Democrats & Liberals Archives

Family Values and the Estate Tax

I bet you did not realize that there is a connection between the bill eliminating the estate tax - demagogues call it a death tax - and family values that Republicans favor? Yes, indeed. This bill will be considered this week after the other family-value bills: the Federal Marriage Amendment (which died in the Senate, but will be brought up again in the House next month) and the flag-burning bill. The 3 round out this family-values week in Congress.

Republicans prattle incessantly about family values. What do they mean? Which family values are they referring to? Are they concerned with the family values of all American families? Or do they worry mainly about the family values of the millions of Republican families? Perhaps their real concern is with the family values of the vocal religious-right families?

None of these. The Republicans' big push to get rid of the estate tax proves that they are not concerned with the family values of any of these groups. Their prime concern is with the family values of 18 super-wealthy families. Public Citizen issued a report about this, which among other things, says:

"It [the report] reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion."

Today, the estate tax hits only those families inheriting $4 million or more. This includes only about one-quarter of a percent of all estates. But of course, it includes these outlandishly rich 18 families, among whom are the Walton family of Wal-Mart, the Mars family of Mars Inc., the Kochs of Koch Industries, the Dorrance family of Campbell Soups, and the Nordstrom family of Nodrstrom Inc.

These super-rich families have plenty of values - valuable values, such as money. They donate some of these values to Republicans. Actually, these are not donations. They are more like purchases. You know, value received for value purchased. For example: a campaign contribution pays for repeal of the estate tax.

Is this a good deal for the super-rich? It can't be beat. How else can you dig up $71.6 billion dollars with practically no effort?

Who do you think will pay the trillion dollars the government will lose if the estate tax is repealed? You and me. Don't you feel good about helping the 18 families so much?

The 18 families call the estate tax a death tax. If it passes it WILL be a death tax because it will kill taxes for the super-rich and place the heavy burden on the rest of us. If you want these supercilious super-rich families to keep paying the estate tax, demand it of your senators. Call or write NOW!

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 7, 2006 5:53 PM
Comments
Comment #155304

Paul,

this one is too easy. Only flame baiters could support this.

However, in the interest of discussing something, I’ll suggest a better solution if indeed the Repugs insist on cutting taxes by another 71.6 billion - eliminate the income tax for the lowest earners in an equivalent amount.

Certainly the poorest of us could use the money more than the Waltons…

Posted by: CPAdams at June 7, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #155308

Paul,

I make $30,000 per year (gross), and I want the death tax repealed. The current rate is 48%!! It is rediculous for the incompetent government to swoop in and rob nearly half the assets of someone who is already grieving the loss of a loved one. What a great condolence. You guys need to do something about the deadly sin of envy that runs among liberals. I don’t want the Walton family’s money. How about the government spending about 15% of what it spends now. That would take care of the “tax burden” problem with repealing the death tax.
And since you guys love polls so much, you might be interested to learn that over 60% of the American people are for repealing the death tax. If you’re so concerned about the poor, donate to a charity. Don’t try to force charity on the people who donate the most in the first place.

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #155310

I’ll be calling my congressman and Senators in SUPPORT of repealing the death tax.

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #155311

Paul,
Ihave been thinking about this too. I meet many middle class people who are all for the repeal of the death tax becasue they think it will affect them. They are so surprised to know that most people are not affected by this. I have always believed that inheritied money keeps the very rich lazy and apathetic and i have worked with many parents and grandparents who have rued the day they gave offspring enouigh money to not have to make a living. The entitled, the ones to buy their way out of scrapes with the law or buy thier way into a college are not what these parents or grandoparents wanted to create with their hard earned money.
But that is another conversation.

We need this money, that is due the gov’t to payfor everythign this administration has promised and can never pay on their promises. AND, in a way it is money “earned” by these inheritors—-so why not tax it? it is not double taxed any more than a tax on food is double taxed because the money you spend on it was taxed before it was in your paycheck.

Posted by: judye at June 7, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #155312

judye,

I live in Ohio, where we pay no tax for food. I know the death tax doesn’t affect me (yet), and I still want it repealed because it’s an injustice. The owner and president of the company I work for started a business in his garage, and is now a multimillionaire. Why should he or his children be punished for the hard work he put into his company? “Thou shalt not covet.”

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #155319

Paul,, one question? how many times do you liberals want to tax a dollar?

Posted by: nathan at June 7, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #155321

I wonder what John Kerry (sorry, his wife the ketchup queen) and the Kennedy aristocracy feel about the estate tax.

Posted by: jwl at June 7, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #155322

How can people support the imposition of a system of peerage in the United States? “Why should his children be ‘punished?’ Why should his children get a free ride in life? Why should I be punished (in the form of hiked taxation) to give a silver-spooner another break?

What in the hell is wrong with having to get it on your own? I did it, my father did it, my son’s doing it now. How can you call youerself an American and be against a meritocracy?

Posted by: JollyRoger at June 7, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #155323

The current rate is 46%, and there is an exemption of $2 million. That means if you inherit $1.5 million, something most of us will never do, you pay nothing. The exemption rises in coming years to $3.5 million in 2009, and there is no estate tax in 2010. In 2011, the tax reverts to it’s 2001 levels (55%, $1 million exempt). The rich should try their hardest to die in 2010.

The rich donate to charity to lower their tax burden. As tax rates decrease, so do charitable donations from the wealthiest Americans. As those charitable contrubutions decrease, who do you think picks up the slack? That’s right, the government, shifting more of the burden to the already-suffocating middle-class.

The article here has a nice graphic that breaks down the tax rates.

Posted by: David S at June 7, 2006 7:03 PM
Comment #155328

>>The rich donate to charity to lower their tax burden.

and the poor donate to charity out of altruism.

Pardon me while I puke.

CWB

Posted by: Curt Baker at June 7, 2006 7:38 PM
Comment #155333

The poor don’t donate to charity much at all. They’re poor. Saying that all rich donate to charity just to lower their tax burden was wrong, but there is a direct correlation between lower tax rates on the higher brackets and lower charitable donations. The table on page 2 here shows the realtionship.

Posted by: David S at June 7, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #155334

Duano, are you aware that currently the first 4 million dollars is exempt for a married couple, one deceased? Are you aware in 2010 it will be 7 million. I think the grieving will not be harmed by 46% on everything above the first 7 million.

Your heart is in the right place, your head isn’t. This doesn’t harm the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% of Americans who will be affected, but the 71 billion dollars they get to keep if this bill passes puts one hell of larger tax burden on everyone else who is not so fortunate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #155335

jwl, most rich people favor leaving it in place, some notable names are Bill Gate’s father, and Buffet. The wealthiest around. A few super wealthy families have spent 20 million dollars in recent years to a PR firm to sell Estate Taxes to the public and government as everything from a Death Tax to bad for the economy. Utterly untrue, but, money buys legislation if you haven’t noticed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #155336

nathan asked: “Paul,, one question? how many times do you liberals want to tax a dollar?”

I will answer that one, though I am not a Democrat. As many times as it takes to insure that the spiralling concentration of wealth into to few hands which will choke our consumer driven economy, is halted. Nation first, then the wealthiest 1/2 of 1% can be considered second. Just like our troops, they put our nation first and their lives second. The wealthiest in America should consider similar priorities.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 7, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #155344

David S. and David R.

Thanks for the lesson on the Estate Tax.

Now, go talk to some of the nation’s farmers. Most don’t make anywhere near the amount of money it takes for the Estate Tax to kick in.

The problem is, it’s not just the money you make, it’s your total assets. Land is extremely valuable in most parts of the country.

It doesn’t matter if you have gross income of $100,000 a year if your land is valued at $5,000,000.

Farmers devote a considerable amount of time and money trying to protect the family farm and keep it in the family.

Many fail.

It’s time to kill the death tax.

P.S. The tax that really hurts a lot of middle income folks is the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The fact is, Americans are overtaxed and underserved by their government.

Posted by: ulysses at June 7, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #155346

nathan asked: “Paul,, one question? how many times do you liberals want to tax a dollar?”

The vast majority of Bill Gates’ and the Waltons’ wealth comes from stock they hold in their company. As you know, stock profits are NOT TAXED until it is sold. Yes, their fortunes have been created by their hard work, but the fortunes HAVE NEVER BEEN TAXED! Don’t you think investment income should be taxed the same as the regular paycheck income that every Joe six-pack pays?!?

Posted by: SupraMan at June 7, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #155347

I don’t really want to give the super rich tax breaks, but I worry about the idea that everybody’s money belongs to the government.

I also oppose giving the poor another break on taxes. The poor pay almost nothing already. Everybody should pay some taxes otherwise they are not taking part in the country. It is a moral, not a financial issue.

In other words, I am conflicted about this. It seems so clear to liberals and that scares me too. In the U.S. the citizens own the government. The government does not own its citizens and so does not have a claim on all their money.

Posted by: Jack at June 7, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #155352

Republicans have a problem. They are supposedly the party of law and order. Yet when it comes to things that are mandated by the laws of the land and the Constitution, such as:

1)Taxes (especially income)
2)Federal courts where the judges are appointed, rather than elected, and practice judicial review.
3)FISA warranting of wiretaps and electronic surveillance.

and other matters, they present these things as lacking proper authority to cover whatever issue they’re being hampered on.

I would think that the party of law and order would want to recognize the authority of the law, if they are expecting people to trust them as its best guardians.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #155354

Ulysses wrote:
The fact is, Americans are overtaxed and underserved by their government.
————————
In case you hadn’t noticed, it costs a lot of money outspending the entire world - COMBINED - in military expenditures.

As for the poor “family farmers”…
Suppose I purchase a large plot of land for $100,000 when I’m young, and 40 years later it is worth $5,100,000 because of local development. My heirs would be expected to pay tax on $1M of investment income gain ($5M - $4M exemption) - why should farmers get special treatment??

Some people can’t see your way through the “emotional” scare tactics that the Republicans have cooked up to sell this giveaway to the very rich. It’s sickening to me how our educational system has failed to produce citizens that can think clearly for themselves.

Posted by: SupraMan at June 7, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #155357

On the subject of the so-called death tax, the reality is that the person doing the dying has no further use for the money. In fact, a death tax has always exist: the grim reaper takes 100%!

The people who actually end up getting taxed under this are people who have not had to work to produce the assets in question. The people who stand to lose the most in this deal are the people who could gain the most without ever working a day in their lives. You have to get millions for this to apply, and the likelihood is that if you get millions, you’ll probably still end up with millions, which will leave you still much better than almost every person will ever be.

I’d like to ask the proponents of this a question: just what kind of justice comes from a law intended to let the rich get richer from inheritance? If you have a billion dollars, how much are you really hurt by losing half that? When dealing with the fairness of a fiscal policy, the main question should be “Who does it hurt, and how much?” The answer is the rich, and given what they have already, not much.

Should the path we take in fiscal matters not be the least painful?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #155359

Ulysses makes an excellent point about farmers that no liberal so far has had the guts to try and refute. And it’s also interesting that no one wants to mention 2011, except one really short admission. In 2011, the death tax is set to go to 55% with a $1 million exemption. Sorry, but this WILL AFFECT A LOT OF MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES. At the rate property value is rising, a middle class family might be advised to stay in an apartment as opposed to buying a decent home. Even at my modest $30,000 a year, I am wary about what could happen in 2011. Guess I’d better keep my rabbit’s foot handy and get back on the treadmill that year.

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #155363

You know, after halving the taxes on investment income,while keeping payroll taxes “robust”, I really don’t think the rich need anymore give-aways. All they’re doing is stashing it somewhere overseas, because they’re not stupid. They see the handwriting on the wall, with a nearly $9 trillion dollar national debt and a yearly $600-700 billion anual trade deficit.

The Republicans since Reagan have bent over backwards to throw money at the haves, usually taking away from the have-nots. If you’re going to start wars of choice, you are going to have to pay for them. This credit-card government is forever kicking the debt and its interest down the road. If that is the behavior of a great country, mortgaging its future for a financial roll-in-the-hay, perhaps our collapse is overdue.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 7, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #155369

Why does anyone feel they are entitled to any inheritance at all? What did some fortunate son ever do to earn the right to billions? Abolish inheritances!

Posted by: mark at June 7, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #155371

This article explains the family farm loss myth better than I can:

Focus on Farms Masks Estate Tax Confusion
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0408-02.htm

“Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. “It’s a myth,” he said.”

Interestingly the article also mentions:
“The debate does not divide neatly among rich and poor. Since February more than 800 wealthy Americans have joined in a public appeal to keep the estate tax. They argue that repealing the tax would further enrich the wealthiest Americans and hurt struggling families. They also argue that financial success should be based on merit rather than on inheritance.

Warren E. Buffett, George Soros, Paul Newman and William H. Gates Sr., father of Microsoft’s chairman, William H. Gates III, are among the most prominent in that group, which also includes many people with holdings of just a million dollars.”

I know David Remer beat me to that but for the doubters here it is in black and white.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at June 7, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #155372

How about we repeal the Birth Tax?

“Every child born in America receives this dubious legacy: a $156,000 IOU.”

from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/25/EDGDOIJLC01.DTL&feed=rss.opinion

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 7, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #155373

Duano and Ulysess name 1 farmer that has lost the farm because of the Paris Hilton Tax since 1990, then tell your poor excuse for a president who, cause he’s tried to find one for years.Its a lie perpetrated by the rich to fool people like you.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 7, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #155374

Duano,

Since you’re from Ohio I’m curious what you think of this:

“As the state (Ohio) gears up for a very competitive election season this fall, its secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, has put in place “emergency” regulations that could hit voter registration workers with criminal penalties for perfectly legitimate registration practices. The rules are so draconian they could shut down registration drives in Ohio.”

Interestly Blackwell is also a Republican running for Governor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/07/opinion/07wed1.html?ex=1307332800&en=4dca4b9a0df21cad&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 7, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #155378

Really, rich kids deserve no windfall whatsoever. They’ve already been handed everything one could ask for. A privileged upbringing, a superior education, a career with all the perks and a salary of six, seven, or even eight figures. Why shoud they be given a tax free inheritance, if any at all. I’ve told my mother(in her late seventies and well off)to leave it all to her favorite charities.

Posted by: mark at June 7, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #155379

Paul, concise and right to the point. Five stars.
Great posts here from all our resident Lefties, and David Remer.
The “Death Tax” scare is one of the biggest con-jobs the GOP has ever tried to sell this country. Don’t buy into it folks!!!

Posted by: Adrienne at June 7, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #155380

These people didn’t actually lose their farms but…..

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #155381

Sorry, try THIS

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #155382

These people didn’t actually lose their farms but…..

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #155383

Third time’s always a charm. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Duano at June 7, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #155384

Duano,

“Ulysses makes an excellent point about farmers that no liberal so far has had the guts to try and refute.”

Here’s one for you.

It’s called income for a reason.

Posted by: Rocky at June 7, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #155389

The Estate Tax would not be a factor were it not for land speculators driving up the costs of real estate in rural areas. Not knowing the real economic value of the land, they get people to pay big bucks to build in the middle of nowhere, resulting in higher prices for land that would otherwise be worth far less.

Of course you could deal with that with zoning laws, but conservatives don’t do zoning laws. They do play the “Ma and Pa Farm” card, neglecting to mention that one big factor in the selling of farms is the next generation’s unwillingness to take up farming.

Another thing to consider is that very few farms at all are owned by Ma and Pa. Most farms nowadays are factory operations, run by those big agribusiness interests that you see ads for all the time, and who get a healthy dose of corporate welfare from the government. Trying to compete with them, of course, is also difficult.

All in all, the Republicans have succeeded once again in oversimplifying and issue so they can have a melodramatic reason to fuck with the tax code again in the favor of the rich. This should be so transparent it’s not funny.

This could be taken care of with a simple exemption, which would then allow the tax to fall on the truly wealthy as its supposed to, but for some odd reason, the Republicans want to abolish the whole thing. I mean, we’re already borrowing trillions from the Japanese and Chinese to fund our current round of politically motivated, fiscally irresponsible voter bribery. Why not borrow a lot more so we can give more money to people who didn’t work for it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 7, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #155392

So because I bust my ass and get rich y’all think that the Government should get my estate and not my kids. Typical liberal thought.
It don’t matter where or how the money was made as long as it it’s legal that money belongs to the folks that made it. And their kids should get every penny of it. I don’t care if it’s $50. or $50,000,000.
The only reason liberals want to take it away from the rightful heirs is jealousy. They can’t stand for someone to have something they don’t.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 7, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #155394

Duano try this site
www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETFarms.html to learn why these ranchers have struggled.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 7, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #155396

Ron, your $50.00 or %50,000.00 will go to your kids untaxed, and a lot more if the estate tax was updated to fit todays standards. If the all or nothing conservative thinking wasnt so prevalent today this could have been resolved when your poor excuse for a president had this brought to the floor soon after taking office the first time around.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 7, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #155397

Ron Brown,

Yes, us liberals don’t like rich folks having something we don’t. It’s called UNTAXED INCOME!

Bill Gates’ fortune in MS stock has never been taxed. How is it fair that he can pass that on to his heirs TAX FREE?

Posted by: SupraMan at June 7, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #155398

Stephen
Another thing to consider is that very few farms at all are owned by Ma and Pa. Most farms nowadays are factory operations, run by those big agribusiness interests that you see ads for all the time, and who get a healthy dose of corporate welfare from the government. Trying to compete with them, of course, is also difficult.

Just where are these ‘big agribusiness owned” farms located? There sure ain’t none around here. Or anywhere else in this state. Most farms are family owned. And most farms a incorporated these days (like most family owed businesses) for tax purposes and help protect the family from losing everything in case of a law suite of some kind.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 7, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #155401

j2t2
Nice try there. Look again at where the decimal is.
It’s $50,000,000. not $50,000.00.
And yes Bush is my President. And yours too. Even if you don’t like it. I’m not to crazy about it myself.

SupraMan
And your absolutly sure Bill Gats never paid any taxes. Or is that just another liberal talking point? Or maybe you have access to his tax returns.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 8, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #155404

I am seeing moderate reasonable positions in the comments here along with extremes from BOTH the left and right.

The extremist positiions are:

Right: The wealthiest don’t owe the society which permitted them the opportunity to amass very large wealth anything. The society owes them for being wealthy.

Left: There should be no wealth inheritance, how did the children of wealthy parents work harder for their wealth than a blue collar person worked for their debt?

The Moderate Position. Wealthy persons should be allowed to pass wealthy to their children. It is every parent’s dream for their children. This is why the first 4 to 7 million is exempt from estate taxes. Any kid who can’t make a start in life on 4 to 7 million is dysfunctional. On the other hand, along with passing wealth on to their children, very wealthy folks (above 4 million) have an obligation to share a portion of that wealth back to the society which, through government, policing, work force, natural resources, and relatively free enterprise protected by law, spent money to protect their opportunity to make wealth in America. 48% estate taxes on wealth above 4 million for a married couple is not unreasonable.

The absence of an estate tax will result in ever greater tying up of national wealth into very few hands, which in turn as globalization continues to march forward, will result in much of that wealth going overseas. This will act as siphon of consumer capacity from our economy. And as anyone with Econ 101 knows, the consumers are who bail our economy out in times of recession. If there isn’t enough wealth available to consumers during a recession, the whole economy can tank into depression, which is neither good for workers or the very wealthy invested in equities and debt instruments domestically or abroad.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 8, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #155405

KEEP YOUR STINKING HANDS OFF MY FAMILIES EARNINGS. WE PAY HIGH TAXES…… TO KILL TERRORRISTS AND BULLSHIT SENATORS THAT SCREW WHORES ……..


GET OVER IT……..

Posted by: BOBBY& USA at June 8, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #155406

KEEP YOUR STINKING HANDS OFF MY FAMILIES EARNINGS. WE PAY HIGH TAXES…… TO KILL TERRORRISTS AND BULLSHIT SENATORS THAT SCREW WHORES ……..


GET OVER IT……..

Posted by: BOBBY& USA at June 8, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #155409

BOBBY& USA:

I am glad you and your family do not intend to depend on Social Security, MedicAid and other government subsidies in the future.

I certainly hope you’ve saved a lot of those earnings of yours.

Posted by: Aldous at June 8, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #155410

Sorry kids, I had a dinner date-

As to the family farmers, read the Wall Street Journal article on the step-up. It’s referenced in the CNN article I linked to earlier. Basically, it is a provision of the estate tax code determines the value of non-cash assets as being what the decedent originally paid. So, if Grampa Joe bought the ranch for $50k, then that is what it will be valued when calculating the tax, regardless of its current worth. The trick being that if the beneficiaries turn around and sell the asset, they will pay Capital Gains based on the original purchase price. This provision was implemented exactly for the family farmer who doesn’t want to lose the family farm. Of course, this is where you see a big split in the anti-estate tax crowd: the same rules apply to stock, so if Walton Jr. wants to sell his Wal-Mart shares, his Capital Gains would be through the roof. You get a good look at people’s motivations by where they stand on the step-up provision.

Posted by: David S at June 8, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #155420

Inheritance should be treated as any other income to the inheritor, taxed the same as any other income. The problem is that our tax system is much more complicated than it needs to be. I don’t have a problem with a progressive tax system. It is when we add in all these deductions, exemptions, and loopholes that create lopsided taxation.

We should have a straightforward progressive tax system that lays out your tax burden based on your income from all sources (including inheritance), no deductions, no exemptions, and no loopholes. Whether you inherit $50 or $200 million it should be taxed the same as all other sources of income to the inheritor.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 8, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #155451

—————Everyone seems to have some good ideas about who should pay WHAT!!Why not discuss first why are we paying these outrageous rates in the first place. I suspect each person in every state most likely could find one item to remove from our Governments hands,(WASTE,FRAUD,or Abuse)with out taking the same item twice.Correct this problem and and lower our taxes by half-maybe-

Posted by: DAVID at June 8, 2006 5:43 AM
Comment #155457

P>S> To Every one. In retrospect this will never happen because Federal State and down the line officials most all would have to be voted out of office. Unfortunately most of the flock would rather pay as in the past,more and more—-rather than change their elected official. After all,all the bad officials are in the other states an none can be from my State(right)
0

Posted by: DAVID at June 8, 2006 6:23 AM
Comment #155569

David
So what do you suggest the Government waste that 48% on? And it will waste it. I know you can’t really think that it’ll go to the poor. And if it did, then why should you or me work for anything? We can just sit back and wait for those that did to die and get their money.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 8, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #155571

Don’t forgot that the amount exempted includes the face value of any life insurance making it quite a bit easier to get over the current limits!

Posted by: Rob at June 8, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #155581

—-Ron —- I am glad you walked through the forest but you like most everyone else, can not see the trees. So much for trying to help people find ways too lower taxes.Some what like the expression, you can take a horse to the water but you can’t make him drink it.

Posted by: DAVID at June 8, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #155582

Only conservatives are stupid enough to believe that a dead person can pay taxes.

Rob

Only a tiny minority (1.24%) of the estates paid any federal estate taxes. You’re just echoing the propaganda of that tiny minority who resent paying those taxes. They think if they can get you to believe that people like you are liable, they can get sympathy. Don’t believe them. Look at the government’s statistics on how many estates pay significant taxes. It is small. Don’t be their dupe. (Or maybe you’re one of them?!??!!)

Posted by: mental wimp at June 8, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #155636

“Farmers devote a considerable amount of time and money trying to protect the family farm and keep it in the family.”

You cannot show one single instance of a “family” farm being lost because of the estate tax. That’s a right wing fairy tale.
If you care about the family farmer, you’ll do something about the massive corporate farms buying out the family farms. THAT’S what’s killing family farms.
It’s funny when they say things like “60% of americans want the estate tax repealed”.
First off, if you quizzed those 60%, half would have false notions of who pays those taxes and if they affect them.
Second, a LARGER percentage want us out of Iraq, yet we don’t listen to them. Why listen on this issue??
It seems the right loves polls when they support their positions. And suddenly polls become “irrelevant” when they don’t.

Posted by: norby at June 8, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #155638

There should be a 10% flat tax on everything. Problem solved.

Posted by: David at June 8, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #155642

“The only reason liberals want to take it away from the rightful heirs is jealousy. They can’t stand for someone to have something they don’t.”

There’s lots of rich liberals too.
I believe your side calls them “limosuine liberals”.
I find it hilarious how effectively the right has brainwashed the trailer trash in this country to get so outraged at the plight of the poor billionaires.
Meanwhile, the sons and daughters of those trailer park denezins continue to die in foreign lands.

Posted by: norby at June 8, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #155647

“And yes Bush is my President. And yours too.”

No, he’s not. He campaigned under false pretenses. He won under false pretenses. He’s done irreperable harm to America.
He is NOT my president.

Posted by: norby at June 8, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #155652

Senate votes to reject estate tax cut, 57-41. 1.5 hours ago.

Posted by: Mb at June 8, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #155671

I would assume that as lazy as the uber-rich are, they make time to actively listen to the advice of financial advisors. Any financial advisor worth thier salt would immediately suggest a living trust. So these benevolent rich that are telling you “No, No, Please continue to tax us!”, have a loophole that allows them to transfer most of thier assets to their beneficiaries at a tax rate much much lower than that of the inheritence tax.

Posted by: DOC at June 8, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #155699

Ok….enough crying. The Estate Tax is basically thievery. There are other areas where the government can recoup these lost taxes, ie:

1) Cancel Social Security payments to any illegal immigrants and cap payments to those who didn’t pay into the system.

2) Create a flat tax of 15-18%. This will allow middle and upper class people to spend more in their day-to-day purchases.

3) Cut federal spending on public assistance (ie. welfare). Cut payments to anyone who has been on welfare over 8 months and make them get a job.

Hate me if you want, but when I die someday I want 100% of my wealth to go to my wife/kids/grandkids and none of it to go to the govt so they can in turn give it to someone who chooses not to work!

Posted by: Matt at June 8, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #155708

What nobody has explained yet is why estates should be taxed, except for by saying that the rich don’t need the money, or saying a child who inherits wealth doesn’t deserve it because he/she didn’t work for it. Those are value judgments. Who decides who needs money and who doesn’t? Do we want our tax system based on what someone supposedly deserves?

As to the argument that appreciated assets have not yet been taxed, they will be taxed as soon as they are sold by the inheritor, so an estate tax is always double-taxation. Again, who decides what can get taxed twice? How is taxing anything twice fair?

Republicans may oversimplify the issue by calling it a death tax, but just saying “the rich don’t need it so tax it” doesn’t make much sense either.

Posted by: NCHoosier at June 8, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #155728

WE WANT A FREE INTERNET!


follow this link to send an email to your Congress people on the “Net Neutrality” vote!

http://www.itsournet.org/How_This_Affects.php

Thanks!

Posted by: Craig Dawson at June 8, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #155729

WE WANT A FREE INTERNET!


follow this link to send an email to your Congress people on the “Net Neutrality” vote!

http://www.itsournet.org/How_This_Affects.php

Thanks!

Posted by: Craig Dawson at June 8, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #155742

—-I believe the most egregious actions ever perpetrated on America was allowing American corporations too move off shore to avoid paying corporate taxes and and taking those jobs away from Americans. I also believe these actions have started a chain reaction which will be the end of one of the greatest countries in the world.

Posted by: DAVID at June 8, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #155756

DAVID,

Maybe if those corporations didn’t have such a heavy tax burden, they’d stay in the U.S. Just a thought.

Posted by: Duano at June 8, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #155783

If you believe in equality of opportunity then you must support an inheritance tax. If you believe America should not be ruled by a heriditory aristocracy then you must support an inheritance tax.
If you believe welfare payments actually hurt the poor by making them dependant then you must believe in an inheratance tx. It is the same arguement.
Bill Gates has it right. He has said his kids will not want for anything but he is not going to give them all his money. It would hurt them.

Posted by: BillS at June 8, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #155815

Ron Brown said:

SupraMan,
And your absolutly sure Bill Gats never paid any taxes. Or is that just another liberal talking point? Or maybe you have access to his tax returns.
——————————-

Ron, you’re showing your ignorance.

Stock gains are not taxed until they are sold or transfered. Bill Gates owns 1 Billion shares of MSFT at $22 per share. That is $22 Billion in wealth just from MSFT stock that has never been sold. You want him to be able to pass on $22B of capital gains to his children!?! Why?

http://biz.yahoo.com/t/62/412.html

Don’t get me wrong, Bill Gates is all-right in my book. He works almost full time giving his money away to worthy causes and supports the estate tax as it is today. He’s just one visible example of the extremely wealthy that are the only people that will benefit from a repeal of the estate tax.

Wise up, Ron, before a Republican gets you to invest in Florida swampland —- or privatized SS accounts.

Posted by: SupraMan at June 8, 2006 9:33 PM
Comment #155817

——Duano—The last I looked, those poor corporations,18 of the largest of them received(GM) tax abatements(of sixty mil.paying no tax!)the other 17 either broke even or received a few mil.none of which payed any taxes.in the event you do not believe me check fact check.org

Posted by: DAVID at June 8, 2006 9:40 PM
Comment #155839

Don’t want your estate taxed? Leave it to your church, your local United Way, the American Red Cross. That will keep it out of the evil government’s hands.

Posted by: mark at June 8, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #155885

SupraMan
A privatized SS account would be more secure than the Government one is. At least the politicans couldn’t raid every time they need extra money.
But then that swamp land sounds like a good investment. Them folks down there are going to be building out there someday.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 9, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #155888

Ron whats the difference between a private social security account and a pension with a company that decides to underfund the pension? It can be raided by the corporate overlords with no way of recovering any of the money instead of the Government.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 9, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #156025

j2t2
Wouldn’t a privatized SS fund be held by a bank be subject to the same laws the govern banking? The bank couldn’t under fund it because your the one that funds it.
But then I didn’t say that it was completely safe. Just more secure than a Government funded account.
Any time you trust your money to someone else your taking a risk of losing it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 9, 2006 12:58 PM
Post a comment