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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Jun 07, 2006
"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?"


Yes. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul isn't a solution. I would say it is far, far more important to keep as much money as possible in the real economy and fix Medicare and Social Security in their own venues. The real issue in an economy is making sure as many people as possible DON'T NEED MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY, you twit.

Stealing profits from upper class Americans so they can pass the damange down to the middle class in the form of less wages and benefits just means MORE PEOPLE RELYING ON MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. Gah, how can you be this dense...
on Jun 07, 2006
Taxing is not borrowing. The issue is what does the most good for our country. Granting tax cuts to less then 1 % of people that are so wealthy the added money means nothing except greed or using that same money to help insure the health and retirement of almost 100% of the retired Americans? That choice is a slam dunk. Anyone that would ignore the NEEDS of the Millions so a few thousand super rich can be a little wealthier has no conscience or concern for what will benefit this country in the long run!
on Jun 07, 2006
"Granting tax cuts to less then 1 % of people that are so wealthy the added money means nothing except greed or using that same money to help insure the health and retirement of almost 100% of the retired Americans?"


Lol, that percent gets smaller and smaller the longer you argue. You are still pretending they use that money to light cigars or stuff mattresses. In reality it is at work paying wages and making business stronger so that they can offer the benefits people need to avoid these social welfare programs.

America needs people who are self-sufficient and not reliant on government aid. If we spent more time fostering business and less time leeching off it you might not have a huge amount of the population relying on government welfare for their retirement.

Taxing is most certainly borrowing when you consider that the cost of those taxes is just going to be passed on to those in lower circumstances. People aren't going to profit less, they are just going to raise prices, lower wages, and offer less benefits in their businesses to make up for it.

So you really aren't robbing from the rich. You are taking money out of the economy that people desperately need, and just handing it back and forth from the government, to poor people, to wal-mart, and back to the government, and nothing ever improves. This benefits China, granted, and the big retailers who have to pay their employees rock bottom wages to keep prices low for your welfare folks. All the extra will just go to the oversees manufacturers that pay 25 cents an hour.

As I said elsewhere, go look at France's economic position right now. Your dogma is exactly what they have followed for a long time, and that is what you end up with when you do.
on Jun 07, 2006
The Col complains about low wages, less benefits, and a bad trade deficit. Then he suggests that we raise taxes on America's investors and business owners. In response to having less money, they'll no doubt raise wages, offer more benefits, and slash their prices to better compete globally.

Now, if that makes sense to you, feel free to drill holes in your head to let the little demons out. Robbing from the rich only makes the poor poorer. The only people who benefit from tax hikes are corrupt government officials and China through businesses like Wal-Mart, where all the government handouts go.

If no-benefit, low wage Wal-Mart jobs are what you are looking to create, then rob the economy of capital, put half the nation on welfare and the other half will be working at Wal-Mart. China will thank you. If you want to help the economy, you leave the capital where it is so there will be money for jobs and benefits, and so that there is a reasonable amount of profit allowing for lower, more competitive prices.
on Jun 07, 2006
Retaining the Estate Tax is NOT raising taxes. The handful of people that will benefit by eliminating this tax compared with the hundreds of Billions of dollars that will not be available to help people is clear. I wonder how many of the people on this Blog site will be impacted by this tax. It is just like Mr.Cassel said:


“A well financed and slickly packaged effort on behalf of a handful of superrich American families."

Make 1% or less more wealthy at the expense of millions


on Jun 07, 2006
The estate tax is a crime, Col, not a boon to society. Every time the government dips into the transfer of wealth it isn't a toll collector, it is a highwayman extorting money on a road that doesn't belong to him. We have no obligation to pay for the hundreds of billions of federal dollars that are diverted to state cronyism and malfeasance.

There is no other way to stop a spend-a-holic other than to cut his credit cards. You should be here pleading the case of no more federal borrowing, not asking your neighbors to pay for the waste with a death tax. You can rag on the wealthy all you want, but the fact that you want to excude yourself from being a victim and only pick on one slice of the population just makes you a bigger hypocrite.

The time has come for concerned people like yourself to stop blaming third parties and start looking at this gross mismanagement in Washington. We need to demand a balanced budget, and stop allowing them to borrow money. When they start cutting programs people need, the people will take notice and vote them out. Eventually we will have people in office that will cut the right stuff.

In the meantime, people like yourself will keep on feeding the monster and allowing it to ruin the economy you claim to care about.
on Jun 07, 2006
Hey col why don't you try and answer this question:


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 08, 2006
You are still pretending they use that money to light cigars or stuff mattresses


What, you don't?!
on Jun 08, 2006
Hey col why don't you try and answer this question:


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?


Or are you too much of a coward to answer it?
on Jun 08, 2006
BakerStreet

First, if the Estate Tax is ruining the economy as you claim, how has this country prospered all these years WITH THIS TAX IN PLACE? It only impacts about 12,000 families PER YEAR or less then 1% of the estates.

You claim the best way to cut off a spender is, "There is no other way to stop a spend-a-holic other than to cut his credit cards."

That has NOT WORKED with the Federal Government.


"The time has come for concerned people like you to stop blaming third parties and start looking at this gross mismanagement in Washington. We need to demand a balanced budget, and stop allowing them to borrow money."

That is what I have been saying. Balance the budget. When you have set the spending level you insure that the tax revenue equals that spending! The cuts or spending is not the issue that is what Congress and the President is elected to decide. However, when that choice has been made each year, the money MUST be provided from tax revenue. That is what Bush and the GOP refuses to do and what has created the deficit and accompanying interest we must pay on the debt!
on Jun 08, 2006
"First, if the Estate Tax is ruining the economy as you claim, how has this country prospered all these years WITH THIS TAX IN PLACE?"


Taxes don't help the country, Col. Taxes help the government. You consider the national budget to be the US economy and nothing could be further from the truth. Taxes are just withdrawls from the economy. Perhaps drawing a government check most of your life has given you the impression that we all work for the government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

"That is what I have been saying. Balance the budget."


No, you've been saying that we have to raise taxes to pay for whatever they want to spend, and then address the spending. Well, once we have paid for their malfeasance and corruption, the likelihood of backing the budget down is null.

If you want to address the deficit, force them to stop borrowing money when they can't keep to their budget. You and I aren't allowed to do that indefinately when we don't have the income to support it, and they shouldn't be able to steal our money to increase their income.
on Jun 08, 2006
Bakerstreet

Those withdrawals as you call them are spent to hire people or companies and go right back into creating wages and profits that stimulate economic activity. What does not provide ANY return is all the increased interest we are sending out of the country because Bush and the GOP will not balance the budget. 40% of the interest paid on the growing national debt is paid to people or institutions in countries like China and Japan.
on Jun 08, 2006
Bakerstreet

Since the taxes result from the elected officials in this Republic, it is NOT STEALING our money. Our elected officials have a responsibility to FUND the spending they APPROVE. If, as you suggest, we stop allowing more borrowing then to balance the budget we will need to cut spending and increase tax revenue. The size of the imbalance has become so great that to end the borrowing we will need to:

CUT SPENDING
COLLECT ALL the TAXES DUE
INCREASE THE RATE OF TAX

THAT is the ONLY way to come up with over $600 Billion dollars EVERY YEAR!
on Jun 08, 2006
"Our elected officials have a responsibility to FUND the spending they APPROVE."


On the contrary, they have the responsibility to spend what they have been given to spend. If you or I spend more than we are have, it is a crime. If they do, they demand more money and borrow it in the meantime. They will never, ever cut any substantial spending as long as they are allowed to borrow more or raise taxes.

Until they balance the budget, they should be allowed to do neither, and if that shuts down the majority of the government, fine. Then people will be appropriately disgruntled with their Congressmen, whereas now they can just sweep the issue under the rug by borrowing money.
on Jun 08, 2006
BakerStreet

You do not know what you are talking about. NOTHING in the Constitution says that Congress can only spend what the tax revenue brings in. We have increased taxes to respond to things such as wars in the past and the spending is in no way controlled by how much revenue is estimated.

When the Congress and President approve the budget and appropriate the money to be spent, they HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THE TAX REVENUE IS SUFFICIENT. Just like a FAMILY THAT MUST INCREASE SPENDING I.E. birth of another child. The family members get another job to increase their income to meet there increased expenses. You solution would be to say when the money runs out let the child starve!
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5