Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Huck
What is your objection to the death tax? If it is principle, that is, one shouldn't be taxed again on money that has already been taxed, then you should be against the Dem version. If one has earned and paid taxes on income, why do they need to pay more taxes just because they died?
And if you just think that a certain amount of money is "enough", well, $7M isn't a lot for a farm or business these days, and there is no COL provision in the Dem bill. $7M will be even less in 10 years. Most people would like to leave their entire business to their children.
There really isn't a compromise. Either it's your money or it's not. The only way to set a limit on how much money you can leave to your children is to say that it really isn't your money. I think it is your money!
28 posted on 06/13/2002 8:09:45 PM PDT by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: speekinout
What is your objection to the death tax? If it is principle, that is, one shouldn't be taxed again on money that has already been taxed, then you should be against the Dem version. If one has earned and paid taxes on income, why do they need to pay more taxes just because they died?

This money is not being taxed on death, but as income to the beneficiaries of an estate. A significant portion of the value of all estates, and a majority of the value of the largest estates, have NEVER been subject to either the income or capital gains taxes even once. Most of this income is and has been sheltered between the generations. The estate tax completes the income tax; much of it is applied to money that has never been taxed as income in the first place. --from njnonprofits.org
And if you just think that a certain amount of money is "enough", well, $7M isn't a lot for a farm or business these days, and there is no COL provision in the Dem bill. $7M will be even less in 10 years. Most people would like to leave their entire business to their children.

In 1998, only 1.4 percent of the taxable estates included a farm that accounted for at least half of the gross estate, and only 1.6 percent included a small business. In estates valued at less than $5 million, farms and small businesses accounted for less than 4 percent of the assets. Right now, only 6 out of 10,000 people who die leave a taxable estate ($675,000 or more) in which a family business or farm forms the majority of the estate.

Current law also provides for higher estate tax exemptions for farms and family-owned businesses. The exemption for most estates that include such a farm or business is $1.3 million. A couple can exempt up to $2.6 million. Also, beneficiaries can defer the payment of estate taxes on businesses or farms for up to 14 years if the value is at least 35 percent of an estate.

--from njnonprofits.org

And, I might point out that if small businesses and family farms were a priority concern, there was a Democrat proposal which according to this article "gained 44 votes" and "would have added permanent relief for all family-owned farms and small businesses."

Now speekinout, I realize it's a bit much to post this anti-estate tax repeal information on Free Republic. But here's how I see it. I don't really know how many people are affacted by the estate tax. I don't know how many "family farms. I know that in Georgia, for instance, the average family farm is valued at 600K, which is well below 7 million. I know that most of the small businesses listed for sale go for less than 1 million. But I don't have well established, scientifically collected data. So how do I know that Phil Gramm or Don Nickles is telling the truth?

Isn't it possible they might be fudging the facts? And what would it mean if the people who represent us, our party, the GOP, learned that we are ignorant people, that we will swallow what they feed us because we believe whatever they say and nothing the Democrats say. What would that mean? It seems to me it would mean that the GOP would be unaccountable. The people who need to hold them accountable are the people who DO vote for them, not the ones who don't. Same goes for the other side, the Democrats. Blind allegiance is foolish.

So, you can go on adhering to your principle that "it's your money" if you like. It's a nonsensical idea, in my opinion. Of course it's your money. Since when do you get taxed on someone else's money? Tax policy is a battle for power, and that's all it is. And I would be ashamed and embarassed if Phil Gramm or Don Nickles or Kent Conrad or Hillary Clinton could come on FR, and see that people are blindly following whatever they are told without even checking the facts, or looking up the data, before taking a position. It is embarrassing. But then, if you've ever heard Sean hannity's man on the street interviews, I guess you will agree that the national constituency is already an embarrassment.

29 posted on 06/14/2002 5:12:22 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson