If this passes, Paris owes me big. (Wink, wink.)
Posted by Matt Davis at April 13, 2005 09:18 AMWhy are the red state rubes any guiltier than the blue state rubes? Lots of folks support the GOP and the fact that a fraction fewer would turn most "red" states blue seems to be an important distinction to me.
Of course, I'm a liberal who lives in NC, so maybe I have a chip on my shoulder.
Pitch in and help us, instead of adding to the problem (name calling is not going to help us win a majority here), why don't you?
Posted by Bill Rehm at April 13, 2005 09:29 AM"Democrats have never caught up with this language scam until the GOP had hammered this phrase into the consciousness of the public for years"
We've got to make Democrats pay for this! We have to destroy the party to save it! Feet to the fire! Feet to the fire!!!
Posted by Sanity Clause at April 13, 2005 09:55 AMI know its not as catchy as the "death tax" spin, but I've often thought it useful to question the wisdom of a government policy which permits a dead man to exercize as much control as his estate can muster over those people who remain among the living.
Posted by redstater at April 13, 2005 10:03 AMBecause it's National Poetry Month, I had the Dog-damn' Gall to take pen in paw and run a little with your post ...
The Year Of Grace
If the rich who paid estate taxes were multiplied a thousandfold,
And if one person living below the poverty line inherited great wealth each day,
And if no one fell into poverty in the meantime,
Then one day their numbers would be equal,
The very, very wealthy, and the no-longer desperately poor,
Late in the Year of Grace 13692
-- Dog
Posted by Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog at April 13, 2005 10:11 AM(It's just Doggerel, of course.)
Posted by Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog at April 13, 2005 10:18 AMOh thank Gawd that Paris and her ilk will be spared the discomfort of paying any fucking taxes.
Posted by Vinnie at April 13, 2005 10:25 AMSee, if we just had ONE prominent politician with the guts to tie The Death Tax to the notion of a bunch of Paris Hiltons hoovering blow off of South Beach VIP Room mirrors (or George W. Bushes hoovering blow off of Alabama bars' mens' room toilets, for that matter), the red-staters would get what's going on in an instant.
A man can dream.
Posted by Matt Davis at April 13, 2005 10:39 AMWhile Republicans vote to extend the Paris Hilton Tax Cut, they will try to cut the deficit by reducing The Earned Income Tax Credit
Troops fighting the war in Iraq could see their incomes reduced if Congress cuts a key tax credit that thousands in uniform now receive.
The Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides a financial boost to the nation's working poor, including many military families, is facing cuts as Congress grapples with the rising budget deficit, researchers said Tuesday.
While Republicans vote to extend the Paris Hilton Tax Cut, they will try to cut the deficit by reducing The Earned Income Tax Credit
God, these people are scum.
Posted by Matt Davis at April 13, 2005 10:50 AMThe Republicans are pushing a strategy of shifting the tax burden to Middle Class Americans. "User fees". Corporate percentage of federal taxes has fallen to less than 10%. Now the repeal of the estate taxes. Why hasn't the Middle Class caught on? They haven't been told!
The opposition party, Democrats, due to the cost of elections, have sold out to corporate interests. Plus, Corporate Media has hidden the shift in tax burden. Understandable, since media owners love the tax cuts and all the cash spent on political advertisements.
Posted by Jim S at April 13, 2005 11:13 AMQuestion:
They take why to much money from us while we are alive, why should they take even more from us when we are dead? I always believed that being able to take care of your family was an important american virtue...and if you can continue to do so once your dead, why not?
Posted by bigdog at April 13, 2005 12:23 PMTo go to war against a tax cut for anyone is a losing battle. We need to be smart enought to talk about too much control for the ruling class.
Posted by Jim Hurt at April 13, 2005 12:23 PMbigdog:
The estate tax touches a minute portion of the population every year. The tax will not affect the ability of multi-millionaires to take care of their families.
And who exactly in the upper brackets is overtaxed now?
Posted by Steve Soto at April 13, 2005 12:27 PMSteve, don't forget that it is a mistake to discuss the Estate Tax as an economic issue. One of the major justifications for it (and why it is essential that it be levied on the ultra-rich) is to make it harder to have a hereditary wealth-based aristocracy. The unfettered passing of wealth from generation to generation is inherently anti-democratic.
Posted by Daniel Maskit at April 13, 2005 12:34 PMThe $400 million Heinz fortune left to John Kerry's wife only paid a 10% estate tax, not a severe burden. But the current CNBC poll shows 68% want to eliminate that on less than 1% of all estates. Talk about voting against your own interest!
Posted by nohelp at April 13, 2005 01:24 PMAhh, taxes. They're just terrible aren't they? And you get nuthin for your taxes either. Why, they just waste it on toilets and stuff.
Okay, the current government, run by the gopper thuglican party, not the Democrats at all, does waste our taxes. $9 billion lost in Iraq for one, but still, we do have the troops fighting for democracy and freedom, right? That's your tax dollars at work. Interstate 5 or 10 or whatever, more tax dollars at work. The blokade to prevent those dangerous Canadian drugs from flooding our pharmacies? Government taxes at work.
I just love it when people talk about taxes as if they get nothing in return. The FBI isn't growing it in a courtyard at the Hoover building. The courts that lock up criminals like Manny Noriega or battle the scourge of steroids aren't growing it either. The funds that subsidize Big Pharma and Big Chem and, yes, Big Oil (coal gassification anyone, Archer Daniels Midlands ethanol perhaps?) aren't growing in test tubes either. Where do you think the internets that Al Gore fucking invented come from? My ass?
Nope, my taxes, your taxes, Bloglords taxes.
So seeing how the Estate Tax taxes accumulated estate wealth not yet taxed, and has nothing to do with the dead people leaving it, what's yer beef, doggie?
Give the dog a troll bone, somebody. Jeebus.
Posted by Duckman GR at April 13, 2005 01:56 PMThe dead are not being taxed. They're dead. The wealth is taxed when it changes hands.
The income, via inheritence, of those reaping a huge windfall is what is being taxed. It's income.
How is the inheritence tax any different than the taxes paid by someone who wins $100 million in the lottery?
Posted by at April 13, 2005 02:05 PMHow is the inheritence tax any different than the taxes paid by someone who wins $100 million in the lottery?
The heir didn't even have to buy a ticket.
Posted by Matt Davis at April 13, 2005 02:16 PMSeriously though Matt.
Isn't that the proper way to frame the issue?
Posted by at April 13, 2005 02:17 PMOnce again word choice and education matter. The use of the term 'death tax' makes a difference. Estates are for the wealthy but death comes to all. There was a poll last year which showed that although only 1% of all Americans have to pay estate taxes over 30% believed that they would have to. No wonder they want it ended, about a third of all Americans believe that they will have to pay it. We should always say estate taxes and never death taxes.
Posted by rlprather at April 13, 2005 02:20 PMIsn't that the proper way to frame the issue?
Well, I think it's close. But you have to remember, a lot of people think about the issue thusly: "If I won Lotto, I wouldn't want the guvmint to take all that tax money away..."
People never once think, "I'll never win Lotto," just like they never think that neither they nor anyone they know will ever inherit a multi-million dollar estate.
Posted by Matt Davis at April 13, 2005 02:37 PM"If I won Lotto, I wouldn't want the guvmint to take all that tax money away..."
But the guvmint is going to take all that tax money if they win Lotto.
Why isn't Tom DeLay pushing to get taxes on all windfall income eliminated?
It's because he doesn't care about the Lotto winner who hasn't been flying him to Scotland on vacation for the past umpteen years. He's not bought and paid for by the Lotto winners of the world.
Posted by at April 13, 2005 02:41 PMBut the guvmint is going to take all that tax money if they win Lotto.
Well, duh. My point, though, is that in America, people inevitably think of wealth fantasies when they're "considering" their position on taxation. If people never fantasized about becoming the next Rockefeller, sane taxation would be a snap. But they do.
Posted by Matt Davis at April 13, 2005 04:01 PMWhy not call it what it actually was (or could be again) -- an inheritance tax?
Posted by michelle at April 13, 2005 04:49 PMMichelle, isn't that only 15% in Monopoly?
Well, all that had to be done was to raise the limit up to $50 million or so and index it to inflation. That way, Paris Hilton and Bill Gates would still have to pay, but small businesses wouldn't.
Wouldn't that be great?
Posted by muckdog at April 13, 2005 07:10 PMHmm . . . as I would say to my students, initially glib and then nonresponsive md.
Posted by michelle at April 13, 2005 07:25 PMWell, all that had to be done was to raise the limit up to $50 million or so and index it to inflation. That way, Paris Hilton and Bill Gates would still have to pay, but small businesses wouldn't.
AS a small businessman myself, I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the terms $50 million estate, and small business as being somehow equal. Sounds like someones been drinking the cool-aid.
Posted by Oaklander at April 13, 2005 08:14 PMDuckman
You really need to start drinking some Vodka-Tonics to calm down and maybe stop watching so much Simpsons.
An awful lot of people put a lot on the line in order to start a business with the hopes of making money, my question was ligitimate. They pay massive amounts of tax on both their business and Personal Income (My Father in Law owns a small machine shop and pays taxes out the nose). But the majority of these people work their asses off to get there, so why do we take more money from them after death.
Someone said its not their money...they are dead. Well then whose money is it? Are you advocating after the death of someone, that all their assets become U.S. Government Property?
bigdog -
First of all, under current law the first $1.5 million of anyone's estate gets passed on to the heirs free of any estate tax. Zero. That's this year. Next year the exclusion covers the first $2 million. In 2009 it goes up to $3.5 million.
But before you figure the tax you have to figure the taxable value of the estate. Here come the exemptions. All assets transferred to a spouse before death are entirely exempt from estate tax or gift tax. Up to $1 million can be transferred to others (typically children and grandchildren), or $1.5 million left to them, exempt from estate tax or gift tax. That is entirely separate from the $11K you can give per person per year to as many people as you wish, each year you are alive, free of any tax ($22K each if you and your spouse make joint gifts). If you go over the $11K (or $22K) limit, the remainder is subject to gift tax, which is much lower than estate tax.
You can give an unlimited amount, tax free, to an educational institution for tuition (let's say, for your 27 grandchildren -- $100,000 each) or to a doctor to pay for uninsured medical expenses.
Then, for a surviving spouse, 50% of the remaining estate is exempt from tax. Any insurance? Easily made entirely exempt (in an irrevocable life insurance trust) prior to death. Any capital gains (on the appreciation in, let's say, stocks, bonds, houses and land, art, and so on) -- washed out (a new basis is established when they're inherited; the heirs would be subject to capital gains only on the amount these assets appreciate after they're inherited -- if any). And more.
Finally, from the remainder of the estate, if any, subtract $1.5 million (this year; as I said, this exemption goes up from here).
As the saying goes, you could look it up.
If there's anything left of the estate after the estate planners have worked their magic -- remember, these are rich folks; they have estate planners -- that remainder is subject to estate tax.
You seem to think it's simply confiscated. It's not. It's taxed.
It's taxed at a pretty high rate, but not anywhere near what the top marginal rate for ordinary income used to be, back during the Eisenhower administration -- which, notably, was a pretty good time, economically, to be an American income earner.
And finally, the balance of the estate after tax is passed on to the heirs (who worked so hard for it).
About 50,000 soldiers were sent to Iraq without body armor. Only about 30,000 people were affected by the estate tax last year, nationwide. I suppose your heart bleeds purple blood for each of these long-suffering millionaires, but really, there are bigger problems than the hard deal they got.
Unless you're a Republican, of course. Taking care of the rich is Job One for them.
bigdog, for the honor of the species, either get up to speed or become some other form of life than a Dog. Not cats either; they're smart and well-informed too.
-- Dog, etc.
Posted by Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog at April 14, 2005 09:56 AMGhost,
Can you explain to me why the tax is needed? That is what I want to know! Secondly I would like to know why it is the wealthy's responsibility to take care of the poor? Why is it anyone's responsibility to take care of anyone that is not their family or perhaps somebody they choose to take care of? These are the questions that I would like to see answered before I can agree with you.
P.S. Please do not lecture me on any branch of the Military...Each one of those men knew exactly what they were getting into when they signed on the dotted line.
Posted by bigdog at April 14, 2005 10:33 AMSteve,
I understand that it only affects a minute proportion, but that is really not my concearn. As to your question of who is overtaxed...I would honestly have to say anybody that pays over 20% of their income, regardless of how wealthy they are. I am personally a very big supporter of the libertarian belief of a flat tax (even though they go a little too far and just say a national sales tax) With Zero Loopholes.
Posted by at April 14, 2005 10:36 AMbig -
If you get careless in the kitchen, why should firefighters come to your home and keep it from being reduced to smoke and ashes? Why is it their responsibility to take care of you, unless you're family?
Why should there be police to try to protect you from being held up on the street in broad daylight by a gang? They should risk life and limb for you -- a perfect stranger?
big, if the many, many poor were to take up torches and pitchforks and come in force to seek out and roast and serve up the relatively few rich, perhaps with fava beans and a good Chianti, and redistribute their wealth, the government would stop them from doing it.
It's that "promote the general welfare" thing.
It's paid for by taxes.
That there is such a thing at all as private property which cannot be legally taken from you by someone else without payment or legal action, and the distinctions between what is or can be considered private property, and in what degree -- all that is because there is a government (which makes and executes and interprets the laws). Paid for by taxes.
What you're talking about is hard to make out, but it seems to be a society supported by fees -- specific charges for specific services, paid by the users of those services -- and friendship or family. And devil take the hindmost.
(For example, you seem to be saying devil take the soldiers; they signed a contract and knew what they were getting into. So what if they weren't issued body armor. They should have read the fine print.)
I can't agree with you on any of that, but I ask less than agreement from you in return.
Just stop trying to be a Dog. It ill becomes you.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. That is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
-- Dog, etc.
Posted by Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog at April 14, 2005 11:52 AMYou go Ghost!!! "It's that "promote the general welfare" thing." LOL!! VERY NICE!! Maybe spelled out blatantly like that, he MAY understand basic facts of life, but I'm not holding my breath...
I say again, big dog, you're an idiot.
'big dog,' it may behoove you to choose another screen name; you've made enough of an ass of yourself under this one.
Hm ... not that I would necessarily argue this point this way, but what if ...
"P.S. Please do not lecture me on the wealthy and the estate tax ... Each one of those rich folks knew exactly what the estate tax was when they agreed to keep those millions upon millions of dollars."
I would bet a rawhide bone that, generally speaking, the rich folks know the ins and outs of estate tax law far, far better than the military enlistees know the ins and outs of their contracts.
Leaving alone the possibility that if they don't like the tax code as is, some benevolent Senator or Representative can be per$uaded to write a $pecial provi$ion to benefit them. In contrast, when was the last time you heard of an individual soldier who had a special provision written into Federal law for his or her personal benefit? Something like this:
Special rule for beneficiary of trust. - In the case of an individual -
(A) who is a beneficiary of a trust which was established on December 7, 1979, under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction, and
(B) who was not a citizen or resident of the United States on the date the trust was established,
amounts which are included in the gross income of such beneficiary under section 951(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to stock held by the trust (and treated as distributed to the trust) shall be treated as the first amounts which are distributed by the trust to such beneficiary and as amounts to which section 959(a) of such Code applies.
Must be nice...
-- Dog, etc.
Posted by Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog at April 14, 2005 01:24 PMIn contrast, when was the last time you heard of an individual soldier who had a special provision written into Federal law for his or her personal benefit?
Well it might not be that far off.
Assuming the soldier in question has the full weight and influence of the religious fundimentalist theocrats and nutjobs behind him/her.
;)
Posted by at April 14, 2005 02:38 PMGhost,
So you are telling me the Estate tax only goes to Saftey Services? Here in my wonderful Ohio Community, we pay a seperate levy that supports only fire departments and police stations. We here believe that supporting those whom keep the community safe is very important, and because of that we put a seperate tax levy up, gained support and passed it. We passed it because we know exactly where the money is going.
Secondly, the milatary contract...I signed it, when I did, I new exactly what I was getting into. This is why we have a voluntary Amred Forces. When President Bush told us to go to Iraq the first time...We went, when President Clinton told us to go to Kosovo...we went. And if I were still serving, when Bush II told them to go to Afgahnistan and Iraq...I would have went again. Even though I only agreed with two of those actions...I still would have went because it was never my job to question who,what,when,where,why.
Posted by bigdog at April 15, 2005 07:13 AMMary,
Go take a nap, I'm sure all the thinking you had to do in order to spell idiot to a lot out of you. Sleep it off pal, we will see you Monday.
Posted by bigdog at April 15, 2005 07:14 AMbig -
You pay a special levy for your police services. The police, ever diligent (and probably grateful for the special levy), roll out Code 3 and arrest, let's say, someone they say is the burglar who stole your $40 million diamond collection.
Now what?
Your police levy doesn't pay for any place to lock up this purported desperado, lest he commit other outrages and further sully the name of Wonderful, OH. Do they keep him in the trunk of the car until he comes to trial and is sentenced?
Oh, wait. He doesn't come to trial, because you don't have a court system. And he doesn't get sentenced for the same reason. And if we posit that he is a wonderfully energetic and resourceful fellow and somehow manages to overcome these obstacles (against his own interest, you'll object, big, but some people will argue against their own interest all day long), you still can't lock him up to pay his debt to society because you have no jails, no prisons.
All that, assuming that they caught the evildoer in the first place. Without roads or highways on which to drive his special-levy-financed pursuit vehicle around while he fights crime, the policeman's lot is not an 'appy one.
Unless maybe your fire services levy pays for highways, courts, jails, and all that. The way taxes -- including estate taxes -- pay for all that.
Now to your rationale for not supporting the troops in Iraq.
Let's suppose, just for the purposes of argument, that these two groups -- the troops in Iraq and the enormously wealthy people who are the only ones subject to the estate tax -- these two groups both had perfect knowledge of the terms of their enlistment contracts (the troops) and estate tax law (the super-rich).
In your own words, big, let's say that for the purposes of argument both groups knew exactly what they were getting into. So no pity for either group -- they both went into their wars clear-eyed.
So which group's problems would you choose to work on most urgently? The 50,000 or so soldiers who were sent to Iraq with no body armor -- some of their families held bake sales to buy body armor, remember? -- or the 30,000 or so super-rich, fighting valiantly against the shrinking estate tax?
Let me add another small factor. Let's say that top-quality body armor costs about $1,500, quantity 1. That's why a bake sale could potentially buy an 11 Bravo some badly-needed protection. But now it's on you, big, not bake sale families -- you can provide the 50,000 soldiers body armor for about $75 million. It's a one-time cost. Or you can wipe out the estate tax at a cost of about $1 trillion over the next ten years (since it's a forever cost instead of a one-time cost, it'll be even higher, but let's just look at the next ten years).
One trillion dollars is a little more than 13,000 times the cost of providing the body armor. And the estate tax isn't a matter of life and limb, while body armor is.
For the Republicans who control the Senate and the Congress and the White House, the estate tax is the higher priority.
Which one is a better use of money? For the Republicans, same answer as above.
How about for you, big? You still have greater concern -- in fact, you prefer spending 13,000 times as much -- for the welfare of a smaller group of trust-fund inheritors, than for that of a larger group who, whatever you think of the war in Iraq, are suffering hardship and facing danger, under orders and in no position to lobby for the Congress to help them out?
Not so very incidentally, and as someone pointed out to you in one or another of these threads, those same Republicans who control the legislative and executive branches right now have run up a huge budget deficit. This tax benefit for the super-rich will make it a trillion dollars harder over the next ten years to balance the books, and more later on -- but let's simplify and straight-line it to 100 billion dollars a year. That money will have to come from somewhere.
Where will it come from? The Republicans aren't saying, other than claiming that the Social Security system is bankrupt, which gives me some idea.
Where will it go? The Republicans aren't saying that either, but it looks as if a considerable part of it will go into Paris Hilton's home movie-making projects.
I don't support those choices, and it looks like you still do. Your arguments haven't persuaded me, and it looks like mine haven't persuaded you either.
So I'm going to have to end my part of this conversation here and wish you well. Though I keep hoping you will stop trying to be a Dog -- it'll never work; it takes more than just barking.
Lastly, I'm sorry to have run on so long ... it's the Doggy Way, I guess.
-- Dog, etc.
Posted by Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog at April 15, 2005 10:13 AMghost,
Correct, I guess we can agree to disagree...but it was a good chat.
Oh, by the way, the body armor thing! I served for 9 years 3 months and 153 days, including 2 1/2 combat zones. I never once wore my body armor along with 75% of my company. Looking back it was pretty stupid, but we were young and dumb.
Posted by bigdog at April 15, 2005 10:30 AM