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 3)
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5 
on Jun 05, 2006
What percentage should the "rich" be taxed? And are you a socialist?
on Jun 05, 2006
No, Col, that beloved Congress of yours approved a tax cut. The money you are missing isn't theirs because they opted not to ask for it. They are the ones that decided to spend money that wasn't theirs. i.e. the deficit is their problem to fix, not ours.

I figure now you'll say that they were "misled" by bad old Bush the way they supposedly were about Iraq. Of course they wouldn't know what they spend and take in, even though they are the ones that are most responsible for the budget. In reality they knew exactly how much money they had to spend, and opted to spend more. Take this up with your crook buddies in Congress and stop playing panhandler for them.
on Jun 05, 2006
I believe I have said we need to return to the tax rates that were in effect just prior to 2001. The Reason we should return to the former levels is because we were told that they were TOO high was because of a non-existent Surplus. Thus the tax cuts should NOT have been enacted in the first place since the reason why they were enacted was not valid. I have also pointed out that BOTH Greenspan and O'Neil said the tax cuts should be tied to the surplus. Had we headed their advise the tax cuts would have ended as soon as it was clear there was NO SURPLUS!

In addition, borrowing money and paying interest on that borrowed money to continue tax cuts to a segment of the population that does not NEED the added money is DEAD WRONG! That has nothing to do with socialism it has to with COMMON SENSE and sound fiscal management !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on Jun 05, 2006
No, what you have said over and over is that the tax cuts are to blame for the deficits. That isn't true. Congress knew how much money they had to spend, and they chose to spend more. Had they opted not to spend more than they had, there would be no deficit. Holding us up is no more ethical than borrowing it, just cheaper in the long run.

You can glam it up with all the capitalization and obfuscation you want, but the fact is as simple as it can be. They are borrowing money so that they don't have to limit their spending. When you and I do that, eventually we get into trouble unless we make ourselves a more realistic budget. It's time for them to do just that.
on Jun 05, 2006

I believe I have said we need to return to the tax rates that were in effect just prior to 2001. The Reason we should return to the former levels is because we were told that they were TOO high was because of a non-existent Surplus. Thus the tax cuts should NOT have been enacted in the first place since the reason why they were enacted was not valid. I have also pointed out that BOTH Greenspan and O'Neil said the tax cuts should be tied to the surplus. Had we headed their advise the tax cuts would have ended as soon as it was clear there was NO SURPLUS!


I can't help but notice how you just skipped over my last post. Could that be because you have no answer for it?

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
I ask a simple question. What percentage of a successful American's income should be taxed?
on Jun 05, 2006
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan yesterday defended his support of tax cuts in 2001 after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) suggested that he bears some blame for helping create the federal budget deficits that followed those cuts.
on Jun 05, 2006
Okay, I have been reading here and elsewhere.

I am now completely spun up on this whole estate tax thing, at least to my own satisfaction. And I have come to a definitive conclusion regarding this whole thread:

COL Gene, you are full of crap.

But I will say one thing: at least I was open-minded enough to give you the benefit of the doubt. And I was willing to concede a point; in fact, I did not even take up a contrary position. I actually took what you said at face value and believed you, instead of presupposing that since it was from you, it was instantly wrong.

For that, my dear COL, I have still won the day. You love to post your poopies up on your blog and have already decided beforehand that your opinion is an unassailable castle. No matter how many orcs come a-knockin', you have plenty of boiling oil and archers to take them down. This adversarial position does not inspire a debate, a sharing of information... it's your way or the highway, no matter how grounded in reality your opponents are. Tsk tsk tsk.
on Jun 05, 2006
The tax cuts have created some of the deficits. In fact over a trillion dollars of the almost three trillion dollar increase in the National Debt are due to the tax cuts!
on Jun 05, 2006
The tax cuts have created some of the deficits. In fact over a trillion dollars of the almost three trillion dollar increase in the National Debt are due to the tax cuts!


BULLSH*T!!! You obviously did NOT read my reply! ALL the tax cuts given only total to 700 Billion which is NO WHERE near a trillion!!!
on Jun 06, 2006
Now it's "some" of the deficit. I love when col gets stomped in his own thread and goes off and starts another one about basically the same thing.
on Jun 06, 2006
If the tax cuts hadn't happened we'd still be hopelessly mired in debt. What does that have to do with the estate tax?

We've been in debt for decades, and I don't want to hear about how Clinton balanced the budget. He balanced it with projections based on the upward curve of the tech bubble, not grounded in realistic growth rates. Remember "irrational exuberance"? That was the Clinton "balanced budget".
on Jun 06, 2006
Another abandoned thread because he lost.
on Jun 07, 2006
Today another columnist pointed out how the GOP has distorted the Estate Tax issue.

Andrew Cassel said in his column:

"This is a textbook example of how even the elite can exploit the rhetoric of populism. At most the estate tax never applied to more than about 2% of American families.”

“Yet it was framed effectively as a monstrous threat to the republic."

Yes, the estate tax is an issue for only the super wealthy and not what should be done. Mr. Cassel went on to ask, "Is liberating wealthy Americans from the burden of estate taxes more critical then figuring out how to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent?"

“A well financed and slickly packaged effort on behalf of a handful of superrich American families."
on Jun 07, 2006
Of course col. A columnist must be right. Another anti-Bush, anti-Rich columnist can't be wrong.
5 Pages1 2 3 4 5