Posted on 06/10/2006 8:34:47 AM PDT by A. Pole
IT HAS now become less politically risky for Democrats to accept gay marriage than to support taxing the richest 1 percent of Americans. And that reality speaks volumes about the Democratic dilemma.
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans offered a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that they knew had no chance of passage. Their purpose was simple and cynical: Rally the faltering Republican hard-core base, and force a vote that they hoped would embarrass Democrats.
The constitutional measure, which required 67 votes to pass, got only 49. Just one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, supported it. Seven Republicans, including all five New England GOP senators, voted against. [...] you can be sure that in this fall's elections, Republicans will chide Democrats for failing to vote for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
A day later, the Senate took up repeal of the estate tax. Just one estate in 100 pays the tax.
[...]
Yet in Thursday's vote to cut off debate, fully 57 senators (three short of the necessary 60) voted for total and permanent repeal. They included four Democrats, [...]
Despite this defeat for repeal, the issue isn't dead. Senate Republican leader Bill Frist, joined by enabler Baucus, is promoting a ``compromise" to keep a token estate tax, applied only to estates of $5 million to $7 million and with a far lower rate. This would increase deficits by $300 billion to $500 billion.
Several Democrats attended a strategy meeting convened by Baucus after the vote to consider what partial repeal they might support. These reportedly included Ken Salazar of Colorado, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Prior of Arkansas, Maria Cantwell of Washington State, and Nelson. All of these worthies, save Nelson, found the nerve to vote against the gay marriage ban. [...]
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Bump
So helping the less fortunate is a tool to advance diversity agenda?
I don't know how many estates are currently being taxed in this group but increasing the deficit by 300 to 500 BILLION this way? Does this sound right to everyone?
"This would increase deficits by $300 billion to $500 billion."
Kuttner is misleading and/or lying here.
Unless he tells us what the rate is "token estate tax" could be, he's not indicating the
All estate taxation represents a form of double taxation anyway, and the total take on estate tax is about $40 billion a year, so it's about 2% of the total taxes collected by the Federal Government.
As for the increase deficits by $300 billion, complete and utter baloney ... he must be measuring over 10 years, and he must be assuming some impact that is fairly extreme and unlikely. Abolishing estate taxes wont make these assets untaxed, it just makes them untaxed at the stage of transfer of inheritance. Indeed it may increase tax revenues in the same way capital gains tax cuts tend to increase overall tax revenues. I dont trust a leftist like Kuttner to give an honest fiscal impact analysis on such a tax change.
no
Imagine a group
of 'Rats and Republicans
who got together
and told the whole truth --
about Flight 800 and
Ron Brown, Vince Foster,
Waco and maybe
the internet reports of
the "Rayburn shootout" . . .
Telling us the truth
on everything might be a
winning formula!
"I don't know how many estates are currently being taxed in this group but increasing the deficit by 300 to 500 BILLION this way? Does this sound right to everyone?"
No, it's wrong and it's a lie. Estate tax revenues are in the $40 billion/year range. He must be counting his assumed 10 year fiscal impact, but isnt telling you in the column to make the problem sound 10 time worse than it is. See my previous reply.
"I don't know how many estates are currently being taxed in this group but increasing the deficit by 300 to 500 BILLION this way? Does this sound right to everyone?"
It came from the Boston Globe. What do you think?
I wonder how many estates were paying the tax when it was first passed?
1 in 1000, 1 in 10,000? Higher?
I'm thinking higher.
Yes it is Right. I find the estate tax imoral and unconstitutional. Fie on people who like class war fare and socialism or the welfare regulatory state. What this does not state is all the money and time spent with lawyers etc. to try and save your farm or business. My father spent 15,000 dollars to set up a trust so the farm would not have to be sold for taxes. Land my family has owned since it was homesteaded many years ago. Also the place where the extended family of 3 generations live and how 2 family members make their living. He died with 20,000 in the bank. Rich NO. Lower middle class yes. Find one of these pious politicians who would work themselves rrasing chickens and few cows. Bah they would not last a day.
"This would increase deficits by $300 billion to $500 billion."
The Globe puts its foot in its mouth with this one.
Either it is an outright lie, OR even with a "token estate tax", the Feds are confiscating 300-500 billion a year from us, proving the outrageousness of this unfair tax.
In this case, I hope the Globe is lying!
If frist is involved, the issue is DEAD. I'm starting to think of him as the coroner of the Rep. party.
And, in case anyone missed it...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1646630/posts
The deficit is high enough and the nation's wealthiest people are not struggling. Eliminating this tax will accomplish nothing good but leave less revenue for the soldiers fighting in Iraq.
It's a token tax that doesn't collect that much revenue, but repealing it would instantly cause massive deficits...
I'm missing the logic...
Stand up for the minority.
But preserve taxes that wrongly take from a minority group.
He needs to take the word 'minority' out and insert 'special interest groups'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.