Posted on 06/06/2006 8:00:27 AM PDT by wita
A society always gets more of whatever it subsidizes, whether it's corn, tobacco or the idle rich. And subsidizing spoiled heiresses at the expense of, well, everyone else is the goal of those members of Congress who are pushing to greatly reduce, or even repeal, the federal estate tax. Despite reams of data that show that the estate tax only touches the top 1 percent of U.S. taxpayers, and despite the fact that the Mom and Pop businesses and family farms of the sort that earn our sympathy simply are not affected by this tax, the repeal has already passed the House and was near approval in the Senate last year before Hurricane Katrina disrupted everything. If the government took the money and burned it, then one could argue that the tax on estates worth more than $2 million was just punitive class warfare. But because the money pays for things that benefit everyone, the government's 90-year history of taxing the transfer of large pots of money from one generation to the next is both reasonable and fair.
Won't be around too much longer as it is vote day, however, I can walk to my polling place.
If I remember, it seems the repeal of the state Estate tax is on the ballot for today.
I think the word subsidize is a real stretch when attempting to relate it to the estate tax. They have already taken a bounteous share of what the rich make in comparison to the poor, but to have to give it back is foreign to the nature.
LOl...no kidding. I work hard (except when I am perusing FR!)...I want to give my money/assets to my children, not some a$$hole on the country's dole. The tax needs to go.
a high tide lifts all boats - John F Kennedy
Opponents don't ever zero in on what the money stolen from the rich actually ends up accomplishing other than enriching government and reducing the rich to not so rich. As long as the money stays out of the hands of the rich so that they won't be hiring new people, providing new jobs, spending it in local business, donating to worthy causes, etc etc.
Sure, the rich of plenty of subsidies, but an estate tax is about the last thing that could be called a subsidy.
What government services are consumed in this transfer of wealth that justify a tax? Almost none.
The author fails to mention most of the assets passed down the line have already been taxed! I bet this guy would also have a problem with sin taxes (alcohol, tobacco, and gambling) because they are "regressive." Don't get me wrong, I don't like those taxes either...but come on!
Liberals make my blood boil some times...must...calm...down...
"As long as the money stays out of the hands of the rich so that they won't be hiring new people, providing new jobs, spending it in local business, donating to worthy causes, etc etc."
_______________________________________________________
The "donating to worthy cause" line reminded me of one of our neghbors (modest wealth/ extremely liberal). The wife was complaining that her grandmother's estate was nearly liquidated by the estate tax, and that she just knew "that grandma would have wanted to donate the money to PITA or something...."
My wife said she could see the flames shooting out of my eyes, at that moment.
This is a classic Liberal Lie, repeated endlessly, derived from a purposefully misleading statistic. It is so easy to disprove that it's continued use is baffling. Nonetheless, here goes:
When a person dies, their estate is transferred to their heirs according to the terms of their will, trust, or by court decree. A person's estate typically consists of the accumulated wealth of a lifetime, including cash, personal property and real estate. Therefore, the decedent's stated income for the year in which they died is typically far more than they ever earned while they were alive, frequently placing them in the dreaded "Top 1%" of taxpayers for that year, and that year alone.
So, the same person who perhaps was never even among the top 20% of earners during their entire lives is now counted among the "wealthy", if only by greedy socialists looking to rifle through someone else's pockets. Of course, they always try to justify their attempts at theft by appeals to class envy - "greedy heiresses" being a common theme.
You know the leftists are winning the war of words when they can with a straight face call not stealing your wealth a 'subsidy'.
The dirty secret is that middle class families are hit by the estate tax. The real rich, aka the Kennedys, the Kerry-Heinzes, the Soros, etc. can afford the loopholes and off-shore accounts.
Any tax that only affects 1% of our countries citizens should be repealed on 14th Amendment grounds.
Of course, they always try to justify their attempts at theft by appeals to class envy - "greedy heiresses" being a common theme.
______________________________________________
That phrase caught me as well...talk about class warfare. Of course I can play that game, too...
"Liberals steal money from grieving widows in order to give to LAZY, GOOD FOR NOTHING, CHILD-OUT-OF-WEDLOCK-HAVING, losers."
Ahh class warfare. Ain't it grand?
2 million is a pittance in some areas of the country.
It will barely buy a 1000 sq ft condo in Manhatten
It will buy 2 4000 sq ft homes in suburban Wash DC.
It will provide a decent but not lavish retirement for a couple.
It will buy a small cottage in Palo Alto.
Now in Columbus Ohio, it will buy the mother of all houses.
Exactly.
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.