick, followed up by a few drinks at the local bar, that’s my business and not that of Chuck Grassley. (In my case specifically, it would also be my wife’s business, and I’d face a very different kind of taxation.) Those choices should neither be abetted nor punished through the federal tax system. 
   
   Conservatives have argued for decades to eliminate the kind of social engineering Grassley endorses here. A decade ago, we had competing tax proposals for either a flat tax or a repeal of the 16th Amendment and the use of a consumption tax to replace the current income tax. Now that Republicans finally have control of Washington, the best that they can do is merely an adjustment to the existing labyrinthine system — especially true of the Senate version — that leaves in place all of the manipulative capabilities for social engineering in both the corporate and individual tax systems. 
   
   Finally, while eliminating the estate tax is a theoretically principled step, it should have been waaaaaaay down the list for true reform. As the DMR points out, it doesn’t actually impact very many taxpayers anyway, thanks to a high threshold for its application (currently $5 million in estate assets for single heirs, $11 million for married). In Iowa, that would impact perhaps 10% of all farms before allowable deductions that would raise the threshold even higher. And the Senate bill doesn’t even repeal the tax — it only raises the thresholds to $11 million/$22 million. That also is an adjustment, not a reform, so Grassley can’t even stand on the principle he proposes. 
   
   Republicans had an opportunity to be bold; instead, they’re perpetuating the problem. In honor of that, I think I’ll get a case of Jameson’s, a shelf of new Blu-Ray films, and celebrate the victory of the swamp until the 2018 elections. As for the womanizing, Grassley has no worries. My wife is all over that one.
target: – Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley is taking flak over comments he made about why the GOP aims to scrap or least mitigate the estate tax. In speaking to the Des Moines Register, Grassley said the tax often derided by Republicans as the "death tax" is unfair because it taxes earnings twice, first when people earn the money and again when they die and try to pass it on to their heirs. Then came the more controversial part: "I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies." As NPR notes, that triggered a flurry of online criticism from those who viewed Grassley's remarks as elitist. This tweet is typical of the reaction: "I'm sure those folks would love to invest, but they're a bit preoccupied just trying to make ends meet." The Washington Post notes that it also caught the attention of former Hillary Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson, who tweeted, "[I]f we gave that money in middle class tax cuts, they’d just waste it on hookers and blow. right?” But it wasn't just Democrats taking issue. At the conservative Hot Air site, Ed Morrissey says the comment "is everything right and wrong with the current Republican tax-reform effort in a nutshell." Grassley's first criticism of the "double dip" problem with the estate tax is spot-on correct, he writes. "In the very next breath, however, Grassley commits the same sin that has plagued the tax system for decades, which is Congress’ desire to commit social engineering through it." The House tax plan would eliminate the tax entirely in 2024, while the Senate version would double exemptions to $11 million for individuals and $22 million for couples.