Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Bush wants to put our country further into DEBT!
Published on June 5, 2006 By COL Gene In Politics


Posted on Mon, Jun. 05, 2006



The Editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer today debunks the Bush claim that the BIG BAD Estate( Death Tax as the GOP calls it) should be eliminated. Here is the truth about this tax according to the Inquirer:

The Tax is paid by 5 out of every 1,000 estates. That is ½ of 1% of the estates pay this HORRIBLE tax. We hear about all the family farms and businesses that have to pay this tax. In 2000 that was 123 Family Farms and 135 family-owned businesses. In other words, this tax does not impact 99.5% of Americans.

What would it mean to the Federal budget? In the ten years from 2012 - 2022 the Federal Budget would lose $1 Trillion dollars at a time when the National Debt is over $8.3 Trillion and heading for $10 Trillion by 2010. It is time for the Democrats to say NO and filibuster this irresponsible proposal by Bush and the conservatives in Congress!!!


Editorial | The Estate Tax
Death to the phony spin

The Republican-controlled Senate will attempt this week a feat that is breathtakingly irresponsible - abolishing the tax on multimillion-dollar estates.
Conservatives have done a masterful spin job in vilifying the estate tax. They've effectively renamed this progressive, needed source of revenue the "death tax."
It sounds so unfair to tax death. And a tax on death sounds as if it might snare everybody.
In truth, the estate tax is paid by only five of every 1,000 people who die.
Let's repeat that, so it can sink in and dislodge the misconceptions that a decade of false "death tax" rhetoric has planted in Americans' brains:
The estate tax is paid by only five of every 1,000 people who die.
This year, only estates of more than $2 million (or $4 million per couple) will owe the tax - about 12,600 estates total.
What's more, under current law, that exemption level already is set to rise to $3 million for an individual and $7.5 million for a couple by 2009. When that happens, this tax will be paid by only three out of 1,000 estates.
Next time you're sitting in a traffic jam on the Schuylkill Expressway or Route 42 in South Jersey, look ahead of you. Look left. Look right. Chances are, even without repeal, no one you see will have this tax levied on his estate after he dies.
Oh, but what about the sacred "family farm"? This is another falsehood promoted during the annual fights in Congress to provide another boon to the Paris Hiltons of the world: The estate tax is causing the extinction of the family farm.
Actually, the estate tax rarely hits family farms.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that, if the current $2 million exemption had been in place in 2000, only 123 family farms and 135 family-owned businesses nationwide would have owed the tax.
In 2009, only 65 farms across the country are projected to owe the tax. And the American Farm Bureau, in one news report, could not cite a single example of a family farm being sold to pay the estate tax.
The tax might mean fewer baubles for Paris and her set, but it is not forcing families to give up their hard-earned legacies.
Opponents of the estate tax also would like people to believe that this levy guts estates by taking half of their value. Not so. In 2003, the estates that were subject to the tax (including 1,183 in Pennsylvania) paid an effective tax rate, on average, of 19 percent. That's because if an estate is valued at $2.5 million, the heirs pay taxes on $500,000 - only the amount above the $2 million exemption.
Bill Gates Sr., father of the founder of Microsoft, says opponents of the estate tax are conjuring up a "mythical bogeyman."
"Wealthy people have been paying estate taxes, and we have been getting along just fine," the elder Gates said.
What the estate tax does do is provide a vital source of income for a federal government that is running up way too much debt on its charge card. If the tax were repealed, the Treasury would lose nearly $1 trillion in revenue over the first decade of its full effect, beginning in 2012. Already feeling the pinch of earlier tax cuts, the government is running annual deficits of more than $300 billion and beginning to trim funds for vital tasks like homeland security in large Northeastern cities and the rebuilding of Iraqi cities.
Repealing the estate tax would only increase the misguided determination of this Congress to cut useful programs that have already faced the chopping block - health care for the poor, student loans, mass transit, food stamps, child-care subsidies. That's an immoral trade-off.
You say you still don't trust how the government spends money? Fine, the estate tax also boosts the nonprofit sector, because it provides an incentive for rich people to make large charitable donations and set up foundations to do good works.
One GOP proposal would keep a tax rate of 15 percent on estates more than $5 million. But this plan would lose nearly as much revenue as a repeal.
The nation can't afford an estate-tax repeal. But the few estates that pay the tax can indeed afford it.

Comments (Page 2)
5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jun 05, 2006

drmiler

You ARE THE ONE THAT IS full of crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Inquirer IS NOT TALKING ABOUT the PA ESTATE TAX. Thay are talking about the FEDERAL ESTATE TAX and they are correct?


Guess again col. Here's the federal one right from the IRS page.



Instructions for Part 2. Tax Computation (Page 1 of Form 706)
In general, the estate tax is figured by applying the unified rates shown in Table A on page 4 to the total of transfers both during life and at death, and then subtracting the gift taxes.

Note. You must complete the Tax Computation.

Table A—Unified Rate Schedule

Column A Column B Column C Column D
Taxable amount over Taxable amount not over Tax on amount in column A Rate of tax on excess over amount in column A
col A col B col C col D
(Percent)
0 $ 10,000 0 18
$10,000 20,000 $1,800 20
20,000 40,000 3,800 22
40,000 60,000 8,200 24
60,000 80,000 13,000 26
80,000 100,000 18,200 28
100,000 150,000 23,800 30
150,000 250,000 38,800 32
250,000 500,000 70,800 34
500,000 750,000 155,800 37
750,000 1,000,000 248,300 39
1,000,000 1,250,000 345,800 41
1,250,000 1,500,000 448,300 43
1,500,000 2,000,000 555,800 45
2,000,000 - - - - - -780,800 47


B. Which Estates Must File
For decedents dying in 2005, Form 706 must be filed by the executor for the estate of every U.S. citizen or resident whose gross estate, plus adjusted taxable gifts and specific exemption, is more than $1,500,000.

To determine whether you must file a return for the estate, add:

The adjusted taxable gifts (under section 2001() made by the decedent after December 31, 1976;

The total specific exemption allowed under section 2521 (as in effect before its repeal by the Tax Reform Act of 1976) for gifts made by the decedent after September 8, 1976; and

The decedent's gross estate valued at the date of death.



So yes they "are" full of it!!
on Jun 05, 2006
drmiler

There is a $2 Million dollar exemption per person before ANY Federal Estate Tax is due. That has nothing to do with income tax in the year of death or any gift tax at the Federal level.

This is from your post in which YOU clearly were talking about the Pennsylvania NOT Federal estate tax:


Reply By: drmiler Posted: Monday, June 05, 2006


Sorry col NOT in PA. The exemption is $3500. Here you go.


Pennsylvania Estate Taxes
Pennsylvania has an inheritance tax and an estate tax that is intended to absorb the difference between the inheritance tax and the maximum credit against the federal estate tax (i.e., a "pick-up tax"). The amount of inheritance tax imposed depends on who gets what after you are gone, according to the following classes of beneficiaries:

Surviving spouse: Transfers of property to or for the use of a decedent's surviving spouse are completely exempt from Pennsylvania inheritance tax.
Class A: After a $3,500 family exemption, transfers to the following beneficiaries are taxed at the rate of 4.5 percent: grandparents; parents (except that transfers from a child 21 years of age or younger are tax-exempt); lineal descendants (includes biological children, adopted children, and step-children, as well as their descendants); and the wife or widow and husband or widower of a child.
Class A1: Transfers to siblings, related to the decedent by blood or adoption, are taxed at the rate of 12 percent.
Class B: A transfer to anyone not listed above is taxed at a rate of 15 percent. However, transfers for public, government, charitable, and religious use are exempt from inheritance tax.
As far as estate taxes go, Pennsylvania's estate tax laws conform with the federal estate tax law amendments made by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which phases out the state death tax credit over a five-year period beginning in 2001. Starting in 2005, the state death tax credit is eliminated entirely.

Drmiler:

All of this does not alter the facts or point of this Blog - ONLY 1/2 of 1% of Americans PAY FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES! The tax loss to the Federal Government over 10 years is estimated a $1 Trillion dollars WE DO NOT HAVE! ALL that would do is increase the National Debt by another $1 Trillion dollars in ten years and drive the annual interest the taxpayers must pay even higher! All this so a FEW VERY wealthy families can avoid the Federal Estate Tax!
on Jun 05, 2006
I see this is another col thread where he tries to find another excuse to tax successful Americans.

Will you finally answer the question col.

Are you a socialist?
on Jun 05, 2006
Island Dog

You are so full of BS it comes out of your ears. There is NOTHING wrong with the tax rates that were in place during the 1990's. The wealthy did JUST FINE and NO they were NOT OVER TAXED. All I want is to return to those rates on the wealthy-- Estate Tax, Income tax, Capital Gains and Dividends. The tax cuts that impact the Middle Income Americans should stay because the help Demand and the economy! Please do not play the hearts and flowers for the top 5%. They never had it as good as during the 1990's with those higher tax rates !!!!
on Jun 05, 2006
"What I said is that they spend far less of each additional dollar then the middle income tax payer spends from tax cuts. That is called the Marginal Propensity to Consume and is a well established economic fact!"


And in the meantime they light cigars and stuff mattresses with the rest? No, they invest it, or buy bonds, or leave it in the bank for you and I to use.

It's shoddy how you one minute pretend the wealthy blow all their money on diamonds and sports cars, then when you realize that is good for your economy, you shift back to them not spending, which is no worse for our economy. How long do you intend to keep up the farce?
on Jun 05, 2006
You are so full of BS it comes out of your ears. There is NOTHING wrong with the tax rates that were in place during the 1990's. The wealthy did JUST FINE and NO they were NOT OVER TAXED.


Col, I'm not the one that keeps being proved wrong and won't admit it. You are.

Every article you write is nothing but an excuse to find a reason to tax successful Americans. That's it.

I notice as usual you failed to answer the two questions.

Are you a socialist?

How much should successful Americans be taxed?
on Jun 05, 2006
The estate tax is a HORRIBLE idea! It is based on the communist ideal that the state, not the individual, should own property. While I am aware that there are many, even among Republicans, who disagree with me (I'm OK with that), I don't believe an estate, which consists of money, by the way, on which taxes have already been taxed, should be taxed in any way, any how.

I don't believe we need to raise more taxes, Col. I believe we need to cut spending by eliminating programs in which the government has no business operating, and cut taxes further once we are running a consistent surplus. I also believe taxation should be based on CONSUMPTION, rather than on income.
on Jun 05, 2006
Bakerstreet

I did not say the wealthy BLOW the money. What I said is that DEMAND, the driver of the economy, is helped MORE by tax cuts to the middle income then the wealthy.

The proof is at hand, the tax cuts are ADDING to the deficit which is because 1/2 the Tax cuts is going to the wealthy that do not spend it! We do not get the rate of growth needed to even replace the lost revenue from the tax cuts. When the government spends our tax dollars it puts people to work and provides profits to the companies from whom the Fed purchases the goods and services. We would get a lot more economic bang from a $100 Billion spent to rebuild the Gulf then to give that same amount in tax cuts to the wealthy.
on Jun 05, 2006
Gideon

That is NOT TRUE. The wealthy have the ability to pass on a large portion of their estates to their families. Much of the money that is accumulated has escaped tax by the many legal and illegal means and loop holes. The people receiving the money did not work for it. They receive up to $2 Million per person with no tax and only a few people pay ANY tax. This tax truly JUST for the very wealthy and 99.5% of Americans will NEVER pay a cent. That is not any thing like Communism .

There is NO combination of spending cuts that either are acceptable to the majority or possible given the amount of the budget that is in locked in stone such as the interest on the debt. The discretionary budget, including DOD, is about $825 Billion. Last year we were out of balance by $620 Billion! To believe we can balance the budget with just spending cuts is living in fantasy land!
on Jun 05, 2006
Yet another bunch of opportunities to mark a bunch of the Clueless one's posts as "Trolling" Oh, joy!
on Jun 05, 2006
Oh, btw, I should also say congrats to Gene for truth in advertising in his headline for this article: yet another "phony spin" on anything related to Bush.
on Jun 05, 2006
This has NOTHING to do with trolling. All of what I have posted is true and is backed up by economics and the condition of the Federal Budget. I fully understand how to run a business and balance a budget. I did just that in various profit and non profit enterprises for over 35 Years. This country has had ONE year of a balanced budget since 1981!
on Jun 05, 2006
"The proof is at hand, the tax cuts are ADDING to the deficit which is because 1/2 the Tax cuts is going to the wealthy that do not spend it! "


Tax cuts don't add to the deficit. The money was never the government's to spend in the first place. You act as if it is owed when it wasn't even asked for. We only owe as much as the government requres us to pay. It isn't as if it was taken away from Congress, that money wasn't on the books to begin with.

Yet, the Congress kept right on spending more and more money knowing they didn't have as much revenue coming in. That added to the deficit. Anyone who can balance a checkbook knows not to spend more than they take in. The difference is Congress can just keep borrowing and borrowing indefinately.

But you go on and keep blaming taxpayers, Col. I think I will go bounce a check and blame you for not paying the extra.
on Jun 05, 2006
You know oh clueless one that even "if" we rolled back EVERY tax break we got from GW they only equal 700 billion $'s? Now how does that even come "close" to helping the deficit @ 7.2 trillion?

That is NOT TRUE. The wealthy have the ability to pass on a large portion of their estates to their families. Much of the money that is accumulated has escaped tax by the many legal and illegal means and loop holes. The people receiving the money did not work for it. They receive up to $2 Million per person with no tax and only a few people pay ANY tax. This tax truly JUST for the very wealthy and 99.5% of Americans will NEVER pay a cent. That is not any thing like Communism


This is EXACTLY like communism. Taxes were "already" paid on these monies. Thru income tax and capital gains tax, etc. So "why" should the government get to double dip into these funds?
on Jun 05, 2006
Bakerstreet

O Contraire-- Under our system we elect representatives that enact budgets and taxes. That process has resulted in spending FAR more then we are enacting in taxes. WE were told that there was this SURPLUS that meant the American People were being OVER TAXED and thus is was right to return that Surplus to the people via tax cuts. ONE PROBLEM-- There was NO SURPLUS except in the mind of Bush!

Then we were told that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy and in effect generate enough NEW TAX REVENUE, due to this increased economic activity, to replace the lost revenue from the tax cuts. Although there has been SOME economic growth it has not been enough to make up for the reduced tax revenue from the tax cuts. At the same time Bush and the majority in Congress agreed to increase the level of spending. Guess what happened, we created a situation where we are spending a lot more then we are taxing.

Now Bush and the conservatives faced with deficits as far as the eye can see propose to make the tax cuts permanent including the Estate Tax. That will insure that the deficit continues and in fact the Brookings Institute released a study that showed making the Bush tax cuts permanent would add yet an additional $2.4 Trillion to the already blooming deficit over the next ten years.

This is a farce in the most basic sense. What reasonable person that can not pay their bills reduces their income and makes the difference between what they are spending and their income even greater? If Congress and the President as our elected representatives choose to spend $2.6 Trillion this year, as they have chosen to do, they must also TAX at that same rate and insure that we have $2.6Trillion in tax revenue to meet our obligations. What we have done is provided about $2 Trillion in tax revenue and now proposes to further reduce the future tax revenue by making the estate tax end which today is producing many Billions of dollars as part of the $2 Trillion currently being generated. That is not only irresponsible but unreasonable. If you or I acted the same way we would soon go bankrupt! We can not afford the loss in the tax revenue ending the Estate Tax would create and I will urge any rational member of Congress to reject the asinine suggestion of President Bush! I find it impossible to believe that Bush has an MBA. His policies do not reflect the most basic understanding of corporate finance.


5 Pages1 2 3 4  Last