It's not our money, and I will not be a party to theft.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/10/2010 8:36:41 AM PST by SharpRightTurn
Why in hell do our feckless GOP “leaders” need to cave in to this weak d!ck deal the first place? They have the electorate solidly behind them and the moral wind at their backs. Why bail the Democrats out of their sinking boat?
It's obvious the GOP didn't earn the name “The Stupid Party” for nothing. They are so anxious to “make a deal”, they will make any deal as long as they can stay buddies with their "friends" across the aisle and get nice media reviews.
They have been in Washington way too long. They need to return to America.
DeMint gets it.
It’s a shame that so many others don’t and apparently never will.
“Bi-partisan” means the pubbies caved. I do not want bi-partisanship. I want what is good for all the citizens of this country.
Any pubbie or so-called conservative who embraces bi-partisanship should be rejected as a candidate for or voted out of office.
DeMint ping.
I agree with DeMint.
The Republicans will be in a much better position to get a better bill when the new Congress convenes next year.
No, no, no.
Cutting tax rates encourages wealth production and grows the economy.
Increasing taxes punishes wealth production and shrinks the economy.
Here’s the thing. Whatever the tax regime, the Govt ends up with about 18% of GDP. That’s the empirical amount, that’s what happens in economies as different as e.g. Mexico, Sweden, Dubai - and America. 18% is about all that can be squeezed out of a country while keeping it as a going concern.
So the solution to improving the economy AND reducing the deficit are the same solution. Reduce taxes, reduce regulation, reduce legal vulnerability - and let the wealth producers do what they’re best at. 18% of a bigger pie will pay down that deficit.
Hope this is helpful.
It's not our money, and I will not be a party to theft.
bflr
“I swear, the Establishment GOP acts like it lost seats in November.”
Heh. They did.
I want to see that study. almost no one would actually pay that tax (it is 35% on inheritances only over 5 million dollars) and it is a significant decrease compared to every year except 2010. I think between 2003-2009 it was 45% on more than 3 million dollars, and before 2001 it was 55% on more than one million, which is much higher than the compromise rate for 2011
2010 is the only year in recent times that has had no estate tax and it has made virtually no impact at all on the economy.
If Demint wants to filibuster this and destroy the deal, we will have a 55% estate tax on all inheritances over 1 million dollars starting on Jan. 1.
I want to see that study. almost no one would actually pay that tax (it is 35% on inheritances only over 5 million dollars) and it is a significant decrease compared to every year except 2010. I think between 2003-2009 it was 45% on more than 3 million dollars, and before 2001 it was 55% on more than one million, which is much higher than the compromise rate for 2011
2010 is the only year in recent times that has had no estate tax and it has made virtually no impact at all on the economy.
If Demint wants to filibuster this and destroy the deal, we will have a 55% estate tax on all inheritances over 1 million dollars starting on Jan. 1.
Believe what you wish, but the historical link between taxation of higher income individuals at anything below confiscatory levels and economic growth is tenuous at best.
In the meantime, we continue to run structural deficits due to the voters demands for services that we cannot afford at current levels of taxation; this is the problem with “starving the beast”: we end up with BOTH “Tax and spend Democrats” AND “Spend and borrow” Republicans.
Of course, people are free to believe that eventually voters will see the light and accept much lower levels of spending, or that eventually we will experience a salutary economic collapse which will force them to do so.
This did not work out so well for conservative in the 1930s.
It’s Bush II.
Increases spending.
Cuts Taxes.
Hastens the day we default on our debt and all our savings are ruined and no one can have anything but the most basic barter-system job.
I’m so glad I get to vote for Demint.
“I want to see that study. almost no one would actually pay that tax...”
—Why does the number of people paying the tax matter? If you have an estate tax that only applies to a few family businesses/farms who hire thousands of people (who will be let go because of this), is this somehow better??
“2010 is the only year in recent times that has had no estate tax and it has made virtually no impact at all on the economy.”
—How can you measure what would have happened in the alternative? (Besides, because of the tax rules, the negative effects of estate taxes often carry forward to the following year after the individual dies.)
“If Demint wants to filibuster this and destroy the deal, we will have a 55% estate tax on all inheritances over 1 million dollars starting on Jan. 1.”
—No. The GOP makes it clear now it will fight to make this retroactive when it takes up the issue with much stronger numbers in January.
I believe this is the study referenced (even a modest 15% estate tax will kill over 350,00 jobs in that timeframe):
http://www.nodeathtax.org/uploads/view/2028/economic_impacts_of_estate_tax_reform_9-13-10.pdf
I was just saying that these employment numbers don’t really ring true to me. we have had generations paying a much higher estate tax than the 2011 rate, with much higher employment numbers than we have in a non estate tax year. The estate tax would be paid by so few people even in the event that none of them do any estate planning, it’s effect would be negligible.
Even then, I don’t understand why inherited money should be treated so much better than money I earned at work. If I have to pay taxes on my income then why should people inheriting millions of dollars pay none?
“I was just saying that these employment numbers don’t really ring true to me. we have had generations paying a much higher estate tax than the 2011 rate, with much higher employment numbers than we have in a non estate tax year.”
—You can’t simply view this issue in a vacuum. The estate tax involves a multitude of economic factors. And it’s just basic conomics that a higher tax on small businesses will create more unemployment. It would be one thing if the tax was truly designed to pay down the debt and spending was frozen...but Obama and the Dems have shown absolutely no interest in that happening.
“Even then, I don’t understand why inherited money should be treated so much better than money I earned at work. If I have to pay taxes on my income then why should people inheriting millions of dollars pay none.”
—Because it’s earned: And it’s not like the small family businesses subject to the estate tax weren’t paying taxes on earnings all those years it had income, just like you. Would it be better if we had a $250,00 exclusion limit on the estate tax or something to that effect, and allowed the government to basically take over a slew of middle-class individuals’ wealth, as well, to be consistent with your argument?
Jim DeMint is whaling on that nail again.
 |
 Jim DeMint Ping! |
Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.
With the exception if the UI extension, I was going along okay with the tax bill until they cluttered it up with all the POS frigging earmarks. Completely unnecessary.
Jim DeMint, as usual, is 100% correct; let’s take it up in January.
Senator DeMint will find a way to filibuster or to stop this monstrosity from coming to a vote. I so pray.
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.