In midst of recession, Sens. Kyl and Lincoln think ‘the most pressing issue’ is ‘America’s wealthiest families.’
In midst of recession, Sens. Kyl and Lincoln think ‘the most pressing issue’ is ‘America’s wealthiest families.’
Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) have offered a $250 billion proposal to cut estate taxes for the children of multi-millionaires. The proposal is attracting a disturbing amount of support. In an editorial this morning, The New York Times writes that, while the nation is focused on ending the deep recession, Kyl and Lincoln’s “most pressing issue is clear: America’s wealthiest families need help. Now.” The Wonk Room’s Ben Furnas noted yesterday:
While opponents of the estate tax claim rolling it back protects small farms and businesses, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out that “only 0.2 percent of the additional cost of the proposal, relative to [the Obama proposal], would go toward tax cuts for small businesses and farms.”
The rest of the cost, approximately $249.5 billion, would go to the inheritors of estates worth over $7 million. Paris Hilton, get excited.
The Waltons — the Arkansas-based family that founded Wal-Mart — are one of the key groups financing the campaign to repeal the estate tax. “With all the serious work before Congress, it is a colossal waste of time to have to rebut the false claims and warped premises of ardent estate-tax cutters,” the NYT writes. “Ms. Lincoln’s and Mr. Kyl’s colleagues in the Senate should make short work of it and move on to urgent matters.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I thought landed aristocracies were out of vogue.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 amThis has to be an April fools joke a day late – right?
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:46 am.
Jeez, Where’s all the Repuke deficit-concern-trolls on this one?
Well, we’re doing our part by soliciting money for this blog and others like it. Keep up the good work!
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 am.
Shame on Senator Lincoln. How can you claim to be a fiscally responsible budget hawk and then deliberately add $248,000,000,000 to the debt by giving it to the people who need it the absolute least in this economy? Do you have any idea how much aid could be extended to schools, hospitals, and the unemployed and underemployed with $248,000,000,000? I’m not about to go the Republican route and call her a DINO or anything, but I really don’t understand where she’s coming from.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 amLet ‘em get a job, like everyone else.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:52 amWhy should they have to get jobs? You’re punishing people for making the right decisions in life, namely which vagina to pop out of….
CLASS WARFARE!!!!11!!!!one!!!111!
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:59 amLet’s stop electing only rich people. okay?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 amNo.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 amPlain and simple.
No.
Thank goodness someone is finally thinking about those poor, poor, ultra-rich children!!!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 amThe Waltons — the Arkansas-based family that founded Wal-Mart — are one of the key groups financing the campaign to repeal the estate tax.
It’s interesting that the Waltons are involved in this since their Department Store chain is famous for so badly paying its workers that they have little to leave their survivors.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 amIt’s tough having cheap caviar for breakfast after you are used to the good stuff. Think of all of the counseling those poor kids will need when they grow up!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 amHow many would be surprised if it was repealed.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 amGeez, I have NEVER, NEVER understood how the MSM, press and the Republican middle-class voters let the GOP get away with:
a. Rebranding the “estate tax” as the “death tax”
or
b. To sell this tax as being on “small businesses” or farms??
It is a tax for those with an inheritence over $3,000,000!
It is an “estate” tax because it is for those with wealthy estates, not farms or small businesses.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 amSure! Let’s give the richest of the rich a quarter of a Trillion dollars. Why not?
Oh, what’s that? We don’t happen to have a spare quarter of a Trillion? Borrow it from China! Those rich people really need it you know.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:09 amThe Recession is immaterial. End this madness. No more robbing the poor to enrich the super rich at any time!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:10 amAt this point, EVERY piece of legislation that will affect the budget negatively — by either reducing revenue or increasing spending — needs to be justified by how it will help the economy recover.
Kyl and Lincoln have yet to convince me that all these rich heirs will be creating jobs, spending a great deal more than if they were taxed, or improving the economy in any meaningful way.
Of course, all the “Joe-the-Plumber” types will support this bill, because they envision that someday THEY will inherit millions of dollars.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 amThe Silver Spoon Sperm recipients want more subsidies?
Why am I not surprised?
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 ampatachon Says:
It’s interesting that the Waltons are involved in this since their Department Store chain is famous for so badly paying its workers that they have little to leave their survivors.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
__________
Exactly! They spare their workers from the agony of the estate tax. That’s why they’re American Heroes!
No Multimillionaire Child Left Behind!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:13 amAm I the only one who watched Rep. Ryan roll out his insane fudget yesterday and thought he was a dead ringer for Eddie Munster?
It’s priceless that the Dems don’t need to do anything to marginalize the GNOP. They’re doing all the work for us!
PEACE
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:18 amGreat example of who the repugnicans really support – the wealthy! Repugnicans are always harping on wasteful spending and tax cuts for the wealthy.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:22 amMs. Blanche lurvs her some Waltons.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 amOur Blanche knows which side her bread is buttered on.
Water bears burden
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 amJetsam of the rich pollutes
Crashing seas claim yachts
One more reason why I don’t shop at Wal-Mart.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 amIt would be nice to take away Sen. Lincoln’s stewardship of Wal-Mart. I’m thinking something like where they switched the juries for the Al Capone trial in The Untouchables. Maybe randomly assign senators JUST to Wal-Mart on a weekly rotating basis, so they never know who to contribute to (read: control).
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 amThey should call it the Make-Paris-Hilton-Richer proposal.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 amFine, repeal the estate tax, but repeal the cap on SSI deductions as well. Make them pay on every dollar earned, just like the rest of us.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 amThis is going to sound like a joke, but don’t be shocked if Kyl makes a doomed run president a couple of years from now in a desparate attempt to “raise his stature” and thus avoid losing his Senate seat to Napolitano in 2012.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:59 amTrickling down didn’t work the first time, why should we expect that it will work now?
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:16 pmThis is one of the key provisions in the Republican budget rolled out just yesterday. I believe the first $5 million in an estate is exempt from taxation today. Then the rate is something like a flat 15%. Woe the 3rd generation of Waltons. Being mere billionaires is just beneath their dignity. Give me a break.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pmWhy don’t these people just get taxed at a 99% rate and we can watch THEM pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:33 pmR’s prefer the neo-feudal social model. Please the King, and he shall reward you. Fail to please him, and live in obscurity and poverty forever.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pmTHis time in history has to be the worst F***en nightmare in history.
Is this really happening ????? Are these people looking for a fight???? Do they know what will happen when you have a majority of the population in poverty????? Heads will roll, and it wont be just the bankers, politicans but the rich as well.
Keep trying to screw us….just know who will get royaly F***ed in the end!!!
SICK , SICK , SICK.
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:55 pmPitchfork and torch time…
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 pmNew Fasces or Old Faeces: Glenn gets coveted Old Faeces designation
Glenn Beck is a cog in the Fix News propaganda machine. He subverts everything “the news” is supposed to represent with fanaticism. See ONE of his latest blunders at http://www.NeoFasces.com.
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:15 pmAssociated but slightly tangential – one of the programs (Olbermann, Stewart, Colbert) had in the last couple of days a clip from Limbaugh saying that the taxes in NY City on the middle class would be astronomically raised – and therefore he was thinking of moving out of NY.
First, I’m not sure of his analysis of the tax increase.
But the kicker was that he identified middle class with making $ 500,000 per year.
Middle of what, I ask ?
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:31 pmWhores to the left of me, whores to the right…
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 pmI am not part of the top 1%, but I am embarrassed at the heat they are taking. According to the IRS, the top 1% of all income earners pay 40% of taxes. The top 10% of earners pay 90% of taxes. They are carrying a lot of water for the rest of us. You don’t want to hear it. But it is a fact. Continue to hammer these folks and they have the ability to make changes to avoid having more and more money confiscated by the government. You can only push people so far. Be careful what you ask for, it might come true.
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 pmPesonally, I am against inheritance tax. What we have in Europe is called Patrimony or Wealth Tax. It was originally concieved as a way to force people to declare all their assets. It is usually around 1% to 2.5%, annually. If the taxing authorities find undisclosed assets, they tax them at the short term capital gains rate, which is between 35% and 85%. That’s the risk of trying to avoid the Patrimony tax. This is what America needs, although the wealthy would probably spend their fortunes fighting it rather than paying it.
We also have inheritance taxes, which I am against, having lost a family business to the expenses of inheritance tax. It was just an art and engraving studio, not a WalMart chain. But it left us all heartbroken, and worse off in the long run.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pmIf you spend your entire life working for a company that pays you so badly, its your fault you cant leave anything to your family, not the company’s.
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:25 pmPoor billionaires, can’t leave Costa Rica to their kiddies.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:04 pmkwsventures,
You bet the top 10% of earners pay the lions share for everyone else.
Many here like to believe that the top tax payers couldn’t possibly have worked hard and sacrificed to earn it; the fact is that most wealth is not inherited, its earned.
And now our government is encouraging class envy.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:12 pm*sob* *choke* *sob*
Won’t *somebody* PLEASE think of the MILLIONNAIRES????????
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 pmI doubt they need your help. Just recognize that you have no right to someone else’s hard earned wealth.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:20 pmYou bet the top 10% of earners pay the lions share for everyone else.
Wrong. When SSI payroll deductions are factored in, they don’t pay more that any one else, and the super rich pay even less, whe SSI is added to the mix.
That was a really weak attempt.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 pmI doubt they need your help. Just recognize that you have no right to someone else’s hard earned wealth.
When they start paying their fair share of SSI then you’ll have something to criticize. Why do right-wingers alway tell only half the story — usually the self-serving half?
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:37 pmYour idea of fair share seems to mean that the more you make, the more you should pay in SSI.
This is supposed to be money that the government collects from the employed, for their own benefit when they retire.
You can’t always justify taking more than you contribute.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Your idea of fair share seems to mean that the more you make, the more you should pay in SSI.
I have to pay into the system on every dollar I earn. Those who make an income that exceeds the cap should also pay on every dollar they earn. You seem to think they are deserving of a lower tax rate than I, who doesn’t make enough to beat the cap. But since you haven’t attempted to debunk my rebuttal (that the rich don’t pay more in taxes, when SSI is factored in) I guess you now agree that they don’t pay more than the rest of us.
This is supposed to be money that the government collects from the employed, for their own benefit when they retire.
And the rich should be allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money, than I, because they are more deserving? If that was an attempt at rebuttal, perhaps you should look the word up in a dictionary, and try again.
You can’t always justify taking more than you contribute.
Hey, let them get SSI retirement payments commensurate with what they contributed, after the cap is eliminated. But make them pay on every dollar earned, just like I have to. The SSI cap was originally enacted, to keep the rich from moving their assets offshore, and to spur business investment in the US. Since we’re now on the verge of a socialist takeover of the economy, because the government’s scheme (including the cap on SSI to spur investment), has failed horribly, it’s apparent the cap has done little to make the economy grow, so we should scrap it, and have everyone pay in on every dollar earned. That would make the wealthy more invested in making sure SSI funds aren’t wasted.
But I guess that’s a bad thing to most conservatives, who have always wanted SSI to fail.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pmEveryone pays into the system up to an income cap, yes, and benefits are based on what was paid in. This is not SUPPOSED to operate like the income tax, where everyone gets the same benefits no matter how much they’ve paid in.
Your argument that because of SSI, the rich don’t pay more than “the rest of us”, doesn’t make sense. If the rich are defined as those who earn up to and beyond the income cap, then logic tells us they pay more into SSI than someone who is paying on a lesser income. You just don’t like that they don’t pay SSI on ALL of their income. Again, this is supposed to be money entrusted to the government for the benefit of the individual who contributed it, not for all to share.
So no, you are not entitled to someone else’s SSI benefits.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:52 pmI called Kyl’s offices in Phoenix and DC and got an answering machine. I left a message on both letting Kyl know my feelings on his amendment. I then called his Tucson office and go a real person. I expressed myself and was blown away at the response I received: “I’m just an intern here but I have to say that I totally agree with you”. I won’t mention their name so as not to cause them any troubles.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 pmThis is not SUPPOSED to operate like the income tax, where everyone gets the same benefits no matter how much they’ve paid in.
Did I say that?
No, I said each collects commensurate with their contributions. If one pays in more, because they make more, they are entitled to get a refund based upon what they put in. I also said, to offset this, go ahead and eliminate the estate tax, as it effects so few families anyway.
Your argument that because of SSI, the rich don’t pay more than “the rest of us”, doesn’t make sense. If the rich are defined as those who earn up to and beyond the income cap, then logic tells us they pay more into SSI than someone who is paying on a lesser income.
But not on every dollar earned. If someone makes 500,000, and his neighbor makes $100,000, he is receiving a tax break on the 400,000 that his neigbor doesn’t enjoy. That is preferential treatment, no matter how you slice it. He should have to pay a percentage of every dollar earned, and then be allowed to collect benefits equal to his contribution. The SSI administration already issues statements telling taxpayers what they can expect to collect, based upon their contributions, so I don’t see what your problem is understanding the point.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 pmSo no, you are not entitled to someone else’s SSI benefits.
Strawman, much?
Did I say I was entitled to another’s SSI benefits?
Where?
I said they should pay on every dollar they earn, in a given year, not limited to the first $100,000, or whatever the cap currently is.
They can also collect on their contributions, and pass their benefits along to their survivors, so the estate tax would be unnecessary.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pmAgain, this is supposed to be money entrusted to the government for the benefit of the individual who contributed it, not for all to share.
Oh, please.
We both know it goes right into the general fund, and the system is issued an IOU for the future benefits, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. All of my contributions go to the general fund, as does the money of folks who make more than the cap — so your argument seems to be, allowing billionaires to contribute 100,000 a year to the system, and not pay on all the rest is “paying their fair share,” even though it is an infinitesmal amount of what they earn in a given year, while I must pay on evey dollar I earn.
It’s just silly to assert they are paying as much as those making less than the cap – and there are exponentially more of the latter, so it’s a benefit most taxpayers don’t enjoy.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:38 pmIf the rich are defined as those who earn up to and beyond the income cap, then logic tells us they pay more into SSI than someone who is paying on a lesser income.
But when SSI is added into the calculation of total taxes paid as a percentage of yearly income, the upper 5% of earners don’t pay the majority of all taxes. That is a lie peddled by right-wing think-tanks, and their synchophants.
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:42 pmAs to what to call this “tax”, Obama got it right. The repugs are trying to protect the Paris Hilton Tax. It really helps to put things in a new light to call it by its “proper name”. The
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 pmrepugs have doing this re-naming thing for a long time. It is time we played too, started changing the conversation whenever and wherever we can…..
Stampede, you are just another RepubliCon stooge! Yes, a simpleton. Someday, you simpletons might realize how complex life can be.
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 pmkwsventures Says:
HAMMERING THEM? They have gotten the lions share of the tax cuts since 1980 and no one is even talking about them going back to PRE Reagan rates, just giving SOME of those cuts back. The Estate tax is a COMPLETELY different argument. Only 2% of all estates even GET taxed. IF we did away with the estate tax there is some income that would NEVER be taxed. Since capital gains are only paid when the stocks are sold. Once negated by doing away with the estate tax all the gains made by those stocks during his lifetime will just be TAX FREE INCOME
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 amStampede88 Says:
If you are such a heartless, ignorant, Ebenezer Scrooge worshipping moron that your post really shows you attitude then normal humans dont really care WHAT you think
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 amBarfly,
You’ve missed my point. Paying more as a percentage of your income, and actually PAYING MORE, are two very different things.
The rich PAY MORE into all systems, SSI, income taxes, etc. You cannot torture logic to make it not so. They may pay a smaller percentage of their income into SSI than you do, but when all is said and done, they are still contributing more than you.
And yes, I am aware that those dollars are not actually set aside in some separate trust account as was promised. Our Congress has seen to that. The money is treated as just another tax, to be spent who knows where. To label something as a social security tax, and then treat it as another income tax, is a transparent attempt to soak the rich even more. Not falling for it.
You’ve become too used to a world that depends on producers to support takers, and yet feels justified in demonizing those very producers, because they still have some money left at the end of the day.
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 pmAnd Eugene,
You may continue to call those of us who believe in personal responsibility “heartless” and “scrooge” all you want.
But we know that telling someone to take action to improve their lives, whether its going back to school, looking for ways to secure a better job, working longer hours to pay the bills, etc. is GOOD advice, much better advice than continuing to blame the world for your problems.
I don’t accept your attempt to shame those of us who actually work hard, sacrifice, and do pay the lions share of our county’s bills anymore!
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 pmThe sad thing is that a lot of Americans don’t understand what is going on. They easily believe the lies about higher taxes being propagated by the republicans who are just trying to protect their narrow interests and care less about the greater good.
It is a pity that Blanche Lincoln, who claims to be a democrat, is joining in this madness to rip off the rest of us to further line the pockets of a few, who I must say, are doing just fine without any of these. I hope the voters are paying attention to all these and will make their voices heard at the ballot boxes.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pmRepublicans have a cool way of misnaming things in order to mislead. This is why they call the estate tax the death tax.
But a better name for this tax might be the Paris Hilton lifestyle protection act. Can’t let those poor rich kids suffer.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:28 pmkwsventures Says:
I am not part of the top 1%, but I am embarrassed at the heat they are taking. According to the IRS, the top 1% of all income earners pay 40% of taxes. The top 10% of earners pay 90% of taxes. They are carrying a lot of water for the rest of us. You don’t want to hear it. But it is a fact. Continue to hammer these folks and they have the ability to make changes to avoid having more and more money confiscated by the government. You can only push people so far. Be careful what you ask for, it might come true.
————-
kwsventures: Pull out your handy dandy tax code book (or look it up on line) and you’ll see you are mistaken.
HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD:
Over $357,700 – the tax rate is 35% less $25,591 = taxable amount.
And you’ll get tons of deductions in addition to that.
It’s like saying we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world – also not true. Look it on Google. And, again, that’s before all the allowable tax deductions and loopholes.
The last time there was a 90% tax rate was during WWII when everyone making over $200,000 paid that rate.
Don’t believe the right wing talking points, they’re just more lies they spew to make people side with them…like “trickle down economics.” Just more of their BS.
April 6th, 2009 at 3:03 amOK Pat obviously senile dementia has set in. Time to see the nice young men that will need to take care of you soon.burun estetigi rent a car arac kiralama
April 18th, 2009 at 6:11 amsac ekimi