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 5)
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5 
on Jun 08, 2006
"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!"


Two problems with that.

A) The Legislators in question aren't going out to get another job to pay for their irresponsibility, they are demanding we pay their overdraft under threat of imprisonment and property seizure.

No babies have been born here. It is a far more apt comparison to say that if you or I decided our lives would be much, much better with a new car, and we bought it without the funds, we should demand our rich neighbor who can afford the payments buy it for us.

"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."


That's why we need a balanced budget amendment and real representation in terms of budget expenditure. We have no possibility of changing the budget through representation, because all we have to choose from is 'spend a lot' and 'spend even more'. When we vote one out, the party in question just finds a couple of their clones for us to vote for.

The only possible way to change things is simply to cut their purse strings, and the executive branch is our only real method of doing that through the veto. Otherwise we would have no way at all of effecting change. The president is seeing to our needs, not ignoring them. In blocking further taxation he is REALLY representing the wishes of the American people.
on Jun 10, 2006
Bakerstreet

I do not believe the majority of the American people would object to returning to the higher tax rates on the top two income brackets. Given the choice of a continued deficits or returning to the pre 2001 tax rates on the wealthy, returning to the pre 2001 rates is far better then just adding it to the debt! I think we should put that question on the ballot!

I support a balanced Budget Amendment. Nether Bush or the Congress has been willing to act responsibly!
on Jun 10, 2006
I do not believe the majority of the American people would object to returning to the higher tax rates on the top two income brackets. Given the choice of a continued deficits or returning to the pre 2001 tax rates on the wealthy, returning to the pre 2001 rates is far better then just adding it to the debt! I think we should put that question on the ballot!


America had that choice in 2004. Kerry wanted to tax successful Americans, and people didn't go for it. If you think the left will win with higher taxes on anybody, well you are crazy.

Col, you could care less about the budget. All of this is your excuse for taxing successful Americans. You have shown your true socialist self in your other thread.
5 PagesFirst 3 4 5