Frist, et al: In Estate of Denial
Frist, et al: In Estate of Denial
Conservatives have picked this week to declare all-out war on the estate tax. On Tuesday, President Bush urged that it be “repealed forever” (for the somewhat mystifying reason that it would increase “certainty in the tax code”–whatever that means). And, just this morning, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal lambasting the estate tax (or “death tax” as he is fond of calling it). His central argument:
Imagine working your entire life to build a family business — a farm, store, motel or restaurant. Every hour you work and every decision you make is with the express goal of growing your business, so you can provide for your family and pass something on to your children. Dutifully, you pay your taxes owed, you weather the droughts, survive the downturns, and, in the end, you come out ahead.
Now enter the death tax. The reality is that the business you’ve worked so hard to pass on to your family may have to be sold. This may be the only recourse for your loved ones to pay the burdensome taxes on your estate.
You can imagine Senator Frist’s eyes getting a bit misty as he weaves this tragic, touching tale. And quite a few people must find this convincing, because it seems be to the Right’s central talking point in the debate — that the estate tax hurts small businesses, especially family farms. (Bush has made the same claim elsewhere.)
Unfortunately, this is a profoundly misleading argument. Fortunately, a study released last month by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office flattens it. Contrary to what conservatives have been saying, the CBO found that almost no farms and small businesses are unreasonably burdened. In 2000, only 300 farms would have had to pay the tax under current exemptions (which cover estates valued at less than 1.5 million dollars). And of those 300, only 27 would have been taxed in excess of their liquid assets. Repealing the tax, on the other hand, would cost our nation almost 1 trillion dollars over the first ten years.
But still, according to Frist, the tax that produces trillions in revenue and harms 27 people is the “cruelest, most unfair tax our government imposes.” (Current U.S. population: 295,734,134) Interesting.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Once again our Democratic Leadership is silent on an issue that could help reframe the argument. The dems should state we are for no estate tax on estates trying to pass on a small business to their families, but against large “Hilton state” tax welfare. Put a cap at a reasonable 4-6 million. Get small and medium business back into our tent!
August 11th, 2005 at 12:55 pmTrying to pass the plight of the wealthy man as the plight of the everyman. Reminds me of the tax relief offered to the middle-to-lower class, when the wealthy benefitted most from the tax-cuts.
August 11th, 2005 at 12:57 pmThere’s a great quote out there that goes something like “Never has so much been given to so few with so little considation for the consequences”.
But then “Deficits Don’t Matter” – Dick Cheney – 2003. (Unless it’s a Democratic President and it can be used as a campaign weapon as Reagan did)
August 11th, 2005 at 12:59 pmIf it is true that “the tax does not really hit anybody” but on the other side that it will generate “One trillion dollars in the next 10 years”, then who is paying the trillion dollars?
August 11th, 2005 at 1:02 pm#4: The study shows that the people paying the tax are those that can AFFORD to pay the tax. Not, as the right portrays it, small, helpless farmers.
-Conor Clarke
August 11th, 2005 at 1:05 pmIts not the smaller farms, etc that are getting hit hard, Dornier, its the high-enders. Thats where the trillion+ over next ten years comes from, thus congress is lobbyied to fight and half-truth about it.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:08 pmThat this is a central talking point for the Republicans demonstrates the impotency of the Democrats to frame the debate.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:09 pmRobert
August 11th, 2005 at 1:09 pmYou are spot on, they care not of deficits. They can offer pork on everything and still win by eventually “drowning the baby in the bathtub”. It is a free for all giveaways with the hopeful result of no Federal Government in the future.
You miss the point: the death tax is a form of double taxation. No one should have to pay it. No one.
And, by the way, the repeal of this tax would not “cost the government” a dime. The money belong s to the people that earned itr and have alreasy paid taxes on it. It does not belong to the government.
Let the the taxman go build up his own family farm or business.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:09 pmHey greedy Greenspan, is this tax going to affect you?
August 11th, 2005 at 1:12 pmOh, and if it does affect you, PAY UP, you can afford it!! GREEDY
August 11th, 2005 at 1:14 pmGreenspan is a blog guerilla DO NOT RESPOND TO HIM. He is only honing skills for future arguments against college dems!
August 11th, 2005 at 1:14 pmYou miss the point as well, Greenspan, in that it isn’t the small farmers getting hit, which ISN’T how Frist and others are trying to frame this.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:14 pmThat’s right, Citizen, you can’t respond because there’s nothing to rebut. Just let the truth sink in. Then you won’t feel like responding.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:18 pmRepealed Forever? or until the rapture and return of Jesus. That may only be a couple of years, unless you have a good quality bunker.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:26 pmActually Greenspan
August 11th, 2005 at 1:31 pmI think mocking your stupidity is just fine.
How creating a list of the extreme right-wing millioniares who would benefit the repeal. It could list the individuals, corporations, organizations, how much the estate valued at, what is pass on to the heirs, what are tax savings for each, what is the taxes evaded, and what is the cost to American tax payers.
How much the taxes of the normal individuals must be increased to cover the lost taxes!
August 11th, 2005 at 1:35 pmI hope all the Rockefeller, Disney, Ford, Hilton, Forbes, Coors, Bush, Hearst, and Walton heirs realize the real sacrifices made for them by our troops and by the poorest of our taxpayers.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:35 pmDon’t give us that shit about double taxation. I pay income taxes on all my income. Does that release me from sales tax when I buy stuff with that money?
Deficits DO matter. This is something that isn’t going to help the rich. This is something that is only going to help the obscenely rich. The Bill Gates of this land. But you know what. Their kids/wives/whomevers will still be flush with cash after Uncle Sam takes his share.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:38 pmFine with me, Citizen. Either way, the truth gets told.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:42 pmI live in the Seattle area. Bill Gates’ father Bill Gates sr is for keeping the estate tax.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:43 pmSorry it is not Bill Gates supporting this. It is Ahmanson, the Hunts, and other billionaires (millionaires also) who are funding the right-wing Republicans for this very purpose.
I think I remember Bill and several others signing a petition or something against the repeal of the estate tax. It is the ones who fund the religious right and the right-wingers that are behind this.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:45 pmDoes anyone remember such a conveyor belt of BS relentlessly coming at you day after day from the Clinton Admin.? Not a Dem, but those were indeed much happier hopeful times.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:46 pmI believe that Gate’s senior is for keeping the estate tax. sadly it was one article in a local newspaper and may be impossible for me to find. =(
August 11th, 2005 at 1:47 pmGreenspan is right. Double taxation of this nature violates the end-design of capitalism, which is to aggregate wealth in the smallest possible number of hands. Penalizing the “haves” for having “too much” only serves to further enfranchise those who have “too little” — who aren’t, frankly, even citizens in the sense intended by our Founders — and tends to thwart the overarching dynamic of our God-based, reason-averse, little-guy-crushing Constitution.
All in all, there seems to be too damn much talk about “individual rights,” and too little focus on “noblesse oblige.”
Know your place, guys. You’ll all be happier.
August 11th, 2005 at 1:53 pmTwo quotes: I liked the earlier one too in #3, but this is my version:
“Never in the field of human taxation has so much been taken from so many and given to so few”.
However I need a bumper sticker with the words “What would Jefferson do?” (No silly comments please – I said ‘what’ not ‘who’). Thomas Jefferson thought the silent tool of progressive taxation would stabilize the republic by preventing the wealthy from becoming a tyrannical aristocracy.
And Krazny – this is what you are looking for: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030127&s=gates
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=239887
As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Elected Democrats, you are going to fail again unless you frame the ‘death tax’ debate.
August 11th, 2005 at 2:01 pmRotwang
I see your rhetorical point, but perhaps a bit fatalistic?
August 11th, 2005 at 2:02 pmSo I have a question for our conservative/republican participants: What form of tax would you support to run the Federal Government? How about State & Municipal governments?
Please give us all the details too.
August 11th, 2005 at 2:08 pmSome wealthy taxpayers ARE in favor of keeping the estate tax (Gates, Buffet) just as they are not in favor of the tax cuts.
August 11th, 2005 at 2:09 pmNot everyone is as selfish and corrupt as those in government today.
The estate tax is applied only to estates over 1.5 million dollars and the truth of the statistics is that most small business owners and farmers have not suffered any tax consequences from the estate tax. According to the government’s own records there has never been a family farm lost because of the burden of estate taxes.
This is false and misleading claims by Frist and other millionaires who will stop at nothing to preserve their own wealth – and don’t feel any obligation to pay a morally fair share to the country that allowed them to earn their fortunes. The Paris Hiltons of the nation will benefit from the plan Frist advocates, while the poor continue to struggle, while programs continue to be cut, while the war continues to strain the budget to extreme, and while the future grows more bleak for the middle class every year.
Marie apart from out slogan from my post and #3, you have the perfect frame: “The Paris Hilton Tax Cut”. Where the heck is Howard Dean?
August 11th, 2005 at 2:13 pmDouble taxation as charged is misleading. We all pay taxes for things we have already paid on and for things we don’t agree with.
August 11th, 2005 at 2:16 pmFairness, co-operation, and unselfishness is key. Who will pick up the slack when those whose estates are over 5 million dollars don’t have to pay taxes. You and I in the middle class, that’s who.
Also, when those millionaires die, their heirs did NOT earn that money — it falls to them, unearned.
I would not object to raising the estate tax a bit, if it will appease some, but everything after two million or so should be taxed.
Imagine not working for your entire life. Your parents are so filthy rich that you spend all your time doing whatever you want, traveling, partying, buying hookers, skating through the best schools, contributing to Republican politicians who guarantee to cut taxes.
Then imagine what happens when the parents die. You inherit a gazillion dollars entirely tax free! So that you can continue to live a carefree, parasitic life. What a country!
August 11th, 2005 at 2:41 pmInstead of using Frist’s “death tax” framing why don’t Dems call it the uber rich tax or the non-merit tax. I particularly like the non-merit tax because aren’t we all supposed to “pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps?” If individuals in the lower economic classes can do it surely the residents of the Hamptons, Grosse Pointe and Cherry Hills Village can overcome this “hardship.”
August 11th, 2005 at 2:53 pmI am an estate tax lawyer. I help people with small estates and small businesses deal with the transfer of their wealth.
What everyone is missing is that this is a TRANSFER of the TAX BURDEN from the mega wealthy to the middle class.
If the Estate Tax is repealed, small estates, who pay nothing now, will suddenly be liable for Capital Gains Tax since increase in cost basis will be repealed with the Estate Tax.
Basically, the Bush Administration’s argument is: “Why should rich people pay this tax when we can get middle class members to pay it?”
The sad irony is that the middle class embraces their tax INCREASE so that mega millionaires can pass more to their spoiled children.
August 11th, 2005 at 2:53 pmI agree Turtle and Marie with respect to the proper “frame.” Although, instead of the Paris Hilton Tax Cut, which would no doubt upset the Hiltons, I suggest the Millionaire Tax Cut.
Why in the hell don’t repubs want to contribute to this country? They don’t want to serve or have their children serve, they don’t want to pay, they just want to suck up all of our resources and keep their money for “their own kind.” The arrogance is so raw, it actually makes my stomach hurt.
And the saddest thing? Trailor parkers will vote for Bush simply (simply being the operative word) because “I wanna keep my guns.” STUPID I tell you.
August 11th, 2005 at 2:54 pm#34 – we are all on the same page — I rather like plagiarizing your title and calling it the Millionaire Death Tax, to also co-opt the Republicans’ predisposition to calling the estate tax the death tax.
August 11th, 2005 at 3:01 pmContinued deficit spending by the Republican President (who has never vetoed one spending bill) and the deficit and spend Republican Congress is just a Birth Tax on the future – currently at about $27K per man, woman, and child.
August 11th, 2005 at 3:12 pmOne of the reasons they get away with the argument is that most people don’t have a clue about what estate tax really is and how it works. Take the issue of “double taxation� for example. While it’s true that one acquires assets with money that has already been taxed, assets acquired over a lifetime get an automatic step-up in basis to their value as of date of death. The increase in the value of the assets has never been taxed, so a great deal of what is subject to estate tax is the difference between the original cost and the value at death.
One of the proposals has been to raise the amount exempt from estate tax, but require the beneficiaries to “carry over� the original cost basis of the assets, so that when the beneficiaries dispose of the assets, they will be subject to capital gains taxes. Aside from this being an accounting nightmare, there is also talk of reducing or eliminating the tax on capital gains, too, and that would certainly benefit the beneficiaries of assets which have greatly increased over their original purchase with those after-tax dollars.
As for the family farm or small business excuse, good estate-planning can take care of these problems before they become problems. Anyone with a business ought to be getting good tax advice anyway; just because someone shirked his or her financial responsibility is no reason to give them a pass on paying taxes. The IRS already has in place elections and other methods for mitigating the tax liability and/or easing the cash flow problem that a large tax bill would create. You can elect to specially value certain property, and can elect to spread the payment of tax over a 10-year period, if the estate qualifies for that treatment. Trusts can also shelter assets from tax in the current generation, as well in succeeding generations.
While the estate tax “problemâ€? is not going to affect the majority of us, the loss of revenue that would result from repeal – especially if there is a concurrent plan to lower or eliminate the capital gains tax – will doubtless affect us – the regular middle-class folks – in greater proportion than it will those whose estates are quite large.
August 11th, 2005 at 3:26 pmThe Paris Hilton Tax Cut “framing” has already been around.
EJ Dionne used it in April:
[html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45305-2005Apr11.html[/html]
I seem to recall it being used prior to the election, but I can’t seem to find it right now.
The reason that the Dems haven’t taken to using this is that, as Dem bashing as it sounds, they are the party of Hollywood(read: the ultra-rich), in addition to being our party. They are afraid, and rightly so, of turning people in Hollywood away from the Democratic party, for fear of losing money.
August 11th, 2005 at 3:32 pmProposing any type of tax cut during a time of war should be treason as it serves to bankrupt the country.
August 11th, 2005 at 3:57 pmImagine working your entire life to build a family business  a farm, store, motel or restaurant and then having the new eminent domain sell it for you to Walmart. Tax the rich. They have the money.
August 11th, 2005 at 3:59 pmActually LPL, tax cuts usually stimulate the economy as the money people get to keep gets reinvested in various ways. When the economy heats up as a result, tax revenues increase and the deficit shrinks — kind of like what is happening now.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:18 pmThat said, I think the Bush admin. is spending way too much domestically… and should seek to reduce the deficit by cutting spending as well as through tax cuts.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:21 pmCC – Ronnie Reagan TRIPLED the deficit in order to prove that tax cuts stimulate the economy. bush43 has added 2 trillion dollars to the current national debt.
Now, JFK did it back in the early 60’s and it worked, except that when Johnson took over he went for guns and butter & we got started with deficits that took us to Clinton.
Both Ronnie & bush43 said they wanted to stimulate, but we all know (now & here especially) their real motivation was to shrink the federal government by driving it to bankrupcy. Sooo, it may work on a much more limited scale than currently.
Giving the families of BILLIONAIRES more money isn’t going to help the economy at all. i respectfully disagree with your take on this issue.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:34 pmexcuse me, tripled tha National Debt, not the deficit.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:36 pmkindness,
There is one school of thought that says billionaires are more likely to put tax cut money back into the economy than ‘working’ people. They don’t need it to pay off debts or buy basics.
But it does kind of grate on you to know that the estate tax repeal would tend to help those who don’t need it…
August 11th, 2005 at 4:41 pmActually LPL, tax cuts usually stimulate the economy as the money people get to keep gets reinvested in various ways. When the economy heats up as a result, tax revenues increase and the deficit shrinks  kind of like what is happening now.
Comment by Concerned Conservative  August 11, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
Horseshit!
http://taxwisdom.org/
August 11th, 2005 at 4:42 pmHe is not here to debate. He is here to spread bullshit. He probably gets paid to fertilize this place with weeds.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:43 pmTax cuts have never stimulated anything but greed and waste.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:45 pmCC stands crap can. Here is a guy who knows about money. Let’s here you slime him you poor piece of crap. You will never be that rich, no matter how much GOP and Grover Norquist dick you suck.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/buffett/
August 11th, 2005 at 4:48 pmLPL, I probably should get paid to put up with the crap I get here… but unfortunately that is not the case.
Just wondering — how hard would you tax the ‘wealthy’ if you could? 100% over some arbitrary level, say $100,000?
August 11th, 2005 at 4:51 pmI’d just kill them and feed them to the poor. Fvck off!
August 11th, 2005 at 4:54 pm#46, 50, three things:
1. Tax cuts don’t stimulate when they overwhelmnigly favor the rich, who are prone to save, not spend.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:55 pm2. Estates are stagnant–the money is already invested, so it’s not doing much stimulating. When it’s taxed and federally redistributed, that’s where the stimulus occurs.
3. If the deficit is falling, then why is it estimated (by the CBO, not exactly a bastion of liberalism) to rise well over 1 trillion dollars by 2010?
LPL, I think Buffett is a great business person. And no, I do think I’ll ever be that rich.
August 11th, 2005 at 4:55 pmConor,
The rich ’save’ by investing in stocks, which provides more capital for businesses to invest in new ways like upgrading production systems, training employees or buying trucks to deliver products, etc. This stimulate the economy just as much as taking money from you and handing it to someone poorer than you and hoping they spend on something that stimulates the economy.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:02 pmThe death tax is just income redistribution. Plus, the compliance costs are extremely high, so much money is wasted on accountants and attorneys when it would otherwise be invested, creating more capital and thus more jobs/income. The increased income will provide more tax revenue.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:03 pmI gained a great respect for Buffett when he compared his houses in NE & CA. He had bouth them both ages ago (pre prop 13 here in CA). The size of the NE estate was much bigger than the CA one (Santa Monica or somewhere) but the CA one was worth 3 times more (CA real estate, need I say more?). Well he said that the taxes he pays on the CA house was a third the taxes he paid on the NE house & he just didn’t understand how that could be fair.
That meant alot to me.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:05 pmGrover Norquist called, Tony. You and CC should get over to his site right away. I read someplace he was being investigated, too. Send him your tax cuts. He may need a defense fund soon.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:07 pmYou can’t debate with these people. They have drunk the kool-aid. Well, some of you can, if you have the patience. I get bored with stupidity and ignorance and vert tired of hearing the same old crap I’ve been hearing since Reagan. All proved to be crap.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:09 pmThat meant alot to me.
Comment by kindness  August 11, 2005 @ 5:05 pm
Exactly. I live in CA and I see the damage Jarvis-Gann has done. Prop 13. Bullshit.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:11 pmConservatives = freeloaders. Never met a welfare queen. They never existed. Bullshit.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:13 pmI’ve met a few corporate welfare kings and queens. They are ubiquitous.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:14 pmDid anyone read Ann #37? She writes like she is informed about taxes.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:16 pmProp 13 had some good in that folks who had worked all their lives were being priced out of their homes when they retired.
But it wasn’t derived for “fairness”. Gann wanted to shrink the government through bankrupting it. He just knew that the ads wouldn’t sell as well if he couldn’t use a “nice” mom & pop.
Now is it fair that someone who bought a home now is paying 3 & 4 times the property taxes that someone who has owned the home for 20 years? No. Is it fair that commercial properties fall under the same rules? Absolutely not, that is insanity.
Balance and fairness are very hard things to find in this world. If you could find a new way that would bring more balance & still keep it fair, people would vote to approve it in an election.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:20 pmConcerned Conservative – Lots of wealty people invest their money in Government Bonds (to finance this debt you seem to love) – please explain how that will help the economy.
August 11th, 2005 at 5:36 pm#54
“The rich ’save’ by investing in stocks, which provides more capital for businesses to invest in new ways like upgrading production systems, training employees or buying trucks to deliver products, etc. This stimulate the economy just as much as taking money from you and handing it to someone poorer than you and hoping they spend on something that stimulates the economy.”
It’s very important to understand that this simply isn’t true. Not all spending stimulates the economy equally. In 2003, the nonpartisan forecasting group Economy.com did a study on exactly this point, and came to some startling conclusions. (Every dollar spent on emergency unemployment relief, for example, raises GDP by 1.73, while every dollar spent reducing the dividend tax raises GDP by an underwhelming nine cents.)
And, by the way, you still haven’t explained those dismal deficit projections..
August 11th, 2005 at 5:50 pmComment by kindness  August 11, 2005 @ 5:20 pm
Kindness, that was part of the propaganda, old granny losing her home. Bullshit. Most older folks want to move to a smaller place. Where is the family, the kids? Truth is that kind of thing could have been dealt with. It wasn’t about that, it was one of the first shots fired in the war on poor and middle class being waged by the rich and powerful. Never take them at their word. They lie for a living.
August 11th, 2005 at 6:01 pmThey are easy to catch and cook.
Myths Surrounding the Repeal of the Estate Tax
In recent years, the terms and implications of repealing the estate tax have been defined primarily by its proponents. Some of the most widespread myths about repealing the estate tax appear below.
Myth 1:
Proponents of this repeal call the estate tax the “death tax.” They believe that this money has been taxed once already as income and that the estate tax constitutes double taxation.
Fact:
This money is not being taxed on death, but as income to the beneficiaries of an estate. A significant portion of the value of all estates, and a majority of the value of the largest estates, have NEVER been subject to either the income or capital gains taxes even once. Most of this income is and has been sheltered between the generations. The estate tax completes the income tax; much of it is applied to money that has never been taxed as income in the first place.
Myth 2:
Proponents of this repeal like to say that estates are taxed at 55 percent.
Fact:
This is only part of the story. The estate tax rates go from 37 percent on the smallest taxable estates ($675,000) to the highest estate tax rate of 55 percent on estates valuing over $3 million. On average, after extensive estate planning, applicable exemptions, deductions, credits, and reclassifications of the total value of an estate, in 1997, estate taxes amounted to approximately 17 percent of the gross value of the estate-less than one-third of the highest 55 percent marginal rate. In 1997, of the 42,900 taxable estates, only 14 percent of all estates were valued over $2.5 million. Even fewer were valued over $3 million.
Myth 3:
The estate tax needs to be repealed because it affects family farms and small businesses that are often forced to be sold in order to pay the estate tax.
Fact:
In 1998, only 1.4 percent of the taxable estates included a farm that accounted for at least half of the gross estate, and only 1.6 percent included a small business. In estates valued at less than $5 million, farms and small businesses accounted for less than 4 percent of the assets. Right now, only 6 out of 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate ($675,000 or more) in which a family business or farm forms the majority of the estate.
Current law also provides for higher estate tax exemptions for farms and family-owned businesses. The exemption for most estates that include such a farm or business is $1.3 million. A couple can exempt up to $2.6 million. Also, beneficiaries can defer the payment of estate taxes on businesses or farms for up to 14 years if the value is at least 35 percent of an estate.
Myth 4:
Amounts of charitable giving would not decline because people give out of a desire to help society.
Fact:
While altruism and the desire to help those less fortunate are real reasons why people give to charity, many other people give in order to defray the amounts of taxes they pay. Research has consistently shown that the estate tax has resulted in an increase in the amounts of charitable bequests. The repeal of the estate tax will undoubtedly cause some decline in charitable giving.
Studies done by the U.S. Department of Treasury and Duke University indicate that charitable donations would decline by as much as 12 to 45 percent if the estate tax were repealed because people would have less of an incentive to give.
Religious institutions, universities, and hospitals, which typically receive large donations and bequests, might be hurt most by a decline in giving. Ultimately, it would be difficult for all non-profits to compete for fewer donations by the time the complete phase-out occurs in 2011.
http://www.njnonprofits.org/estate_tax05142001.html
August 11th, 2005 at 6:30 pmLet me get this straight.
The GOP says everyone should have to earn their own way.
The GOP says that getting something for nothing makes people lazy.
But the GOP wants huge concentrations of wealth to be passed from one generation to the next, so that people who didn’t earn it will get to keep it?
What the GOP really wants is an American aristocracy… a landed American aristocracy (aka the “ownership society”).
August 11th, 2005 at 7:17 pmYou are so right, Mr. Boma. And if you are the same fellow I think you are, welcome.
August 11th, 2005 at 7:37 pmThe phrasiology needs to change. There is no such thing as a death tax.
August 11th, 2005 at 10:44 pmIf you were an accountant for a growing business. And the bills and payroll to run the business steadily increased due to several factors(more employees,inflation,waste disposal,etc.etc.)and at every chance given to you,you the accountant reduced the net influx of profit to the company(say by reducing the variety of goods sold at the business),wouldnt you be fired for negligence?
August 12th, 2005 at 1:44 amThis is essentially what Repub leaders are doing,they constantly push to dissolve or reduce taxes,which is our counrties main influx of funds used to pay bills we incurr. Why dont people realize this? It makes no sense to want to cut taxes when spending required to pay bills and deficits keep going up. The ONLY reason Repubs want to cut taxes is because Wealthy,greedy people simply dont want to pay them. Its greed,through and through,oh,with a little unpatriotic,traitorism sprinkled on top.
The Neocon stated goal is to drown and and strangle all social institutions to the point of collapse. Then, swoop in with investment and rescue them, all for pennies on the dollar as they privatize.
August 12th, 2005 at 8:36 amResult:individual pays for water,school,roads etc.
The cutting of taxes and wreckless spending will make this come about quickly.
[...] (via thinkprogress.org) [...]
August 12th, 2005 at 11:05 amIt is true that the money changing hands when an estate tax is applied has been taxed already, but the individual hasn’t… he’s dead! Besides, many forms of taxation are double-taxation. I pay sales tax, excise tax, sin tax on my booze and fags (smokes), etc. etc., but I’ve already paid tax on my income! WTF? So the double taxation argument against the estate tax is valid only when it is extended to eliminating basically all taxes. What burns me about the estate tax issue is that it flies directly in the face of the concept of a meritocratic society. So middle-class folks have to survive on their wits and hard work, fair enough. Why should the children of the lucky and well-connected get a bye in that department? The progeny of the wealthy already enjoy advantages in their upbringing that most of us can’t even wrap our heads around, all but guaranteeing that they’re prepared to do well for themselves. So what, now they need even MORE? More disincentive to work and contribute positively to society? I don’t like to demonize groups with broad strokes, I’m sure the children of the wealthy are nice decent folk (I’ve never met any, but I’ve seen some in zoos — cruel institutions). My $.02….
August 12th, 2005 at 9:05 pmJessie
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 14th, 2008 at 10:55 pmReal Estate Investment Trusts
I don’t mean to be too in your face, but I’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I’ll come to this blog more often.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:11 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 8:01 pmcc debt eliminate
March 29th, 2008 at 10:07 pmAssets And College Financial Aid
Thanks for this post!
April 1st, 2008 at 12:24 amReal Estate Classes
This article sounds well, but how everything is related together?
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pmNutritional Supplements Weight Loss Weight Loss
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 12:56 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pmShavonne
Apply yourself. Get all the education you can, but then, by God, do something. Don?t just stand there, make it happen
April 11th, 2008 at 10:21 am