The Elephant In The Room: How Estate Tax Repeal Makes A Really Bad Situation Even Worse
The Elephant In The Room: How Estate Tax Repeal Makes A Really Bad Situation Even Worse
In what has become somewhat of an annual ritual, Congress yesterday voted to raise the debt limit once again—this time to $8.97 trillion (yes that’s with a T). How can we make sure the debt will absolutely explode? Granting President Bush’s wish to make the tax cuts permanent.
This year’s projected $423 billion deficit sounds (and is) enormous, but the President’s tax cuts are yet to take full effect. By early next decade, the tax cuts alone will add over $400 billion a year to the national debt, when you count associated interest.
One of the biggest culprits in this looming fiscal train wreck: permanent repeal of the estate tax. According to the latest estimates, repealing the estate tax will cost over three quarters of a trillion dollars in the next decade (2012-2021) even without additional interest costs.
Knowing it’s an enormous price tag for something that will only benefit the wealthiest 0.5% of estates, some Senators have started shopping alleged “compromises.†Unfortunately, these compromises are about as bad as repeal. One discussed by Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley would cost nearly 85% as much as eliminating the tax altogether.
It will take a lot of work to get the country back the right fiscal track, but ensuring responsible reform of the estate tax wins out over a reckless giveaway to our wealthiest estates is a good start.
– Josh Lynn
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“One of the biggest culprits in this looming fiscal train wreck: permanent repeal of the estate tax. According to the latest estimates, repealing the estate tax will cost over three quarters of a trillion dollars in the next decade (2012-2021) even without additional interest costs.”
Just raise FICA to cover the shortfall. Only the little people pay taxes.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:39 pmestate tax? no one told me about any estate tax!….Katharine Harris
March 17th, 2006 at 5:40 pmBefore the trolls jump in with “stealing the family farm” and ” wealth re-distribution” statements I would like to say that Paris Hilton is doing just fine.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:40 pm#3 – Thank goodness. Bless her heart.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:48 pmWell of course the estate tax had to be repealed. How else was Bush going to repay Katherine Harris? Speaking of which, what would Harris get out of being senator that would be worth $10 million to her? $15 million from Abramoff’s kind?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:57 pmI find it mind boggling how poor farmers and trailer park rednecks will fight to the death for the repeal of what is framed as a “Death Tax” but is in reality an “Inheritance Tax” and is applicable only to inheritances of over two million dollars. I wonder how many Americans expect to receive inheritances of over that size. Current research shows the figure of 2% of the population.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:01 pmTwo things to keep in mind about the repeal of the state tax.
1.) No one cared to much about the issue until the the estate tax, was labeled the “death tax”.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:07 pm2.) Republicans tend to skip over the bit about it only effecting estates worth 2 million or more.
Entrepreneurs hate the estate tax. It sounds antithetical, right? A business builder creates wealth and wants to spread it around to her kids, not the other way around,… makes sense. But that entrepreneur would never have had that chance had the estate tax levelled the playing field in the first place.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:22 pmI find it mind boggling how poor farmers and trailer park rednecks will fight to the death for the repeal of what is framed as a “Death Tax .
Comment by Abby
Evidently you don’t listen to talk radio and the preaching of the likes of Bull O’Rielly and Puke Limbaugh or you wouldn’t need to ask that question.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:29 pmWhat if…
March 17th, 2006 at 6:35 pmthis message about the Estate tax only applying to the top 2% ($2 million or more) was publishe in a series of daily newspaper ads, billboards, and TV and radio spots?
The target redneck audience uses those outlets a lot. Even the newspapers.
And they are for sale (the media, not the rednecks).
Where’s George Soros when you need him?
I can’t find any figures supporting the assertion that the estate tax generates the figure quoted here. According to the CBO Budget Outlook,which lumps Estate and Gift taxes together, the amount forecast to be collected over the perod 2007-2011 is $124 billion and the total for 2007-2016 totals $416 billio.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:42 pmAgain,according to historical CBO data, the estate and gift tax (the historical data combine the 2)has generated around $24 billion. In 199,for example, estate and gift taxes combined generated $27.8 billion.
The policy decision is one thing,the use of figures like these seriously overstate the revenue lost.
By the way, the deficit as reported is the net position. The on-budget spending deficit will exceed $600 billion this year. Counting off-budget receipts (excess social security collections) reduces the reported deficit. The choice of financing the defict with both public debt and intra-agency borrowings makes it seem smaller than it actually is.
You can see the Budget Outlook at:
March 17th, 2006 at 6:45 pmhttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7027/01-26-BudgetOutlook.pdf
Instead of keeping the estate tax and repealing the hamful tax cuts for the wealthy, the Bush adminstration is selling off thousnad and thousands of acres of National Forest land to control the deficit. There’s a solid fiscal plan.
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
The latest take on Fengold’s censure
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
March 17th, 2006 at 6:50 pmListing of all Iraq War anniversary events in the SE
I have a suggestion which (I hope!) will make progressives happy. Let’s have a 50% estate tax on all estates worth $1,000,000.- or more. In addition, I propose if a wealthy leech’s home is burgled, we REWARD the “sharers” (let’s not call them thieves) if they “invest” 25% of the haul in programs “for the children”. On top of that, let’s not send police to the parasitic wealthy for a report – undoubtedly they will want their insurance companies to reimburse them – and insurance rates don’t need to go up further because of the wealthy leeches. No prosecution of “sharers” would also alleviate overcrowding in our “just-us” system. Now if we could just oil up the ol’ guillotine….
March 17th, 2006 at 7:12 pm# 11. The cost of the estate tax number is projected into the next decade (2012-2021). You can see what the numbers looked here (though these are slightly dated now).
http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm.
The number in that report is a slight undercount because the newest scores from the Joint Committee on Taxation show the cost of repeal is slightly higher than previously assumed. The new JCT numbers are also higher than the ones CBO originally released (not sure why since they’re supposedly generated with the same programs). You can see that score on page 314 of this doc (line I, H):
http://www.house.gov/jct/s-1-06.pdf
Looking at the in years (any year before 2012) is misleading because of the phased in rise in the exemption level. The cost at the back end ($79 billion in 2016) is a much more accurate picture of the full costs will bear in the future.
josh
March 17th, 2006 at 7:30 pmThe rethugs have done a good job of “selling” the so-called “death tax” to Americans. The estate tax is just that – a tax on unearned windfall inheritances of over more money than most Americans will ever see.
The Dems are missing the boat here by not counter-naming the estate tax as the “Paris Hilton” tax break.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:46 pmI will be accused of naivete but I believe that if your family is wealthy enough to have made it “big” in America, then you owe something back to the country. It’s a moral issue to me.
If the estate tax break is not extended AND if the FICA taxes were taken from ALL earnings (not capped at $90,000) there would be enough money to support Social Security for many, many years, and start reducing the national debt as well.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:49 pm#14 Name change advised.
Only a clueless moron would have the mental capacity(?) to make that kind of an argument. This, for your information, is not a Bible thumping Christian focus blog.
Go back to the Free Republic where your “brilliant” logic will be truly appreciated.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pmI bet those millionaires love using those roads that tax dollars pay for.
And I bet they love the thousands of dollars they probably rake in off of the Internet, which was researched and developed using federal dollars.
And I bet they love the extra hundreds of thousands they get from their investments in companies that don’t give any insurance to their workers, and those workers instead go on medicare, resulting in greater dividends and greater capital gains. Capital gains that are, by the way, only taxed at a 15% flat tax at present.
Let’s just take note that these people have no interest in fairness and competition; they want their kids to be able to financially crush kids from more modest backgrounds after the rich kids get huge advantages in inheirited wealth, so the rich kids can carry on the family dynasty. Conservative politics are that of economic royalty at the helm of corporate feudalism.
These people have no interest in appreciating what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote “all men are created equal,” which is now a total and complete lie under the ideas that the current governing body has been legislating for the past half a decade.
I’m not even looking to dissolve entire estates in order to create this notion of inherant equality that Jefferson’s words would imply (apparently I’m not as radical a socialist/leftist as our founding fathers were), I just believe that those who have created massive wealth on the backs of the lesser among them should have to pay their dues in the struggle for equality, instead of a conservative/regressive notion of the consolidation of wealth to the upper class through inheritence of both wealth and habit passed from generation to generation.
But again, these people are anti-equality to the point of being sociopathic and, if we look at the Declaration of Independence, anti-American.
And I get a good laugh every single time I hear a conservative/regressive talk about how the wealthy are the people who create the jobs and invest in the businesses. Well yeah, they do. Then they turn aroudn and fund right wing think tanks that spend millions developing language and frames that convince the lower and middle classes that when they make less money, it’s a good thing for America!
For example: The right wing has disguised all of what I speak of by creating an impression among the lower class voters that the estate tax somehow applies to them, by renaming the estate tax the “death” tax, and since everyone dies, everyone thinks it applies to them.
I once saw a PBS Frontline episode called “The Persuaders” where a guy conducting a study for conservative language said that the “death tax” language was “more accurate”. The entire episode is available online here, though I forget which segment has the conservative I quoted.
Hopefully this all fits onto one post.. I’ve never posted on thinkprogress before, and I don’t know if there are limits to post size. Now I have to go because the size of the text in this textbox is making my eyes water.
Dave M.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pm#16 – “I will be accused of naivete but I believe that if your family is wealthy enough to have made it “big†in America, then you owe something back to the country. It’s a moral issue to me.” – Comment by Marie — March 17, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
****I would never accuse you of naivete. I find it humourous that progs think other people’s money is the governments and we are LUCKY they let us keep some. My suggestion for the “compassionate progressives” – instead of picking the pockets of others, giving it to the downtrodden and patting yourselves on the back, whip out those checkbooks. And if like the Sr. and Jr. Gates, you wish to leave your loot to the government – BE MY GUEST!!
(Another suggestion: let’s start grocery stores based on the ability to pay, the obscenely wealthy could be charged an exorbitant price for the same commodity that a homeless person would pay nothing for. (We could call it “Sliding Scale Grocery”….)
Of course, since wealth re-distribution is an underlying motive for punitive tax rates, I don’t suppose you would endorse a flat tax? Is that “heresy” to a prog??
#18 – Abby, where did you get your PhD in para-normal psychology? With a nice Jewish mom, (and no mention of Christ, the Bible, etc.) I rarely hang at …what was your insensitive, derogatory remark…”Bible thumping Christian focus blog.”
March 17th, 2006 at 8:13 pmOff topic, I just heard Bush wants to do the same with our air line companies he tried to do with the ports deal. Sell off to foreign companies. There is presently a 120 day investigation (suposidely) going on for the proposal. Guess we shoulden’t be working on Impeachment, getting this insane bunch comitted to an insane asslymn would be more appropiate…..When there is proof by their actions they are comitting treason on their own country and the people of that country why can’t we get them out.? It appears Bush and company are willing to bury us all in debt, sell off all our assets and kill our service people to benefit his war’s and democracy in foreign land. And our democracy is going in whos pocket, his buddies in Arabie or Dubi maybe.? WTF is next. Would some one in the mental health department call the men in white coats and tell them to make some major pick up’s at 1600 pensylvania ave…..Blessings
March 17th, 2006 at 8:22 pmMA – You are part of the problem with this country!
Nobody says that the rich should not be alowed to enjoy or spend their money as they see fit. What is being said is that if they benefit more than the little man, then they should have to carry a little more of the burden.
So by your theory, a secretary should be paid the same as a CEO. This is the same analogy that you are presenting. Why shouldn’t the richer person be expected to pay a little more than the less fortunate? They are not hurt by it, and they still can maintain their life style.
But then again, nobody said that GREED didn’t come at a price! A soul!
March 17th, 2006 at 8:47 pm#20: More derogatory than your comment #14? I found that very offensive – offensive enough to make me break my golden rule and respond to an obvious troll.
There are some real arguments for the repeal of the Inheritance Tax and excellent ones for not repealing the Inheritance Tax. You have read some of the reasons for keeping the Tax in place. You give us your reasons for repealing the Tax and we might have a real discussion on this board.
You are either a troll or a “free republic†kind of American with idiotic “ideasâ€. Your kind, the kind that throws bombs instead of real ideas, is not welcome on any of the progressive blogs and I suspect most conservative blogs either. Can you really blame me for thinking that the Free Republic was your natural home?
Repairs to golden rule specified above are almost complete.
March 17th, 2006 at 8:54 pmMarie,if somebody has an estate worth over $1.5 million do you really believe that they paid no tax in accumulating that money? Your fear or envy of money and your belief (highly erroneous) that the money somehow appeared in their hands really is naive.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:03 pmAccording to the study by the CBO using census data and 2003 tax data show that 40% of Americans pay no income tax and when combined with all other taxes (excise,FICA,Medicare etc.) that same 40% pay only 4.5% of total government revenue.
So Dave M. that 40% (almost 120 million Americans) are traveling those roads and using those services for a modest contribution. You get a laugh when talking to conservatives because they’re paying to allow you a free ride. Or do you laugh because that’s what village idiots do?
I have an idea? Let’s all use ridiculous puntuation in our blogs because we need attention.
*******
Get it?
*******??
Now seriously. There is nothing wrong with taxing those who have benefited from the US economy and structure a little bit more than the rest of the poor slobs sluggling to make a living. It is called a PROGRESSIVE tax or tiered structure.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:11 pmI meant struggling. sorry.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:14 pm“if somebody has an estate worth over $1.5 million do you really believe that they paid no tax in accumulating that money?”
March 17th, 2006 at 9:50 pmWhy so much focus on the dead? Hello . . . living people over here . . . you know, the ones who actually still have property rights? What did the person receiving that inheritance pay already? Zip. Why should they still pay zip for receiving money that way while people who receive theirs in return for actual work pay all the bills?
#24, TJM. Sure the person who accumulated the money, worked for it, sweated blood to get it, got lucky in the lottery, irrespective of how the wealth was accumulated, if he/she paid tax on that income, he/she is entitled to it. That is what America is all about, isn’t it? Be all you can be. But we are not talking about taxing them further with a Death Tax as soon as they die. Dead people can not be taxed. For one, what can one do if they default? Take away their death?
We are talking about taxing the person who inherits the money. The money they did not own and money they had not worked to get. For that person, it is a windfall like winning the lottery and, like any lottery win above a certain amount, has to be taxed.
Nobody, not even the Democrats, like to pay taxes but tax income keeps the government functioning and everybody must contribute. Logic suggests that the richest should bear the highest burden so some of the load can be taken off the backs of those who need two jobs just to put food on the family table. It is not the socialist thing to do; it is the only just thing to do. Paying higher taxes will not make the super-rich any less super-rich but paying a few dollars less would make a world of difference to the rest of the population.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:53 pmMarie,if somebody has an estate worth over $1.5 million do you really believe that they paid no tax in accumulating that money? Your fear or envy of money and your belief (highly erroneous) that the money somehow appeared in their hands really is naive.
Comment by TJM — March 17, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
The person who worked for that money might have paid some taxes, but not the heirs -the ones who actually pay the estate tax. In a way, that money did appear in the hands of the heirs.
From FactCheck.org:
(…)[M]any estates are made up of stocks, bonds, real estate or other holdings that have appreciated greatly in value over the lifetime of the person who owned them. The owner didn’t pay taxes on that profit during his or her lifetime because they weren’t sold and the profits weren’t turned into cash, or “realized.” Furthermore, heirs who inherit such appreciated assets won’t have to pay tax on that unrealized profit either. The estate tax is the only tax that applies to such unrealized capital gains.
Estate Tax Malarkey
From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
Myth 4: The estate tax is best characterized as the “death tax.”
Reality: The estate tax would more appropriately be called an “inheritance tax,” as it ultimately affects only the heirs of large estates.
Today, the estates of less than 1 out of every 100 people who die owe any estate tax whatsoever, because the first $1.5 million of the value of any estate ($3 million for a couple) is totally exempt from the tax.
The Estate Tax Myths and Realities
Here is a good article from the Washington Post:
March 17th, 2006 at 10:15 pm[Yale University law professor Michael J.] Graetz and Yale political scientist Ian Shapiro published “Death By A Thousand Cuts,” chronicling the estate tax repeal movement as “a mystery about politics and persuasion.”
“For almost a century, the estate tax affected only the richest 1 or 2 percent of citizens, encouraged charity, and placed no burden on the vast majority of Americans,” they wrote. “A law that constituted the blandest kind of common sense for most of the twentieth century was transformed, in the space of little more than a decade, into the supposed enemy of hardworking citizens all over this country.”
Erosion of Estate Tax Is a Lesson in Politics
All this talk about estate taxes does not address the problem of wage distribution. Right now, we have a minimum wage. How about a maximum wage. Why not adopt a ratio, say the maximum wage would be 1000 times the minimum wage. That would have a dual effect – all the fat cats would be pushing to increase payments at the bottom and we would no longer have the disparity where a few parasites on society earn more in an hour then most workers earn in a year. In a dairy, the cream floats to the top – in our present situation, we are looking at a steel mill where the slag floats to the top. Just funnel all the excess wages into the treasury. Budget would be balanced in about four years.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:16 pmThey have it *ss backward, they should tax people heavily when they pass, and less when they are alive.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:37 pm#30, the fat cats and the well paid are fat cats and well paid for a reason. At least most of the time. Placing a ceiling on how much Bill Gates should make is unjust and un-American. We need enough control to ensure Bill Gates does not use his muscle to create a monopoly by destroying his competition by unfair business practices. If he make his billions by making a better product then, as much as I hate his corporation, more power to him.
I like a few socialist ideas and a capitalistic society needs some socialistic tempering to ensure it does not turn into a country that functions on the whims of it’s richest citizens for their own benefit, like today’s America for example, but wage distribution, like income distribution stinks too much of communism. The last thing we want to do is to swing from today’s extreme Capitalism to the other extreme opposite.
As for the Budget, it is FUBAR and it will take a generation of Clinton-like Presidents (blow jobs and all) to enable us keep our heads above the water.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:54 pm24: Your comments that there is some sort of jealousy contributing to this are irrelevent. You’re so busy sticking to your talking points that you’re missing the entire point of the discussion.
Why do you believe that the hiers of the wealthy should get to enjoy 100% of their wealth from their parents? Don’t forget that in many cases their parents probably inherited their wealth from their parents before them, and so on and so forth. Something like 40% of the rich inherited their wealth.
Tell me how this is in the interest of all men being “created equal,” as a gentleman by the name of Thomas Jefferson put it. The fact is, a lack of an estate tax isn’t any form of equality. This is the viewpoint of feudalists, not capitalists. I don’t care if you argue for feudalism, because this is America, and no viewpoint shall be stifled; not the communists or their extreme opposite, the feudalists, such as yourself. But be honest in your beliefs, for god’s sake.
When you say that a man has 100% domain over the wealth of those before him, you’re essensially saying he’s economic royalty. Simple as that. It isn’t based on his hard work. It isn’t based on his effort. It’s based on the fact that his sperm got to the egg first, and he was born to rich parents. Boy, that was some hard work, way back in his first 24 hours of life, or so.
As I’ve already stated, I’m not arguing for the deletion of all of his wealth. He not only gets to enjoy being raised by wealthy parents and gets to learn in private schools and Ivy League colleges, he also gets to have a significant portion of the money his parents earned. He also has every penny he personally earned while his parents were still alive. Nobody’s taxing his enjoyment of that money through the estate tax. This places him in excellent economic standing, and if he can’t forge enough advantages with all of these inherent advantages to create another empire, then to hell with him.
Fuck him, he’s just a spoiled brat that wants everything handed to him on a golden platter.
Is this stuff sinking in yet, TJM? If not, maybeyou should read this post again. : )
March 17th, 2006 at 11:17 pmTJM and BA both have been served by Dave M.
It is ultimately about GREED.
I would love to be rich enough that I would leave an estate
to my kids and have them taxed.
It is criminal that those who benefit the most from the
the war in Iraq (do not serve, invest in war profiteering companies)
then get a tax cut on top of that.
Sorry but I see no problem with the estate tax, and rich people
March 17th, 2006 at 11:37 pmof consious (Like Bill Gates Sr and others) have lobbied to
NOT have the estate tax repealed. They understand that we
are all in this experiment of America together.
the fat cats and the well paid are fat cats and well paid for a reason. At least most of the time. Placing a ceiling on how much Bill Gates should make is unjust and un-American.
Comment by Abby — March 17, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
A lot of fat cats are well paid for no good reason. They are provided with a nice golden parachute for no reason other than them being good buddies with and/or relatives of many in their board of directors.
I think the most interesting aspect of this debate is how conservatives invariably try to make this into Left vs Right when, in fact, even pro-business groups and investors have been voicing their concern about what many call “runaway executive compensation”.
As examples, from BusinessWeek:
As Gillette’s CEO, James M. Kilts had reason to expect a lucrative 2005, with annual pay likely exceeding $23 million. But this turned out to be an especially eventful year: The razor maker, one of America’s best-known brands, agreed to be acquired by consumer-products giant Procter & Gamble Co. (PG ). For selling Gillette Co., Kilts received even more than his anticipated pay — a lot more. The companies promised him a package valued at $165 million, including stock options and severance. On top of this, P&G has said it will give him stock and options worth $23 million in return for serving as its vice-chairman for one year and agreeing not to join a rival before 2009. Excluding $6.5 million he stands to earn during his year as vice-chairman, Kilts could eventually pocket an astounding $188 million.
As mergers roared back in 2005, so did CEO payouts triggered by the deals. In Boston, where Gillette is based, the Kilts bonanza heightened local outrage over a major hometown company surrendering its independence. “It is obscene what he is getting paid,” says retired Gillette Vice-Chairman Joseph E. Mullaney.
Fat Merger Payouts For CEOs – Top execs at companies being acquired are reaping windfalls. Whose interest is being served?
Resume: James E. Heard
James E. “Jamie” Heard is one of Wall Street’s least-known powerbrokers. As chief executive of Institutional Shareholder Services, the 56-year-old heads a company that advises big pension- and mutual-fund managers on how to vote on proxy issues
Q: What corporate abuse really makes your blood boil?
A: Excessive executive compensation, especially when it’s undeserved. At the level some people are being paid, you wonder “How much is enough?” And people are getting paid more for doing a lousy job. The parade of executives who left Global Crossing [which declared bankruptcy in January] with multimillion-dollar payoffs is just obscene.
Q&A with ISS’s Jamie Heard – Institutional Shareholder Services’ CEO talks about corporate-governance reforms that still need to be made
Now imagine the heirs of the fat cats who got “obscene” payoffs, inheriting all that wealth with no taxes, even though they didn’t have to work a single day of their lives to earn it.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:56 pmNeed a fact repaired here. Post says only 0.5% of estates would pay inheritance tax. If you read the linked npr opinion piece, you see that the 0.5% figure is what would apply if we adopted his proposed “sensible reform” of raising the exemption to $5M. Under current law, the exemption in 2011 and subsequent years would be only $1M. Yes, I know the exemption *this* year is $1.5M, and for several years in the future it will rise, but in 2011 it drops back to $1M. So if Congress passes no reform at all, the number of affected estates will be a lot more than 0.5% — no, I don’t know how many more.
To put that in perspective, if you’re retiring today and you have only a defined-contribution retirement plan, if you want to live at the median family income, you’ll need about $1M in that fund.
And here’s an opinion. Post and linked opinion piece imply the inheritance tax is all that stands against the creation of permanent inherited fortunes. The main thing that prevents that is the fine American habit of dividing the estate among all the children, so after a very few generations it’s been split a lot of ways, mostly into the hands of people who will fritter and mismanage it away. The second thing is that no state in the union permits perpetual trusts — this ensures that money left in trust will eventually pass to somebody who can then fritter and mismanage it away.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:13 amThe second thing is that no state in the union permits perpetual trusts — this ensures that money left in trust will eventually pass to somebody who can then fritter and mismanage it away.
Comment by Dave — March 18, 2006 @ 12:13 am
Sort of like the surplus Bush “inheritated” from Clinton was frittered away.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:27 amgood
å‘é…µç½
March 18th, 2006 at 1:10 amå¼¯ç®¡åŠ å·¥
What you people fail to recognize is that the rich take their tax breaks and invest the money in America! Their goal is to provide wonderful jobs for you. That way you can pay taxes, and eliminate the deficit. There are a lot of lawns out there that need to be mowed, and the wealthy are to busy making jobs for you to cut the grass themselves. Time for Joe America to step up, and do his part. haven’t the rich sacrificed enough?
March 18th, 2006 at 2:05 amHere’s an idea:
When you die, you lose all rights to your property — so you’d better *spend* every last cent while you’re alive or else it all goes right back into the treasury.
Maybe that’ll help give the piggy-piglet-oink-oink-fuckstick aristocratic hoarders the proper incentive to recirculate their “hard earned” (haha!) money back into the economy… maybe then we’d actually see some results from the trickle-down scam.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:06 amHow else can oligarchs create aristocratic dynasties in the military and energy industrial complexes without estate taxes designed to prevent that?
You liberals must think that aristocracy went out with French head-chopping.
You aren’t really rich unless you can buy and sell people, anyhow.
Don’t worry. Trust us.
–Ugly American Pie-hole, rightwing troll out on parole
March 18th, 2006 at 4:48 amer, ‘with’ estate taxes designed to prevent that.
(oh well, it’s not a REAL rightwing troll out on parole posting, unless it has at least one major typo).
March 18th, 2006 at 4:51 amSome how the Top 5% has beome this defacto electoral college of advise. Seems like the millionaire’s club now rights most of the bills. I think we should offer a 5% tax on investment income and make the revenue go to the Dept. of Education to become grants. Why would they turn it down. The democrats have to fund something. If the GOP is going to drain the bank, treat Iraq as a never ending wound, and then give more tax breaks,people who will have money left, will invest it and the ones who do well would subsidize the institution they most despise.Did Paul Wolfowitz get any federal assistance when he was in college?
March 18th, 2006 at 7:37 amTrolls love power, and they love money.
They want a return to the 1880s, when there were a few incredibly rich families and the rest were poor. The whole idea of the inhertiance tax was to jog loose some of that money and get it back into the economy, with the added benefit of perhaps reducing the unearned power societal power of the aristocrat. It was a progressive idea to try to prevent the landed gentry phenomenon seen in Great Britain from taking hold in the US.
But the trolls, including Ms. Afro-dite, are dazzled by the prospect of being one of those rich people someday, even though it will never happen, so in their greed decry the very policies that help them and their fellow citizens now.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:39 amWith the Bush tax cuts, by the year 2010 the built in budget deficit will annually exceed the income from taxes.
In other words, we are living beyond our means now, and will continue to do so.
The only salvation is to get democrats in charge of all branches of government and reverse this horrid situation as fast as possible, or, WE ARE NEVER GONNA GET OUT OF THE HOLE DUG BY BUSH.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:16 am$ 8 trillion debt. Bonds sold to china and other nations that those on the right don’t like.
but guess what? bush cut taxes for americans.
i hope all the people who are against paying taxes are feeling patriotic right now!!
March 18th, 2006 at 11:40 am#45 – “But the trolls, including Ms. Afro-dite, are dazzled by the prospect of being one of those rich people someday, even though it will never happen, so in their greed decry the very policies that help them and their fellow citizens now.” – Electric BP
*****Funny, I guess I’m a little out of step with those evil, greedy, diabolical Repub/conservatives. I have never envied the wealthy – either those who earned it or those who inherited it. As I said, if wealthy people wish to leave their largesse to the government or charity or their kids, that’s their business. Maybe when progs grow up, (too often, many remind me of my kids when they were 3 and 4 years old) they will realize that life has always been (gasp!!) “unfair” – a good lesson can be learned in working hard, whining less, making good choices and appreciating what we have.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pmthe one thing that really gets me is the fact of these fat cats will have the nerve to go to the middle man and keep asking for money for relief. now if the middle class is struggling why don’t the bushwhacks, gates, duponts, oprahs and hollywood go into their fat pockets collecting the million dollar pocket change and give to the needy. these folks can start helping the victims and watch their easy come money get ripped off. MIDDLE CALSS IS TIRED OF DONATING—-WE ARE BROKE! o’ you can only live in one house at a time. why didn’t any of these folks open up their homes? why was it middle class? and the rich do what to help besides stick their plastic faces and phony selves on tv and act like they really care?
March 18th, 2006 at 1:29 pmI don’t think you idiots understand that right now all Americans pay more in taxes over a lifetime than they pay for food, clothing and shelter. I don’t think you idiots understand that the vast majority of people in this country (including you losers) thanks to George Bush will suffer NO loss in taxes when an estate passes to you and your family. So what if it includes people with over a million or two tied up in an estate? They worked and paid taxes (at a higher rate than you) too. The government is a blood sucking leach and before Bush enacted his estate tax plan in 2001 they were foul grave robbers. You people are really too fucking stupid for words.
March 18th, 2006 at 2:43 pm48) Didn’t you just say a few posts prior that you would never call people “niave’? Seems like you just did, asshat. Just in not so many words, but I think calling progressives and liberals childish kind of sounds like you’re calling us niave.
All together now!
Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!
So here’s what you said, minus the platitudes, the hyperbole, and the ad hominiens:
“Lower classes should just come to understand that the American dream is dead and economic feudalism is here to stay! Yay!”
I mean that’s basically what you’re telling us.
You admire the people who inherited their wealth, and did nothing except get lucky in the virtual crapshoot of being born to rich parents.
You admire the unfairness in the American system; I’ve never seen this before. I thought conservatives always toted the idea that the system is as level as it has to be, and we all have a fair shot at being rich one day.
Apparently, in conservative wingbat land, the American Dream is one day waking up and understanding that you’re screwed, and it’s the rich that are screwing you, and that you’re okay with it. That’s basically what you just said when you say that life has “always been (GASP!!) unfair!”
Indeed, the conservative version of the American Dream is waking up from the American Dream. Fucking masochists.
And god damn those that might want to create some fairness.
God damn those that might want to leverage the system to their benefit, so that people like mighty aphrodite won’t feel like life has always been unfair to them and that life will be unfair for their children as well. Real positive vision, M.A.!
God damn them for dreaming of a level playing field where someone born to a poor man has as much a chance as dying wealthy is someone born to a rich man. As I’ve already said, I don’t want to see entire estates dissolved to achieve this dream, but come on, we can create something that resembles a playing field. Something that aphrodite here apparently abhors and can’t even imagine.
The nerve of these progressive people for believing in an American dream! They should just accept that life is unfair, and that’s totally fair by the conservative point of view.
That’s one awesome vision you guys have there. I’ll stick to being a liberal and a progressive, thanks, even if it isn’t as perfect in its understanding of how unfair America is, wisdom only conservatives vote by.
But hey, thanks for delivering the feudalist message of the modern conservative movement! We all fully understand that unfairness is build into the conservative vision for America, and it’s just how it has to be.
-Dave M.
March 18th, 2006 at 2:46 pmReality based people need to take a lesson from the right wing over the creative use of language.
The Estate Tax is just as much a “death tax” as it is a “Paris Hilton lifestyle protection act”.
March 18th, 2006 at 2:49 pmThe Estate Tax is just as much a “death tax†as it is a “Paris Hilton lifestyle protection actâ€.
Comment by Mark
Wrong dummy. Let’s say the Hiltons are worth 100 million and they die next year. The first two or three million of the estate are exempt and the rest theoretically gets taxed at 48%. Do your homework kid.
March 18th, 2006 at 2:54 pmMizzWrong,
Funny tirades on people paying taxes their whole life. See you missed the part where the person who stands to inherit millions or even billions may never have paid a single tax – yet you plan to give them a free ride.
Comment by Ryan Neat
Ryan, you’re a communist stooge and stupid to-boot. Everybody get’s stuck with taxes. Period. Show me someone who didn’t pay some taxes. Funny but the Left Wing Endowments and Trusts that fund most of your anti-American programs are nothing more than huge tax dodges for ultra-rich liberals. Let’s talk about those shall we?
If you look at the damn law and engage your brain before you open you mouth you’d see that the middle class are the ones that benefit the most and why not? Why should some blue collar or mid level manager who’s saved his whole live and put away a million bucks through living frugally and investing wisely lose HALF OF IT!!!!.
I say screw that and screw you. Have a nice day loser.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:02 pm#48, Afro, look, the fact is that most rich persons already receive tax breaks and incentives that most middle class people don’t get. Added to that is the popular phenomenon of the wealthy investing in, or keeping their money in, overseas accounts or corporations to avoid US taxes, all while enjoying the rights and protections of US citizenship. And add to that the fact the inheritor is receiving a windfall — basically found money.
Considering that the current atmosphere in government is to spend recklessly without embarrassment — a clear departure from true conservatism — and to provide even more tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the rich, the inheritance tax or whatever you want to call it is just something we can’t afford to stop. The fact that it only affects a small portion of the population and is admittedly only of relatively minor help to staunch the hemmorhaging of red ink in Washington, yet is fought against with such ideological fervor, is just another niggling characteristic of Neoconservatism.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:04 pmWay to go King Georgie. Once again you’ve figured out a way to screw America. All except for the 1% of elitists you were born into, that is.
More than 200 years ago, The Founders saw this kind of weasely move coming, with Jefferson talking about it in HONEST terms, unlike Georige Boy, he called it an “aristocracy tax.”
Well, the crooks running this country have decided for us all that aristocracy is compatible with democracy; that we should in fact expand the holdings of our aristocracy. We’ll see how the country looks in ten years. probably a lot like those countries the Founders left behind, aristocracies and theocratic dictatorships.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:08 pmThe fact that it only affects a small portion of the population
Comment by ElectricBassPlayer
You don’t know what you’re talking about. DAMN…wake the fuck up will you? For most of Americans not having to pay an estate tax AT ALL is a great thing. It could be the difference between a grandchild going to college or not going. It could mean keeping the family farm, literally. On and on it helps you and people like you. It doesn’t help the ultra rich at all. So what if some fat cat gets to exempt the first two million of his estate worth tens of millions? He gets royally screwed on the rest of it losing almost half to fund your precious social programs for disadvantaged gender disturbed hockey players. Now, doesn’t that make you feel better?
March 18th, 2006 at 3:12 pmWay to go King Georgie. Once again you’ve figured out a way to screw America. All except for the 1% of elitists you were born into, that is.
Comment by G.I.
I give up. You people are too fucking stupid. You deserve the screwing you’re going to get.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:14 pm[...] (via thinkprogress.org) In what has become somewhat of an annual ritual, Congress yesterday voted to raise the debt limit once again—this time to $8.97 trillion (yes that’s with a T). How can we make sure the debt will absolutely explode? Granting President Bush’s wish to make the tax cuts permanent. [...]
March 18th, 2006 at 3:24 pmFor more background on the budget-busting estate tax repeal, see:
March 18th, 2006 at 3:30 pm“Estate Tax or Dynasty Divididend?”
#48 – Dear Electric – Thank you for a illustrating what a whiny, “it ain’t fair” bunch many of the posters here are. Your “it only affects a small minority” argument is stupid on it’s face and ridiculous at best. (The following illustrations are extreme – note the TYPE of argument.)
a.) the weathy aristocrats and Church leaders who were guillotined in France were “only a small minority” of the population
b.) the only people targeted for execution by Hitler in WWII were Jews, homosexuals, mentally retarded, Gypsies, Slavs ….after all they only account for a small percentage of the overall population.
I am surprised that ideologues who champion minority rights don’t turn to the rich around you and shout “THANK YOU!!” How many TRILLIONS of dollars have been transferred to the poor since 1965’s “War on Poverty” (??)- with NO ALLEVIATION OF POVERTY. (The correct program title shold be, “The War on the Poor Breeding Program – Keeping Them Voters, Dem Voters.)
March 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pmThe argument is about the shameful performance at handling the country’s money. This time it was brought to us lock, stock and barrell courtesy of the GOP and their party’s leader. The GOP reminds me of the Walrus in Alice in Wonderland and and his goober side kick is the American people and of course the oysters are our treasure. I say let them have their new inheritence tax rate, but do away with the Alternative Minimum tax while your at it.
March 18th, 2006 at 3:59 pmEverybody get’s stuck with taxes. Period. Show me someone who didn’t pay some taxes. Funny but the Left Wing Endowments and Trusts that fund most of your anti-American programs are nothing more than huge tax dodges for ultra-rich liberals. Let’s talk about those shall we?
So you’ve succeeded in contradicting yourself IN A SINGLE PARAGRAPH!
Congratulations! Some sort of prize is in order . . .
March 18th, 2006 at 4:01 pmI am surprised that ideologues who champion minority rights don’t turn to the rich around you and shout “THANK YOU!!†How many TRILLIONS of dollars have been transferred to the poor since 1965’s “War on Poverty†(??)- with NO ALLEVIATION OF POVERTY. (The correct program title shold be, “The War on the Poor Breeding Program – Keeping Them Voters, Dem Voters.)
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 18, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
And how many billions have been transferred to Bush’s cronies in the past six years? If the dems were anything, compared to Bush’s outright corruption, they were pikers.
March 18th, 2006 at 4:04 pmBook ‘em Dano – for not addressing the “Promulgation of Poverty” argument – or acknowledging “It Ain’t Your Money.”
March 18th, 2006 at 4:25 pm#66 “#48 – Dear Electric – Thank you for a illustrating what a whiny, “it ain’t fair†bunch many of the posters here are. Your “it only affects a small minority†argument is stupid on it’s face and ridiculous at best.”
Well, that was illustrative of the larger point I was making, which you conveniently ignored — that because of these person’s already fortunate position, this tax may be ALL THEY PAY. Considering they enjoy the protection of the military, roads, etc., I think the least they can do is chip in a little. Yoiu know, like the rest of us.
But it’s nice to see that, at least when it comes to the wealthiest few percent of the population, you’re all for minority protections.
March 18th, 2006 at 4:39 pm“I am surprised that ideologues who champion minority rights don’t turn to the rich around you and shout “THANK YOU!!†How many TRILLIONS of dollars have been transferred to the poor since 1965’s “War on Poverty†(??)- with NO ALLEVIATION OF POVERTY. Mighty Moron”
Here we go with the STUPIDEST troll on the planet again.
First of all, we have not spent TRILLIONS on poverty – that’s a flat out lie, and one of the most idiotic nonsense statements you’ve ever posted. Mighty Moron proves you MUST be functionally retared to be a republican ‘believer’.
Second of all, the poverty rate dropped in 2000 to 11.3% – the lowest level in american history, only to climb again under republican misleadership.
Third the poverty rate in 1965 was 25%.
So despite monumental efforts by republicans to stop poverty programs, the efforts of democrats have cut poverty more than in half. And the rates have continued to drop (hence Clinton having the LOWEST RATE IN HISTORY) under democratic presidents, while they rise under republicans.
Mighty Moron is a fool, an idiot, and a moron. The ‘claim of NO ALLEVIATION OF POVERTY’ is as specious as the claims of WMD in Iraq. Republicans just make up things (lie) because the truth shows they are fools.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:25 pm“Book ‘em Dano – for not addressing the “Promulgation of Poverty†argument – or acknowledging “It Ain’t Your Money.†Comment by mighty Hypocrite the Hermaphrodite”
Thatis ironic coming from you – someone proposing a flat tax on money that ‘Ain’t Your money’. You seem to have lots of ideas of how to take other people’s money as long as your party agrees with you. You’re a hypocrite, a moron, and a fool.
And you’re WRONG AS USUAL on the scope, cost and effectiveness of the anti-poverty programs.
No surprise, once again the stupidest republican troll on the internet can’t get a single fact, single argument or single idea out accurately. Looks like Mighty Moron shares the same need for a bike helmet as our ‘impaired’ president does. The slow kid strikes again.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:29 pm69) So, okay, fine. You’ve brought up the obligatory welfare state bashing, as per usual for conservatives in an economic argument. I’ll be the first to admit that the war on poverty isn’t perfect. The very nature of poverty, the inherited destitution and inherited irresponsibility are central to the problem, and there is no silver bullet to fixing those inherited problems. None.
But, from where this leftist stands, I’d rather have them on a welfare plan than in the streets. You can take that and run with it wherever you want, righties. I know you will.
Yes, I support welfare, because I don’t feel like having families of homeless crowding the streets while I’m walking to work, begging me for whatever is in my lunch bag. I put money into those programs so I don’t have to deal with homeless people in the streets on a daily basis. Even if those programs aren’t perfect.
But you can also address this: what is the end game for conservatives, regarding poverty? You always accuse liberals of bitching without providing solutions, well, we have a solution here; it’s an imperfect system that works only partially. It helps the current generation of those in poverty little, as far as getting out of poverty, but at least provides something a little bit more solid for each passing generation to stand on, a bit more leverage so they can one day get out of their constant inheritance of destitution that gets passed on with each passing generation.
But back to my point–what is the conservative solution? I’m going to say there isn’t one. You have your minds made up about the poor; they diserve nothing, except from a few charities that those you percieve as nobilty might feel compelled to donate to. The conservative end-game, as far as I have been able to tell, will be realised when there are Hoovervilles lining the outskirts of every major metropololis, and increasing bums in the streets.
Of course, I fail to grasp the basic concepts of the conservative backlash, so maybe one of the kind conservatives on here can explain to me how conservatives address poverty, other than to say they’re irresponsibile, which I recognize, and lazy, which I recognize, and any other sorts of labels that you throw on the poor without any other mention of what else should be done.
You also said this: the war on poverty is nothing but a breeding program. Okay, let’s run with that for a bit. Do you think we should reverse that, and make it so that they can’t breed? Are you a eugenist, mighty aphrodite? Clearly, if you’re against programs that allow those in poverty to breed, then you would probably be for any sort of program that would, oh I don’t know, cut the cords, as it were? Is that the great conservative/regressive solution?
And I certainly hope you’re going to address every statement and question I made in this post, and not pull out the ones you have talking points for, because you just ripped into someone else for not addressing every single point you made.
Have fun!
-Dave M.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:31 pmDave,
Mighty Moron is a Nazi – of course he’s a Eugenist. He believes poor people are lazy, stupid and deserve to be killed. And yet he claims that’s what everyone wants to do with the ‘rich’ people. How sick, perverted and nutsoid is that?
March 18th, 2006 at 5:45 pmI just think it’s amazing that all of these right wingers bitch and complain about “giveaways” and “handouts” to the poor, and how that’s going to result in them not wanting to work, because they’re getting free money.
Then in the exact same breath, you’ll see a conservative tell you how rich kids should be able to inherit the entire wealth of their parents, tax free, just handed to them. They never stop to think that maybe, just maybe, it will result in these rich kids not wanting to work, either.
I’d say the rich kid has a greater chance of never knowing a day of work than the hiers of the poor man.
I mean, they have massive wealth already set for their own kids, massive wealth for their retirement, and even more wealth building up by making their money work for them in investments You will never see a conservative say “the rich kids shouldn’t be given their parents’ money because that’s free money that they didn’t earn, and they will just be lazy and never work.
I guess what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander, especially when that gander was born from a golden egg.
It fits into the conservative admiration of the golden rule, the aristocracy, the nobility, the economic royalty. Rich kids should have the option of working. Why? Because their parents were rich.
Oh, that’s fucking logical.
It is logical, if you want to see rich kids inherit the thrones of their parents, as these feudalists do.
March 18th, 2006 at 6:06 pmSome inconvenient facts:
(1) “War-on-poverty†and unbridled Capitalism are mutually exclusive. For Republicans: You cannot have a vacuum which is filled with air. The only concession a capitalistic society can make for the disadvantaged, the old, the sick, the handicapped and the like is a few welfare programs that help take some of the pain away without curing the disease.
(2) “War-on-terror†is equally moronic. There is no military answer to terrorism. You cannot bomb shadows out of existence. We have a better chance of victory in the “war-on-malaria†if we used our military to shoot and kill every mosquito in the world because, unlike killing the wrong people, killing a Culex mosquito by mistake will not give rise to more Anopheles mosquitoes.
(3) Democracy simply cannot be delivered to anybody irrespectively of how much democracy and how well you pack it in 500lb bombs. The very last thing we will ever allow in Iraq is democracy because there is oil under those sands and democratic governments are difficult to dictate to. Besides, spreading democracy is not an American value: “From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.” – William Blum.
(4) Our “brave” soldiers are nothing more than paid mercenaries who play their war games against defenseless civilians for the benifit of big business. This is not something new; this has always been the case: “There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its ‘finger-men’ to point out enemies, its ‘muscle-men’ to destroy enemies, its ‘brain men’ to plan war preparations and a ‘Big Boss’ Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man, to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.
I helped make Honduras ‘right’ for American fruit companies in 1903. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. 1 brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” - Major General Smedley Butler, 1933 speech.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:02 pmIn this story http://michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=6229, Bush gives a pep talk:
So, there you have it. Bush has delivered results for the American people. But the $100 per year I got from Bush’s tax cut has been consumed by higher gas and energy prices. Eight dollars and change a month extra just didn’t seem to increase my disposable income all that much.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:23 pmMighty Aphrodite,
for a lawyer, you certainly make some specious arguments sometimes.
Although you use this illustration to rebut the argument that the estate tax should be maintained because it only affects a small percentage of the population, your facts actually support the application of the estate tax.
The guillotining of the wealthy aristocrats was a most dramatic redistribution of wealth. An estate tax which allows some wealth to be passed on, while preventing the abuses of an aristocratic class would be a much less painful method to achieve the same goal.
If you are arguing to eliminate the estate tax, your argument misses the mark. As class differentials widen, history, the history you cite, demonstrates that violent revolution is the ultimate result.
What then is your suggested alternative?
March 18th, 2006 at 8:39 pmBriseadh na Faire,
Mighty Moron is no lawyer. He’s probably a junior high school student based on how underdeveloped his vocabulary and reasoning skills are. He has a hate for ‘professors’, which is indicative of someone who’s prepubescent.
Did he ever answer your challenge to discuss ‘legal issues’? I’m guessing not, because he was too retarded to even know what ‘mens rea’ meant.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:03 pmSo you’ve succeeded in contradicting yourself IN A SINGLE PARAGRAPH!
Congratulations! Some sort of prize is in order . . .
Comment by Dano347
It would only seem that way if you’re a 6th grader and don’t know the tax codes. I am correct. You’re an idiot.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:09 pmYou morons are the one writing all of the laws, and flushing the country down the toilet. And you’re going to get the screwups (like Iraq) you deserve for your stupidity.
It’s karma, and you can’t escape it numnuts.
Comment by Ryan Neat —
The tax laws were written by Donks over the last 50 years and only amended by Republicans. Your party is the party of thieves though I have to hand it to Clinton for amending the estate tax and breaking ground for George to eliminate it all together. You didn’t know that did you? If you’d just keep your mouth shut, listen, and engage your brain you might make a good American one of these days.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:15 pmThat law? How again is the ‘middle class’ gonna squeeze into that top 3% again? Does that SOUND like middle class to you twirpnuts?
You’re a moron.
Comment by Ryan Neat
No, you’re the moron. The law as it stands today in 2006 says that there is no tax due on estates under 2 million dollars. That covers 99% of the people in this country. The other poor bastards who inherit estates over 2 million have to pay 48% of everything over that 2 million. Not only that but your rich widowed mother can “gift” you up to 2 million tax free….this year. You’d know that if you were half bright or had parents I didn’t support with my hard earned money. Ryan..why don’t you just admit that you are a loser from a family of losers? Hey…it’s just that evolution shit you love baby. You are stuck being the son of losers. That’s funny to me.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:26 pmSo, there you have it. Bush has delivered results for the American people. But the $100 per year I got from Bush’s tax cut has been consumed by higher gas and energy prices. Eight dollars and change a month extra just didn’t seem to increase my disposable income all that much.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Who gives a fat rat’s ass what some burger flipper got? Do you want more?…..drum roll……make yourself valuable and earn it…..fucking dimwits anyway.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:30 pmI-Right-I,
A “burger flipper” got nothing from Bush’s tax cut.
There are many differences between you and I. I use sophisticated adjectives, you use fornicating pejoritives.
I care about what some burger flipper gets, you do not.
I engage in meaningful debate, you issue unsupported attacks and run.
I have made myself more valuable and earn more than the median income. However, if every “burger flipper” were to go to college and get an MA and a JD degree, the economy would not be able to support them. The concept that everyone in the United States can better themselves is illusory.
March 18th, 2006 at 10:57 pmI care about what some burger flipper gets, you do not.
I engage in meaningful debate, you issue unsupported attacks and run.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
I don’t care about burger flippers. It’s a high school job and anyone out of high school still flipping burgers is a loser. There will always be losers, too bad but they mean nothing in this discussion. I have made NO unsupported assertions or attacks. That fact is anyone who inherits less than 2 million today pays no tax. That’s a good thing. Maybe the burger flipper can start his own burger joint after daddy dies.
I’m giving it to you straight up. If your dad works his ass off his entire life to make things better for you why should the government steal half of it from him after he’s dead and can’t defend himself and give it to fucktards? Do you hear me now?
March 18th, 2006 at 11:43 pm#66- Did you know that the Pentagon has somehow managed to “mislay” over 3 Trillion dollars in the last few years ? And they have NO IDEA what happened to it. Can’t know the unknowns, I suppose. And since there is no system for auditing the Pentagon, no explanation will have to be given, as to where it all went. But every new budget includes an increase in spending for the Pentagon, while money for food stamps is being cut from the same budget.
#60- The reason most Americans won’t have to pay any “estate taxes”, is because they simply won’t have enough money to be subject to them. And if this “grandchild” is planning on Grandma and Grandpa DYING, and leaving him some tuition money in the will, said grandchild probably lacks the intelligence to make it into college in the first place. And “saving the family farm” ? Not likely. AgriCorps are driving most of them out of business, while having the audacity to hold their hands out for “farm subsidies” from the Government !!
I wonder what “Poppy and Babs” have decided about their own future “asset redistributions” ? They better make sure “georgie” only gets an “allowance”, cause with HIS record, that money would be G-O-N-E, in a big, fat hurry. And no one left to bail him out. And who would pay HIM to make a speech ?!? That is a big money maker for former Presidents, as we know. But I can’t invision an avalanche of offers coming his way.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:43 pm#66- Did you know that the Pentagon has somehow managed to “mislay†over 3 Trillion dollars in the last few years ? And they have NO IDEA what happened to it.
Comment by Cyra Brown
Bullshit. Just blow your brains out now and save us the expense of your incarceration at a mental hospital.
Idiots like you can’t even count the zeros in a trillion let alone comprehend the meaning.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:52 pm60- The reason most Americans won’t have to pay any “estate taxesâ€, is because they simply won’t have enough money to be subject to them.
Comment by Idiot
You have a real problem with numbers don’t you? What’s so hard to grasp about the concept that a person will not be paying taxes AT ALL if your estate is UNDER 2 MILLION DOLLARS? Also…tell your parents that if they trust you they can “gift” you up to $2M and you’ll not pay a cent of taxes on the gift. You might be able to purchase a brain.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:57 pm#87
Hey Einstein, the one who inherits the money is the one who is going to be taxed, not the one who died. And don’t call the guy in the White House a fuckturd.
March 19th, 2006 at 12:06 am#86 “I’m giving it to you straight up. If your dad works his ass off his entire life to make things better for you why should the government steal half of it from him after he’s dead…”
TO ENCOURAGE YOUR DAD TO SPEND HIS MONEY WISELY WHILE HE IS ALIVE AND CAN HAVE SOME SAY-SO OVER HIS HARD-EARNED CASH INSTEAD OF LEAVING IT TO HIS MORONIC OFFSPRING TO SQUANDER.
Why do you think perpetual trusts were created? They keep dead-beat junior’s hands off the trust fund, yet allow him to live a life of leisure, thanks to his dad working his ass off. And the trust rea is carried forward in perpetuity, allowing grandchildren and great grand children the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of other’s labors while contributing nothing to society.
They will never have to work flipping burgers. But, thanks to dear old dad, they will never be considered losers. And a well-constructed perpetual trust will never pay taxes. The working class’s taxes is used to support and enhance their lifestyle. After all, they belong to the class of people able to get no-bid government contracts with little or no accountability as to how the money is spent. The billions siphoned off the public trust goes into maintaining their lifestyle.
THAT is the system you are supporting. That is, if you work for a living.
March 19th, 2006 at 12:25 am#89. Repealing the estate tax means that those estates worth MORE THAN 2 MILLION DOLLARS will NOT have to pay the estate tax either!
And since you seem to be the expert on Wills and Trusts, just how can mom and dad “gift” someone $2 million dollars tax-free? Careful now, a “gift” is different than a bequest.
Are you holding yourself out as giving legal advise on tax matters?
March 19th, 2006 at 12:35 am#88- You must remember me. For a time I believed that deep down you had a heart, though you work really hard to hide it. You said some very kind things to me when I ranted at you, on the day I went to the funeral of my young friend, Hannah, who, on February 2, 2006, actually DID do what you have now suggested that I should do. Do you remember ? If you feel the need to respond to something I have posted in the future, could you please stick to insulting my intelligence, or lack thereof, as you see it, but please restrain the urge to suggest that I follow Hannah’s path from this world. It is beyond hurtful, and really, really, low behavior. Thank you.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:08 amCyra,
my condolences. My brother made that same choice a little over 10 years ago, so I can empathise with what you are going through.
Unfortunately, the only thing that comes through I-Right-I’s posts is hatred and contempt. Yet he is not one of the privileged few. He is one of the ‘losers.’ He either works for a living or is on the public dole.
I feel sorry for him, for he attracts to himself that which he despises the most. His venting on these posts gives him no comfort, though he does derive a perverse sense of joy at getting others upset.
Peace and Blessings be with you.
March 19th, 2006 at 2:56 am#94- Briseadh, thank you for the kind words. I am still gobsmacked by her passing. She was only 14 years old. I am so sorry to hear about your brother. Does it ever get any easier to bear ? I feel like she “took” a piece of me with her, and left a “hole” that will never heal. She was such an AMAZING girl ! Mature, far beyond her years, you know ? A very old soul, I always felt. The human heart holds many mysteries, and sometimes questions remain unanswered, and I will struggle with acceptance of that, I know. As for IRI, once upside the head with a two by four is enough for me. But his “suggestion” just really hurt me, and I needed to say that. But I am done now.
March 19th, 2006 at 4:00 amWishing you peace, Cyra
#95 Cyra,
It does get easier. The time will be different for each person. For me, it was 3 years before the sky looked blue again.
Yet there will be times when it all comes flooding back again. There is no ‘right way’ no ‘wrong way’ to feel. Allow yourself to feel however you feel. Don’t chastize yourself if you find yourself having fun. And don’t go thinking “I should be over this by now.” You will walk past this when it is right for you to.
if you wish, you may email me at myspammailbox at hotmail dot com. I will help as I am able.
March 19th, 2006 at 10:24 amAre you holding yourself out as giving legal advise on tax matters?
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
Nope, I’m holding myself out as someone who’s read the statute and some expert commentary on the law. I hold myself to be someone who works hard, saves and isn’t interested in giving away my money or my families money to losers like you because you didn’t work hard, didn’t save and find yourself without a pot to piss in.
Stealing from the dead is a Progressive past time.
March 19th, 2006 at 1:58 pmJustice and revenue issues aside, there’s a strong argument, hinted at above, for the positive economic incentives created by the estate tax. First, there’s the “Carnegie effect,” where people of means don’t work hard enough to get the most out of their abilities, as “hard work” has minimal returns. Second, there’s the “incompetence effect,” where significant assets are distributed by lineage, rather than by abilitiy.
Details from a recent, fairly relevant, study here:
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10005212.shtml
March 19th, 2006 at 2:59 pm#98
Cite the relevent portions of the statute. Cite the “expert commentary on the law.”
By what authority do you have the right to judge me a “loser?”
You wear your contempt for those you consider beneath you rather poorly. It will be your downfall.
Mr. Meyer, excellent article! It reflects the pros and cons of the policy arguments discussed in my Wills and Trusts class in law school. The biggest pro is that inheritances keep money and power concentrated in the hands of the ruling class. The biggest con is that it keeps money and power concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.
March 19th, 2006 at 4:28 pm#74 – Dave – I am happy to discuss my views with you – I don’t expect to change your mind, since a closed mind is a difficult thing to pry open.
“I’ll be the first to admit that the war on poverty isn’t perfect. The very nature of poverty, the inherited destitution and inherited irresponsibility are central to the problem,….” –Dave
****There are many fine poor parents who do their best to teach their children good morals, encourage their children in school, and participate in family life. Unfortunately, a segment of poor society have retreated from life with drug addiction and it’s attendant problems. Their children have been completely neglected and if no responsible family member is available to care for them, they should be removed from those homes FOR GOOD. The sick fact of the welfare scourge has been the removal and/or emasculation of the poverty line American male. Please explain how the skyrocketing illegitimacy rate has been positive for poor families. In the same way, certain cultures revere sports and entertainment personalities. When education becomes a priority with the majority of the poor, you will see a stunning shift in poverty numbers. Speaking of education, pay inner city and poor rural teachers a bundle (!!) – get rid of tenure for the failures in the teaching profession and quit shifting the “lemons” to the poor schools.
I am in favour of “helping” people – I am not in favour of perpetuating GENERATIONS of poor people.
As for your projection about my observation that welfare is a “breeding program” – you did not prove me wrong. Why should any irresponsible person worry about taking care of their OWN children when a cadre of social workers perpetuate their OWN jobs by finding more and more to “serve”. Another dirty secret, the welfare corps does not want to see a reduction in welfare recipients. I am not in favour of restricting reproduction – but, naive ME, I am in favour of RESPONSIBLE PARENTING. Progs seem to favour irresponsible whining.
The rest of your post reiterates your position and I will not be redundant.
March 19th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#79 – Hi Briseadh na Faire – I apologize if you find my comments specious – I’m used to thinking fast on my feet and can be flip from time to time. But I have recognized that TP is not an intellectual exercise, it is an outlet for people who like to throw verbal daggers – or darts, depending on the places you hang out at.
March 19th, 2006 at 4:49 pm“I think the least they can do is chip in a little. Yoiu know, like the rest of us.”
March 19th, 2006 at 5:01 pm*****I’m tired of doing your homework for you – look up the figures for the aount of taxes (both percentages and realy ##’s) that the top 2% of taxpayers pay. You can only dream of earning the amount of taxes they PAY….
Dear Briseadh na Faire –
“Why do you think perpetual trusts were created? They keep dead-beat junior’s hands off the trust fund, yet allow him to live a life of leisure, thanks to his dad working his ass off. And the trust rea is carried forward in perpetuity, allowing grandchildren and great grand children the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of other’s labors while contributing nothing to society.” This sounds an awful lot like the Kennedy’s to me.
But I guess my dear sweet mother had it all wrong – she told me NEVER to take something that didn’t belong to ME. Why do progs act like it’s the governments’ money and the kindly leaders are allowing subjects to keep some? Funny, the rich are reviled as lazy and worthless, but I dare say most charities and foundations are benefactors of the generosity of the wealthy. I think of symphonies, orchestras, libraries, medical charities, educational scholarships, cancer centers, children’s hospitals, literacy programs, food banks etc. – those DAMN rich people.
March 19th, 2006 at 5:38 pm(Remember, in a closing argument, you are allowed to pull out more stops – and employ verbal devices…)
#91 – “After all, they belong to the class of people able to get no-bid government contracts with little or no accountability as to how the money is spent.”
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
***You’re too smart for this ideological trap.
#1 – The top 5% of taxpayers pay almost 50% of the taxes.
#2 – The transfer of wealth in the form of no-bid contracts (for companies like Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) are NO BID because there are no other companies out there with their capability. Not to say this won’t change to one day include Fluor, R. Parsons, etc.
#3 – Because the top bracket tax payers pay the largest percntage of taxes, the “little people” are not inordinately transferring wealth to the “evil rich”.
#4 – A no bid contract is not a a “something for nothing” contract. A good or service is provided and a company is compensated.
We do alot of verbal vollying around our dinner table – it’s alot of fun…
March 19th, 2006 at 5:50 pmMighty Moron,
You always talk about my manic posts when I post more than one posting in a row – are we projecting again?
You post 5 posts in a row, and yet you say nothing valuable.
You really are as dumb as a bag of rocks aren’t you – mighty moron?
Now as for your retarded little rant on economics, you should stick to law, where you at least ‘pretend’ to know what you’re talking about? Although I’m still waiting breathlessly for your argument of why warrantless searches are constitutionally legal. Obviously you’re no ‘legal scholar’, maybe it’s related to ‘mens rea’? hehe
“#1 – The top 5% of taxpayers pay almost 50% of the taxes. Mighty Moron”
Lets begin by reminding everyone that all americans have more of a taxe burden than they did 50 years ago, because corporations hold less of it.
Mighty Moron seems oblivious to this fact, no surprise, ignorance is bliss, and republicans prefer bliss.
The tax burden of the top tax brackets are very near their income levels, however the higher brackets have a larger ‘disposable’ income. This means that the burden relative to their
“#2 – The transfer of wealth in the form of no-bid contracts (for companies like Halliburton, Bechtel, etc.) are NO BID because there are no other companies out there with their capability. Not to say this won’t change to one day include Fluor, R. Parsons, etc.”
That’s idiotic, you just list 2 companies, and say that there’s no opportunity to ‘bid’? You really are as dumb as a sack of rocks.
“#3 – Because the top bracket tax payers pay the largest percntage of taxes, the “little people†are not inordinately transferring wealth to the “evil richâ€. Mighty Moron”
That’s just idiocy. See response to 1. Tax burdens are relatively related to income
“#4 – A no bid contract is not a a “something for nothing†contract. A good or service is provided and a company is compensated. Mighty Moron”
You’re right, it’s often a something for a disaster! It’s called a cronyism scam, something I’m sure you related to.
You and your fellow morons really are the stupidest people in the world.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:50 pmHere are 3
useful charts that show once again mighty moron is as wrong and stupid as usual.
The top 1% received a 146% larger share of the national income than they did in 1980 while their share of income tax payment only grew by 96%, so the change in their share of income grew at a higher rate than the change in their share of income taxes.
Likewise, the change in the share of income taxes paid by the lower income brackets dropped more than the change in their share of income.
Then lets look at the state and local taxes, where the wealthy use our power and influence to not pay taxes, and it’s dopes and morons like Mighty Moron who’s burden increases – how retarded is that? These republicans in the end attack themselves out of their stupidity.
March 19th, 2006 at 11:58 pm“The top 1% received a 146% larger share of the national income than they did in 1980 while their share of income tax payment only grew by 96%, so the change in their share of income grew at a higher rate than the change in their share of income taxes.”
National Income? Bite me commie fucktard. People receive what they earn less the raping and pillaging the social schemers do to steal as much as possible. You might think what’s mine is ours but it isn’t. Freedom to keep your own money folks is fading fast. At this rate you’ll be told not only how much you can keep but how and where to spend it. But then you losers wanted Progressive didn’t you?
March 20th, 2006 at 8:59 amI am surprised that ideologues who champion minority rights don’t turn to the rich around you and shout “THANK YOU!!†How many TRILLIONS of dollars have been transferred to the poor since 1965’s “War on Poverty†(??)- with NO ALLEVIATION OF POVERTY. (The correct program title shold be, “The War on the Poor Breeding Program – Keeping Them Voters, Dem Voters.)
Comment by mighty aphrodite — March 18, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Hey moron- 15.8% of American families were at the poverty level in 1965. Today? 11%. The poverty level had gone down as low as 9.6 before your asshat president took over, by the way. The war on poverty was a great success- which is why you regressives want to destroy it.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pmA link, btw
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html
Shut your piehole unless you have something to bring to the table.
March 20th, 2006 at 12:46 pm“I am in favour of “helping†people – I am not in favour of perpetuating GENERATIONS of poor people.”
Congratulations, you’re a progressive.
You don’t agree with the conservative/regressive notion that the poor should simply help themselves, and fuck those that can’t find a way out of their inherited destitution and inherited bad habits on their own. I mean, you JUST SAID IT. “I am in favor of helping [poor] people.” You recognize that the plight of those in deep poverty diserve help, in so many words, and in the kind of context that I’d expect from some sort of socialist! Why not stop fighting with those that have the exact same goals as you and instead help in making progress towards reaching said goals? We’ll disagree at first, but I’m sure an intelligent path towards relieving poverty in this country will be forged one day.
It doesn’t get much simpler than that, and I didn’t even have to drag it out of you! I was expecting a greater challenge, mighty aphrodite.
-Dave M.
March 20th, 2006 at 2:11 pmOops–forgot to quote you, mighty aphrodite.
“I am in favour of “helping†people – I am not in favour of perpetuating GENERATIONS of poor people.” -mighty aphrodite, socialist and progressive.
March 20th, 2006 at 2:13 pmWhat is wrong with America? So if you work so hard that you build an empire, you are taxed when you die? You are PUNISHED for working so hard. Why don’t I just flip a burger so I won’t be taxed when I die? Is this a communist country?
Let’s see, become an investor and take care of my wealth AND my kids, but I will be punished if I make money… or just work 9-5 every day pay check to pay check, but I won’t be punished for my hard work.
We are taxed when we work, when we save money in our bank, when we invest our money in stocks, when we invest our money in real estate, when we buy a barsoap (sales tax from some states). But Noooo… that’s not enough, if we make a lot of money, we are taxed too when we die.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:19 amDeath SHOULD NOT be a taxable event period!
March 22nd, 2006 at 5:13 pmI will inherit upwards of $6 Million from my parents in the near future. They both graduated from college and have worked their asses off for over 40 years. All Federal, state and local taxes were paid when they eared their income. All S.S.I., medicare and state disability taxes were paid when the money was earned. All their retirement distributions are being taxed. They have paid tens of thousands more in taxes then the average citizen who receives the same societal benefits. Why should this money be taxed again? Where is the incentive to work hard?
April 1st, 2006 at 2:03 pmHey I wrote a comment in here a couple of nights ago and it dissapeared. What the heck, TP?
June 8th, 2006 at 10:15 amOh and now it reappeared after I sumitted that last comment. It was nonexistant for a minute.
Boy, it’s great having a conversation with myself on a two month old blog entry.
June 8th, 2006 at 10:17 am