Bush is losing it

It's bad enough he has to campaign in Virginia, supposedly solid Red territory. But then, he follows up with yet another "gaffe":

Bush also said high taxes on the rich are a failed strategy because "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."

Right... Obviously a notion from personal experience.

A Kerry guy in Virginia hit this softball out of the park:

Asked about that comment, Jonathan Beeton, spokesman for Kerry's campaign in Virginia, said "George Bush can speak with authority about really rich people. ... That's his base, so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. But that doesn't make it right."

Here's a better idea -- tax those most able to pay for it, close loopholes, increase penalties for tax cheats, and strengthen enforcement. That way, Bush's friends won't be able to dodge taxes.

But whatever. Abolish the speed limit because people speed anyway. Abolish drug laws because people do drugs anyway. Eliminate murder statutes because people kill people anyway.

Damn that man says stupid things!

Update: In the comments many of you make the point that this line isn't a gaffe, but a standard part of his stump speech.

Unbelievable.

•  On the one hand...

  I say, great, keep the pressure on, even crank it up a notch, and let's see what happens when this tank throws a tread.

  And then I remember that inbumbent or not, he's still got a briefcase full of launch codes.

  by adamgreenfield on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:04:33 AM PDT

  •  About that briefcase

    How much do you want to bet that Bush has a dummy briefcase (appropriately) and Cheney has the real one?

    by Thomas Kalinowski on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:22:40 AM PDT

    •  Spooky!

      I just said that yesterday on one of my boards. It was after listening to the "sover'nty" speech and thinking about the 7 Minutes.

      Scarily plausible, innit?

      by bellatrys on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 07:04:24 AM PDT

      •  Scarily comforting

        idea, that. Cheney may be Evil Inc but at least I'm sure he won't accidentally launch anything.

        by misty on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 11:43:11 AM PDT

        •  Indeed DIScomforting

          Prime Minister Cheney would launch them on purpose -- and he knows where the freakin' targets are (or so he says)!  Which is worse, I wonder?

          by polecat on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 05:39:10 PM PDT

  •  Ah, Virginia

    Keep in mind that Virginia is tighter in the polls than Ohio.  Northern Virginia overall is strongly Democratic (something like 60-40) so we need big turnout to offset the conservative south and west.  Kerry is also campaigning the Norfolk/Hampton Roads area.  Lots of Navy personnel down there that may be receptive to his message.

    We can do it.  Kerry could win Virginia, lose Ohio, and still win the election.  

    As for Bush campaigning in Northern Virginia, weird decision.  The GOP polls must be awful for Bush to campaign in NoVa.  Fairfax County is GOP majority, but trending Dem.  If Bush needs to shore up Fairfax County--especially Annandale, crikey!--he is in a world of hurt.  

    It is not like he needs to get on the local news.  Annandale is a DC suburb.  Odds are good that White House staff actually live in Annandale.  

    Weird choice.  Could account for the sparse turnout, both GOP and Dem.

    Here's the litmus test.  Look at the Wash Post front page coverage tomorrow.  Which is the higher story--Bush in NoVa or Redskin tackle Jon Jansen blowing out his Achilles heel?

    by 537 votes on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 03:17:25 AM PDT

    •  WHAT????

      Jansen's hurt in preseason???

      by Steve G on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 09:57:09 AM PDT

  •  I say

    Isn't this class warfare?  ohno!

    by daria g on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 04:34:10 AM PDT

•  even better ...

  ... very simple response:

  "So why then did you find it so necessary to lower their taxes? If they weren't paying them anyway, why the need to cut them?  And if they're just going to dodge them anyway, then I guess you won't care if we raise it back to the way it was during the Clinton administration, eh?"

  by AdamW on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:05:11 AM PDT

  •  I love this...

    ...please, please, please post it in a diary.

    I LOVE THIS.

    by JeffLieber on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:11:55 AM PDT

  •  so many implications

    If lowering taxes on the rich is good because the rich didn't pay them anyway, then does the fact that you didn't lower taxes (much) on the middle class mean that the middle class is more honest?

    by jd in nyc on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:30:43 AM PDT

    •  Let them eat cake

      It means just what we've been saying all along... that 90 percent of us (middle and lower classes) pay most of the taxes... and that rich Bush plans to do nothing about it!!!

      by hypnotoad on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:02:24 PM PDT

  •  I like your thinking

    Makes me wonder: Bush is always saying "they hate us because of our freedom."  I guess he's eradicating our freedoms to make the terra-ists stop hating us.

    by Velvet Revolution on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:58:14 AM PDT

    •  So Many

      ...sharp thinkers, so little time.

      by FreeAtLast on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:54:45 PM PDT

  •  "Mr. Bush,

    why do rich people hate America?"

    by efp on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:05:43 AM PDT

  •  the rich don't get taxed

    Ok, I hate to sound like a Republican, but the rich don't get taxed.  I don't count this as a "tax hike", because it is just rolling back a cutt that should not have been there in the first place.  

    However, when you raise the taxes on the rich, all they do is pass it on to you.  The Lawyers, Doctors, shopkeepers, and the rest just raise their prices to pay the higher taxes, and that gets passed onto you and me.  The rest just speed up the re-investment in their businesses (which they should) and don't pay taxes because it is re-invested wisely.

    by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:12:18 AM PDT

    •  What about the relationship between...

      profit and what the market will bear.  If the tax is reasonable then the market will still control price.

      Will the typical laywers, doctors, and shopkeepers really face a tax bite?  If they are running a small business then won't they have business deductions (ordinary and nec. expenses) and ways to defer gains?

      by rolodomo on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:21:48 AM PDT

      •  not really

        Because their business consists of themselves.  They aren't running real estate or anything like that.  An expense is just an expense.  It doesn't put more money into their pockets.  Thus a tax hike will take a big bite out of their ass, and since they make a lot of money, they control the market.

        by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:50:15 AM PDT

        •  I think your grasp of economics is poor...

          First of all, there's supply and demand.  If there's not enough demand for a service the price cannot be raised that much because no one will pay for it.  Doctors and Lawyers are not going to "pass the tax along" because most of their money is superfluous and is used for unnecessary expenses like leisure and luxuries.  

          Furthermore, most doctors and lawyers are employed by firms/HMOs/hospitals, etc, that set the price they are paid which is based on the labor market.  If a doctor is getting charged 10% extra, well boo-hoo, the HMO isn't going to give a rat's ass.  They set their wages based on how much competition is available for the job, not on how much the doctors want to charge.  

          Those doctors and lawyers who are self employed cannot charge much more than the going rate of major firms/hospitals or they'll get no business (and they may well have to charge less).  They can't just jack up prices because their tax is up, nor do they lower them when taxes are down.  

          The bottomline is your viewpoint here has some serious logical flaws in it.  What you're talking about is basically junk economics.  Trickledown doesn't work, if it did our economy wouldn't be sucking wind like it is right now!

          by Asak on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 06:46:37 AM PDT

          •  Medical economics

            Furthermore, physicians may charge whatever they want, but they're only going to get what inusrance companies/Medicare pays them. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS) is who really sets the prices in the medical marketplace, not physicians.

            by carmkb on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:51:09 PM PDT

        •  By the way...

          Just because someone makes more money that doesn't mean they control the market.  I think that's probably the first fundamental problem with your opinion.  

          by Asak on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 06:47:53 AM PDT

    •  Actually

      if they "pass it along" its part of the economy. Its changing hands and circulating. If you "let them keep their own money" they stuff it in a virtual mattress (stocks and bonds) or, worse, loan it back to you (govt bonds and treasury bills). You don't tax the rich for punishment or to lower their income, you tax the rich to force them to circulate the money.

      by johnmorris on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:24:04 AM PDT

      •  really dumb statement

        they stuff it in a virtual mattress (stocks and bonds) or, worse, loan it back to you (govt bonds and treasury bills).

        What is a stock?  A stock is a company giving ownership to its investers in exchange for the investers giving them capitol in order to expand their business.  When people expand businesses, they often times create jobs in their company and in companies that support their Industry.  When money gets pumped into this virtual mattress called the stock market, prices of stocks rise, and thus our 401K's rise.  Many people will sell these stocks or exercise their Options, and pump that money right back into the economy in one way or the other.

        Bonds allow Governments to expand their cities/states/countries/companies without needlessly raising taxes or costs of goods.  They take that money, invest in infostructure, and watch the investments better the lives of their citizens, eployees, or customers.

        by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:47:45 AM PDT

        •  I buy a stock from a company

          the company gets the money. Thats an investment. Then I sell it to you. Its no longer an investment in plant and equipment its just a change in  ownership. The public debt that everyone is so upset about, "the deficit" is money loaned to the govt at interest. The bonds are then traded and the govt no longer gets the money but it still pays the interest. I didn't say the market was useless, its not. I said rich people sequester money. Fewer than 30% of americans have 401K's, or indeed, any savings for retirement. That's an economic problem and "the magic of the market place" ain't gonna solve it. You need to re read your Samuelson (assuming they're still using it)

          by johnmorris on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:59:46 AM PDT

          •  401K's

            Many people don't contribute to their 401K's because they just are extreamly bad with money.  Some of these people make a lot of money, mind you.  How many people do you know that have a new Car and all the Cable TV timmies at home but do not contribute to their retirement plans?  Read the Millionaire Next Door.  It is a great book.

            Yes, the magic of the Market will not solve this problem, but teaching people about the power and the need for savings will.

            As far as you example.  Yes, you have it correct.  You buy it from them and it is an investment, and when I buy it from you, it is just out their.  But it is the fact that I want to buy it from you that drives up the price of the stock, and would facilitates you wanting to buy the stock at IPO or SPO in the first place.  That whole system of appreciation is why people buy stocks.  Now I have a stock, which I hope will grow in value, and you have extra money which you can use as you please.

            by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 02:20:29 AM PDT

            •  You're not paying attention

              in several ways. First "many people do not contribute..." Most people, yes more than half, have neither the income nor the opportunity to contribute to a 401 K. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck   and not that high on the hog. And Joe blow's construction company doesn't have a 401K program for the day laborers. The days when working class people had easy access to benefits started dying when the Unions started dying. Second, my point had nothing to do with the wonderful machinations of the market. It has to do with the fundamental fact of an economy. Money in circulation causes growth and money in sequestration causes stagnation. RICH PEOPLE SEQUESTER MONEY. If you want it to circulate you have to tax it away from them and spend it on something useful. Like schools, and bridges. The stock market is a fun game for people who have money to spare and saving habits are just ducky for people who don't NEED everything they earn but there are people in this country on the edge of poverty, working their asses off and they don't have a chance as long as that free market garbage dominates the conversation.

              by johnmorris on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 02:51:48 AM PDT

              •  rich people don't sequester money

                They use money to make more money.  They invest in new businesses, or they create new businesses.  They do not sequester their money.  My point is that many people who live paycheck to paycheck do so because they make poor money choices.

                by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 03:41:11 AM PDT

                •  The statistical data released this week

                  Would indicate otherwise.

                  The rich are not using their money to expand companies.  They're not using it to create American jobs.  They're not using it, apparently, even to buy enough to make -other- people employ more.

                  They are sequestering their money in the market, which is not real money, by the way--it's fantasy land money until you actually sell the stock.  And companies are using it to pay dividends rather than put it back in circulation.

                  TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK.

                  by stephdray on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 03:47:03 AM PDT

                  •  I have a history book from 1953

                    which clearly states that the 'trickle-down economics' (a direct quote, by the way) of the 1930-33 administration (the Hoover admin, for those of you weak in history) is a complete joke.

                    Go ahead, my All Bush, All The Time friends. The American People are not so gullible.

                    by Ptah on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 04:04:48 AM PDT

                •  many people?

                  I'd ask how many bad money decisions a family can make when gas prices are rising, utility bills are going up, and housing takes 30% off the top of paychecks coming from low paying jobs.  

                  I'd ask how many elders are making decisions about seeing a doctor right now versus saving money for heating oil this next winter.

                  There are people who make poor financial decisions, but to advocate policies designed to help the top 4% of Americans at the expense of the remaining 96% on the basis of those outliers who "can but won't" doesn't make economic sense to me.

                  by greatbasin2 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 04:01:02 AM PDT

                  •  bas decisions

                    I'd ask how many bad money decisions a family can make when gas prices are rising, utility bills are going up, and housing takes 30% off the top of paychecks coming from low paying jobs.

                    Well, they buy a new car, maybe even a gas guzzling SUV, even when there are high gas prices.  They buy a bigger house then they need, or even worse, pay out the ass for a bigger apartment then they need.  That doesn't help their housing and utility concerns.

                    There are people who make poor financial decisions, but to advocate policies designed to help the top 4% of Americans at the expense of the remaining 96% on the basis of those outliers who "can but won't" doesn't make economic sense to me.

                    I never said that.  I am in favor of raising the taxes on the top bracket to pay for healthcare.  I am just saying that it is a little more complicated then "those rich bastards need to pay their fair share".  That is all.

                    by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:38:15 PM PDT

                •  charlesdog:

                  are you an analog of JamesB3? you always start out pessimistic...and, really, you do seem to exhibit the most childlike view of economics... you seem completely ignorant of :game theory: the evolution of altruism among social species: your own (prominently displayed) self-interest...

                  just curious (BLUE!)

                  by Ptah on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 04:25:34 AM PDT

                  •  how am I wrong?

                    I would prefer that you not go and call me childlike.  No, I am not an analog of JamesB3.  He is a Gay white guy and I am a straight Black guy.

                    So how was I wrong.  The rich don't use their money to make more money?

                    by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:42:43 PM PDT

                •  Yes

                  Just as the unemployed are lucky duckies.

                  The rich don't sequester their money?  The invest in companies?  That's hilarious.

                  You said it earlier: they use their money to make more.  Long term and pro America have little to do with the decision-making on investments.

                  by Velvet Revolution on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 04:32:09 AM PDT

                •  The wonders of capitalism...

                  Charlesdog, do you realize that if everyone saved money, then none of us would benefit from it?  Our economy is 75% based on consumer spending.  If people stopped spending and actually saved money, we'd go into a depression.  The sad truth is we don't want people to save, because for the 30% of us to benefit we need the other 70% to be spending money and going into debt like suckers.  It's a fucked up system, but that's how it really works.  

                  by Asak on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 06:51:57 AM PDT

                •  what stephanie said, plus

                  they're also buying luxury items - sales of yachts and diamonds are the only kind of thing that went up since the tax cuts, while smaller businesses are going bust because the "ordinary" people who were supposed to benefit and "strengthen" the country by going out and spending their "rebates" have had to use them to pay for the things that the government isn't paying for any more, and so the states are passing the costs on to their citizens.

                  A guy in the Boston Globe did the math and showed how it was a zero-sum game for him and his family - both parents working, 3 kids, twins entering school. They didn't get anything back, they now have to pay for all kinds of stuff that they didn't used to.

                  You can't "grow an economy" when a very few people at the top of the heap are the only ones buying stuff, and they're buying not lots of things, but expensive toys. There's just not enough money and work spreading around, Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus notwithstanding.

                  This soooo reminds me of the Mayan Empire's luxurious lifestyle, while starving the peasants - and the agricultural strength of the land, followed by a spectcular crash and the jungle taking over...

                  by bellatrys on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 07:25:33 AM PDT

                •  Th age-old criticism

                  This excuse has been around for centuries- people are poor because they are stupid, immoral, racially inferior, whatever.  Malthussian bullcrap.

                  Fuck the economics, you need to read your Dickens.

                  by scott on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 11:17:18 AM PDT

                •  Paycheck to paycheck

                  The reason most people who live paycheck to paycheck do so is because the wage structure doesn't meet the cost of living. People aren't paid a living wage.  While we do have a wasteful economy, the major cost that people have,  housing, is pricing people farther and farther away from their workplaces, making a second major expense -- a car impossible to live without.  And people don't make enough in wage/salary to pay for these basic needs.  (The fact that a car is a basic need in this county is a sign of how wasteful and counter visionary our culture has been, but that's another subject).  When your employer doesn't pay you enough to live in the community where you are employed, that's a problem.  You start out behind the eight ball before any "waste" can be factored in. When most employers don't pay the bulk of their employees enough to live in the communities where they are employed, that's a structural problem.

                  And keep in mind, I've bracketed out health care costs, which are rising, but wages aren't rising to compensate.  As businesses pass more of the costs onto their employees, they don't give them proportional raises to pay for it.  Everytime your benefits are cut, your salary is cut, and then an extra cost is added to your budget, making it a double hit on you.  

                  by a gilas girl on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 11:51:18 AM PDT

              •  BMWs

                Sure rich people buy BMWs with their tax cuts and the money trickles down and circulates in the EUROPEAN ECONOMY!!! Seems our trade deficits soar whenever any of these taxcutaholic republicans are in office.

                by ineedalife on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 08:12:57 AM PDT

                •  Whoa, there,

                  in an international economy (in which we are now participating) the interlocking ownerships make it likely that the money will circulate globally; buying a "European" commodity means that the American, European, Japanese (and coming soon to a megalith near you, the Chinese and Indian) owners also reap the profits.  

                  The Big Three automakers in the USA own appreciable stakes in most other automakers.  There are very few independent agents among multinationals.

                  by wozzle on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:15:16 AM PDT

    •  This is not very intelligent

      If lawyers, doctors, and shopkeepers could pass on cost increases (such as a higher tax liability) at will, the only thing keeping them from charging ungodly rates now is altruism.  If they have altruism now, they will have altruism later.  But I doubt they are operating from altruism.

      The only way this would be true is if ALL lawyers were in the same tax bracket.  Same with doctors, shopkeepers, etc.  Hard to believe, but they actually do compete with each other, and some are more competitive than others.

      The point is exactly the one made above--if the rich are tax cheats already, why give them a tax cut at all?  

      In all honesty, what moron Bush should be saying, but I doubt he understands, Harvard MBA and all, is that if you raise taxes on the rich, that gives them an incentive to cheat and/or find loopholes.  So raising taxes on the rich does not result in a straight expected return.  And the "honest" rich people carry the burden for the dishonest rich people, because they are less likely to be scofflaws.  

      In truth, what you have here in a nutshell is GOP philosophy--don't tax us because we will find a way to cheat. We can't help ourselves.  We are Republicans.  We value money more than civic responsibility.

      by 537 votes on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 02:29:41 AM PDT

      •  well, not exactly

        First of all, if you raise the taxes on the rich, they will all raise prices.  Thus, they don't have to worry about adverse compitition, because almost all, if not all of them raised prices for services that we all have to have.  They didn't raise prices before, because they couldn't do it unilaterally without losing business.

        While I am not a Conservative, I would not now or would I ever say that they value money more than Civic responsability.  They deam their businesses, which create jobs as their civic responsability, as well as community work through their Church.  I may disagree with some of their points, but I would never say that they value money more than Civic responsability, because it just isn't true.  I have friends who are conservatives, and what you just said does not describe them at all.

        by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 03:48:49 AM PDT

        •  all raise prices?

          It's not that easy.

          Most of the wealthy aren't business owners.  They're invested... they own stocks.  They can scream for more income, and demand that the corps that they own chunks of do better... but they can't just jack up the prices and pocket it directly.

          by ogre on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 04:02:36 AM PDT

          •  wrong

            Most of the wealthy aren't business owners

            OK, I would just like to point out that you are absolutely and utterly wrong about this.  Most wealthy people and people in the top 2 percent are business owners or are self employed.

            Read The Millionaire Next Door if you don't believe me.

            by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:27:22 PM PDT

        •  Did you graduate from High School?

          I hate to be rude, but maybe you should go pick up a H.S. Econ book and refresh your memory a bit.  

          by Asak on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 06:53:52 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          "[A]ll they do is pass it on to you.  The Lawyers, Doctors, shopkeepers, and the rest just raise their prices to pay the higher taxes . . ."

          My guess is, you've never worked in a law firm.  If you did, you didn't pay attention to how they set their hourly rate.

          "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

          by JJB on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 07:02:11 AM PDT

          •  well tell me, I am all ears

            OK.  Maybe I am wrong.  How do Law Firms set their rates oh wise one?  See if I am going to be wrong, I would like to learn something.  You, on the other hand, just said I was wrong without giving me any insight into why I was wrong.  That doesn't show me that I am wrong, and even if I am wrong, then I get nothing out of it.

            Please elaborate.  How exactly do Law Firms set their rates?

            by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:30:18 PM PDT

            •  First Of All

              They have to consider what the competition charges.  If a well-established law firm has its top partners charging $350 an hour, and you and a few other attorneys have just started a competing firm you don't dare set your rates that high.  Also, in order to get clients away from another firm, even the highest priced attorneys will be glad to cut their hourly rates for certain clients.  There is always someone willing to charge less than you do, and if you know they are capable of doing work comparable to your own, you have to be willing to take less money.

              Second, attorneys working at the same firm don't charge the same amount.  The higher up on the letterhead your name appears, the more you charge generally, with junior partners charging less, and associates less than that.  The associates are salaries, BTW, the partners are (I'm being simplistic here) shareholders in the business.

              Not every lawyer charges an hourly rate.  John Edwards worked on a contingency basis, taking a percentage of what he won for his clients.  He undoubtedly figured his percentage according both to what he was likely to win, and what his reputation could demand.

              Partners always want to make sure this year's share is at least as much as last years.  If necessary, they will dispense with support staff, even get rid of junior partners or associates.  They'll hold the holiday and staff appreciation parties at less expensive venues, and use cheaper caterers for in-house lunch seminars (worse comes to worse, those attending will have to brown-bag it).  They'll decide to not buy that new software program, or get rid of computer hardware and copying machines.  They'll move to an office that charges less in rent, factoring in a broken lease as part of the price of reducing costs over a long period of time.  They'll give out smaller salary increases and bonuses.

              In other words, there are lots of ways they'll look to reduce the cost of doing business before they'll charge their clients more.  I've worked in law firms for 20 years now, and believe me, they don't up their hourly rates on a whim.  The possibility of losing business to firms that will work cheaper is too great.  A higher tax burden does not cause them to up their rates anymore than they'll increase them to pay for the alimony incurred from the divorce from the most recent trophy wife.  While these are factors that may figure in a rate increase, they are are probably among the least important in determining what attorneys will charge their clients.  In fact, it isn't uncommon for attorneys to neglect to pay their taxes and gamble that the IRS won't ever come looking for them.  They figure the penalties are just the price of gambling, sort of like the perecentage you'd pay a bookie.  

              Now that I've helped dispell your ignorance on this subject, I'm sure there are others who'll be happy to do it for you with regards to the other fields you mention.

              No need to thank me, I'm a charitable person by nature.

              "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

              by JJB on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:55:13 PM PDT

              •  see

                That was interesting.  What did you do for Law firms?  Are you a Lawyer?

                Yeah, the trophy wife thing is so true.  There is a lawyer who comes into a cigar place I go to every once and a while, and he said that the only reason he didn't buy a certian 50K+ car was because of his alimony payments.

                Thanks for you post.  It was interesting.

                by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 04:43:52 PM PDT

                •  No, Not A Lawyer

                  I've been a legal secretary, word processor, paralegal (more or less, that was another way one firm I worked for kept billable hours down to keep clients happy), as well as several stints as a WP supervisor (lousy job, lots of responsibility and very little authority).  Currently I'm working in what we are trying to get renamed something like the Electronic Media Department, or maybe just Document Production.  They still call us Word Processing, but we in fact do mostly computer assisted drawings for patent applications at this point, as well as document conversions/cleanup from one type of software to another, Powerpoint slideshows, combined with working as the defacto help desk for secretaries who are too lazy to pick up their training manuals when they forget how to edit a header/footer in a document.  It's pretty much an employer-specific position that I couldn't find anywhere else.  Fortunately, it's a pretty good place to work and pays a hell of a lot more than most places I've been, so I've stuck around for 5 years now and have no immediate plans to leave.

                  That trophy wife story you mention is so typical.  They usually don't have to start cutting back on the expensive cars/suits, etc. until the third alimony judgment is handed down, which shows just what obscene amounts of money some of these characters make.  And of course, if they decide they really have to have that car, there's always some unfortunate support staff member(s) who get the axe.  

                  Anyway, I'm glad you found it interesting, and I apologize for the slightly sarcastic tone of my earlier response.  Take care.
                  

                  "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

                  by JJB on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 05:06:33 PM PDT

                  •  Absolutely!

                    Over the years, I have worked for a variety of corporations in their legal departments. I am one of those "respected clients" who hires law firms big and small. I don't care what the law firm pays in taxes. My corporation has its own financial issues to deal with. There are hourly rates that the market will bear. If the law firms I hire try to hike their rates too much, I take my business elsewhere. Because I send so much work to firms, I negotiate a rate I think is reasonable. I don't care if it's the firm's usual rate or not.

                    I am under intense pressure to keep my department's budget low. If my company doesn't keep its costs low, we might have to increase the cost of our product to the customer, and customers are fickle. They will buy our competitors' product FAST if there's a $3 difference.  They want quality, yeah. But there isn't a lot of difference between auto insurance policies, surgical centers, airline seats, toy stores, or other consumer products. Our competition will eat us up.

                    You can think that tax rate hikes get passed on to the customer, but from where I sit, I just don't see it. We get crucified if we try it.

                    Doctors can try to pass on their higher tax rates. But do you ever look at the Explanation of Benefits you get from your health insurance company? Ever notice the discrepancy between what the doctor charges and what the insurance company pays? Doctors don't get paid what they bill for the most part.

                    Have you ever changed dry cleaners because their prices keep going up? Or shopped at a discounter or online because it's cheaper than the local shop?

                    The American consumer is a tough sell these days. I've worked at diverse companies during the last 15 years, and increasingly, the emphasis is on cost control because we can't increase the cost to the customer no matter what.  Walmart, GEICO, Southwest Airlines, Amazon...it really is a good time to be a consumer IF you have a job that pays decently.
                    

                    by grover on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 06:22:14 PM PDT

                    •  Doctors

                      Yeah, I know what you mean.  I work in healthcare technology, and I actually get to see the amount requested by the vendor/doctor and the amount paid buy the HMO, and the differance is down right offensive.  I mean imagine if I walked into your store, and said "how much is that candy Bar?".  You said a dollar, and I gave you 10 cents, took it, and told you to go fuck yourself.  That is literally many doctors' stories.

                      by charlesdog12 on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 06:43:48 PM PDT

    •  You are essentially right

      that the tax has to be paid from some source and that taxes on the rich could be made up for with higher prices on things that average people buy. But you have to make the same argument about everything. We can't be exactly sure of the effect of a particular tax until we look at who is taxed and where.  

      by bjako on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 09:57:26 AM PDT

    •  Did the tax cuts also get passed on...

      ...to the consumer?  Hell no.  That money went straight into their pockets, and raising taxes on the rich won't affect consumers either, thanks to the way our economic system works.  Besides the fact that taxes are on the firm's profits, not the goods themselves, competition limits the degree to which increases in expenses are passed on to customers.

      by republicans are idiots on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:00:33 AM PDT

    •  So do I understand?

      Do I understand your argument correctly:

      However, when you raise the taxes on the rich, all they do is pass it on to you

      So when we lower taxes the price of those services went down, right?

      No?  So if we undo the tax cut why would the prices go up?  The taxes were already priced in before, why would it change?

      by RAST on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 11:31:22 AM PDT

      •  To pass through or not

        To add some structure to this debate... (and someone please correct me bc this is based on 10-year-old schoolin')

        Pass-through of added costs (which is what taxes are) is entirely subject to the elasticity of demand for a person's services. It's not about 'level' of demand, but about the slope of the demand curve at their price-point, which is known as elasticity.

        People forget how much variety there is in the high-rate service industry. Many are in fields with low elasticity. Which is to say, competitive. If they raise their rates, they lose customers fast. Their customers share info on what they're being charged and will walk.

        So those people don't push through their tax-cuts. I'd say this is the majority case.

        Bush is wilfully neglecting this also. He's talking as if this were only about the ultra-rich, while his plans affect a much broader range of incomes than merely the Monopoly Monacle Dudes of the world.

        by djangone on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:19:41 PM PDT

•  I say

  pound this meme home... it's amazing how moral absolutists who rail against 'moral relativism' quickly embrace that logice when it suits them.

  I make no bones, I am, and always will be a relativist, however I dont parade around speaking with moral certitude and making myself a raging hypocrite because of it.

  by brandonp on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:06:32 AM PDT

  •  relativism

    But just because you're a relativist doesn't mean you have to surrender your own moral view. If "everything is permitted" then it is permitted for you to try to encourage the spread of your values.

    The relativism which says "everbody's view is equally good" isn't relativism at all (it judges everyone from a single perspective) and it isn't even coherent (it destroys the meaning of the word "good" in this context, which depends on a contrast to retain its point).

    I guess I'm just in a philosophical and pedantic mood today.

    by jd in nyc on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:39:26 AM PDT

    •  Moral relativism means that

      an individual sets priorities.  I am appalled by some things that are not important to many.  Do I spend my time and my political/moral cachet fighting them? Not if there are more important things to fight.  

      I believe that moral "relativism" means that one takes on the battles that one has the best chance of winning.  Remember, politics is the "art of the possible".

      by wozzle on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:20:01 AM PDT

•  Good post

  Except for the abolishing drug laws jab, since drug criminalization/prohibition is the most racist, abusive jihad of our lifetimes.

  by snahabed on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:06:38 AM PDT

  •  No, the jab is right

    The claim is just that the mere fact that some people break the law provides no reason to abolish the law.

    There is very good reason to eliminate draconian penalties for drug possession and minor drug dealing. There is even a plausible case for making some drugs legal, but those arguments are entirely independent of the one which says that drugs should be made legal because (some) people will take them anyway. That much should be clear to everyone. In case it isn't, remember the other examples.

    I sometimes wish that "Logic and Rhetoric" were a mandatory course for all high school students.

    by jd in nyc on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:21:14 AM PDT

    •  Remind me again, though...

      why did you folks repeal Prohibition?

      by Canadian Reader on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:31:16 AM PDT

      •  Al Capone

        Just like today with the drug Prohibition, in the 20's organized crime fed off of the money illegal alcohol provided.  

        by RAST on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:43:47 AM PDT

        •  Well yeah. But wasn't the real root of it

          the huge number of ordinary citizens who just didn't see anything wrong with buying a drink?

          A law needs consent from those who are required to obey it. It doesn't need unanimous consent -- for any law there will always be those who think it doesn't apply to them, and that's what enforcement is about -- but it needs considerably more than a simple majority. If it doesn't have that, it is unworkable, and therefore a bad law.

          by Canadian Reader on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:56:56 AM PDT

          •  right

            that's more or less what I say below.

            by jd in nyc on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:07:09 AM PDT

          •  Part of it

            the huge number of ordinary citizens who just didn't see anything wrong with buying a drink?

            I wouldn't phrase it that way, I would say with my slight libertarian tendencies that govt has no authority to tell an individual that they must or must not ingest a given substance, especially when the laws were placed on the books in a dishonest, superstitious, and/or ignorant fashion. ["Must not" as opposed to "should not"; "should not" is not problematic for me, it's the compulsory part I have a problem with.]

            Bad law, it seems to me, is more complex than just what percentage of affected individuals will comply with it. Bad law is one that is based on faulty assumptions, has unintended consequences (cf. Capone et al), and/or overstretches authority. These problems will tend to breed non-compliance, rather than the other way around, I should think.

            by nota bene on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 05:45:35 PM PDT

            •  The government has

              in the last analysis... whatever authority the governed allow it to have.

              You can say that you don't want it to have the authority to tell an individual what substances may or may not be ingested, but unless you can persuade a sufficient number of your fellow citizens that it should not have that authority -- it will have it.

              I think there's a difference between "bad law" meaning unjust, and "bad law" as I was using the term, that is, a law that is no longer agreed to by the governed.

              by Canadian Reader on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 09:58:51 PM PDT

      •  breaking the law

        Good point, but prohibition wasn't repealed just because there was law-breaking. It was repealed because enough people thought it was a stupid law.

        If for some reason a state lowered the speed limit on the highways to 40 miles an hour, there would be an increase in speeding. But there would also be a huge loss of income because cars and trucks would move more slowly, and there would be a big outcry from people who hate feeling that their time was wasted. The law would get changed back, but it would be bizarre to argue for the change on the basis of an increase in speeding.

        I should modify my orginal statement, though: to the extent that law-breaking is judged to be both (a) involuntary and (b) victimless, then the fact that violations are inevitable does constitute a prima facie reason for changing the law. Not necessarily a sufficient justification, though.

        by jd in nyc on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:52:47 AM PDT

        •  What I always wondered was

          how did Prohibition get passed in the first place? It was a Constitutional Amendment for god's sake, which means it had to jump all the hurdles of any Amendment including passage by 3/4 of the states. Where were all these drinkers when it came time for them to vote on the Amendment in the first place?

          by rppa on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:32:46 AM PDT

          •  It was a very moralistic time...

            The political energy that drove the great awakening, the abolitionist movement, and then the women's rights movement were still very much in existence.  Abolition had been achieved, but the religiosity of the great awakening was in full swing in much of the country, and women were politicized as never before as they fought to push through the woman suffrage amendment.  

            Prohibition was the work of these folk:
            it was a women's rights issue because drunk men beat their wives; it was a religious issue because drinking was immoral on its face (so said the preachers) and led to other sins (a la pot today)...

            The prohibitionists developed a powerful and moralistic coalition.  Wives and mothers and preachers and law enforcement and social reformers vs. just about everyone else...except that there was no appreciable opposition because a) the political energy just didn't exist on that side, and b) who wants to go up against either a crusading preacher or a fully committed political wife?

            (Side note: It's not often said even in academic  circles, but well-intentioned though it was, Prohibition was perhaps the greatest mistake of the early Feminist movement, and contributed to a lot of the anti-feminist sentiment in the early twentieth century.)

            It wasn't until after Prohibition was passed that any kind of serious political support for the right to drink developed, or any real and defensible argument against it developed (ie, prohibition caused more problems than it solved).

            by writerCarl on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 11:36:56 AM PDT

            •  Good point

              re: feminist roots of prohibition.  But I think I'd focus it differently, its possible to argue that Prohibition was the beginning of the movement against domestic violence (at least in women's/feminist circles), just as abortion rights were also a movement against what the feminists arguing against making abortion illegal (19th century now) called "marital rape". (By which they meant sex on demand from their husbands, as conjugal rights were built into the marriage contract at that time: women vowed to "obey" and they owed their husbands certain "marital rights".  Failure to meet either one of these conditions was grounds for divorce.)

              I'm not saying that constitutes the whole thing, but a deep part of what's wrapped up in both these movements IS the issue of domestic violence, but the political and cultural vocabularies of the day hadn't yet developed these terms or the political infrastructure to make these issues.  There was, however, a language available to them and it was the language of the pulpit and the language of "temperance" (which, btw was a rather popular name for girls in the 17th and 18th century, especially in New England).  So they worked with what was there, with the predictable and unfortunate results. Remember political movements have to take and build upon the groundwork that already exists, they don't just pop out of someone's head fully formed.

              by a gilas girl on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:16:57 PM PDT

              •  agreed

                But it seems clear, in retrospect, that Prohibition was the wrong solution to the problem of domestic violence.

                It marks the clear beginning of a tactical solution-oriented approach to women's issues... but it was a solution that didn't produce the desired results.
                

                by writerCarl on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 02:10:57 PM PDT

            •  Also racism

              "Marijuana" is not an English word.

              by nota bene on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 05:37:06 PM PDT

    •  l & r

      are you a Columbia grad?

      by Jason on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:36:35 AM PDT

      •  Outed!

        Yes, I am. Grad school, though, not undergrad.

        by jd in nyc on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:54:18 AM PDT

        •  undergrad

          cssn, modern times, dsa lurker, anti-apartheid

          and whatever the hell that "logic and rhetoric"  class was called.

          by kid oakland on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:37:53 AM PDT

    •  No, the jab is wrong.

      When lawbreaking is widespread enough, i.e. dumping tea in boston harbor, the 98% of D.C. commuters who are caught by traffic cameras "speeding", the hundreds of millions of people who violate the DMCA by skipping past DVD advertisements on their cheap DVD player or who copy DVDs, the hundreds of millions who violate copyright law by copying CDs, the hundreds of millions who will still own a gun in America after they are outlawed - then the law is wrong. When the people, en masse, willfully violate a law, then the law is wrong. This is the lesson of the American revolution.

      On the other hand, when a rich powerful minority manipulate taxes at the expense of everyone else, they deserve to lose power. This too is the lesson of the American revolution.

      by Proud And Free on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 07:17:29 PM PDT

  •  Also

    The speed limits jab; there's a fair amount of research out there proving that setting the speed limits to a speed lower than that which traffic is traveling at serves only to increase ticket revenue, while actually decreasing safety (the presumed reason for speed limits).  The prevailing theory among traffic engineers is that initial limits on new roads should be set by modeling how fast traffic on that road is likely to travel, and setting the limit such that the great majority of the traffic will be traveling at or under the limit.  Over time, periodic re-observation should be undertaken, and the speed limit adjusted to keep pace with the speed people move at.

    So, yes, according to the people who do it for a living, speed limits should be raised if people are consistently breaking them.

    by sub version on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 02:46:43 AM PDT

    •  And for murder?

      Should we increase our personal murder quota if murders rise?
      Yeah, I know that is ridiculous. Flame-off.

      Bush is simply trying to sound anti-rich and populist while pushing a pro-rich program. But he can fool some of the people all of the time, and he needs them for re-election. He is expanding his base from the haves and have-mores to include the have-no-brains.

      by ineedalife on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 08:19:55 AM PDT

      •  Haves, Have mores, Have no brains

        Great line!

        by Steve G on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:02:13 AM PDT

      •  If

        If having an allowed murder quota decreased the total number of murders, there might be some value to doing so, yes.  It's like excessive jail sentences; do they actually decrease crime?  No.  In fact, there's evidence that they increase crime, by minimizing the ability of criminals to adjust to normal life and reducing their incentive not to repeat their crimes.  Furthermore, if there was evidence that murder quotas had little to no effect on the number of murders committed, then it would absolutely be in society's interest to adjust the murder quota such that a certain desireable percentage of people were within the law.

        Yeah, its ridiculous with murder, but the truth is - speed limits have almost nothing to do with the speed most people drive at, and evidence is that raising speed limits to accurately reflect the speed people are traveling at reduces accidents, while lowering it to further increase the disparity between 'legal' and actual speeds increases accidents.  (NHTSA study, 1992, I'll pull a URL if you really want.)

        My point had nothing to do with Bush, not sure why you brought him into it.  Kos took a jab at what is actually a very respectable, reasonable idea (change speed limits to reflect public standards), I just wanted to point out that a lot of people think its actually a very good idea.

        by sub version on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 02:39:15 AM PDT

    •  40-50 MPH on 2 lane residential street?

      the County clocked the average speed on our 2-lane residential street at 41 mph  before speed control actions were taken.  Why?  It was possible to bypass about 1 mile of a major artery that had 6 lights with one light.   So pseee cushions have been put in to slow the traffic down.  On our stretch it took quite a while, because our three block stretch is both a bus route and a major ambulance route (Hospital is 2 blocks from my house), so they had to put cutouts in speed cushions that allow emergency vehicles to cross cetner line and go through rather than over the cushions.

      Our  stretch has a church, a hospice which abuts a public park, several stops for the local bus route, and has a fair number of school children, some of whom alk to the elementary school which is a few block away.  We tried putting up speed indicators, but unforutnatley our stretch comes downhill from both directiosn to right outside my house, and when the County police would set ujp radar monitoring, they found that something like 80% of the vehilces were going over 35 MPH in a posted 25 MPH zone.  Sometimes there are reasons for a speed limit faster than  what the traffic would do on its own.

      End result  -- we stilol have a few idiots who go barreling down the street, particularly at night, when they can swerve over the cnetr line and use the cutouts (quite illegal, but if no cops present, they get away with it), but by and large the average speed on our stretch never exceed 30 MPH during the stretch, and is rarely more the about 15 mph as they go over the cushions.  

      by teacherken on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 09:20:47 AM PDT

    •  Let me qualify that...

      ...speed limits should be raised if people are consistently breaking them IF it doesn't affect safety.  Traffic flow is but one consideration.  Others include the average technological ability of cars to travel at a given speed without losing stability, the average ability of drivers to control vehicles going a given speed on the highway, and the general condition of the highway itself.

      Germany's superhighways have sections with no speed limits at all.  To be able to do this while keeping carnage at an acceptable level, (1) they have compulsory driver's ed, which is WAY more rigorous than anything in the States, (2) the autobahns are kept in a MUCH higher state of maintenance than their counterparts in the States, and (3) the cars themselves (and just as importantly, their tires) are designed to be LOTS more stable at higher speeds than their American counterparts.  Ride in a Mercedes (turbodiesel) taxicab in Germany, and you'll be amazed how the driver can cruise at 85-95 MPH without you're noticing how fast you were going.

      by republicans are idiots on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:15:09 AM PDT

      •  Not to mention the price of gasoline.

        > 2 Euro/liter.  That kinda makes you pay more attention to your driving habits.

        by republicans are idiots on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:17:19 AM PDT

      •  Having read studies on it

        Speed limits have little to nothing to do with the speed traffic goes.  Traffic generally travels at the speed safe for the road and conditions regardless of the posted limit (NHTSA studies repeatedly have found this to be true).  As average speeds have increased over the last 30 years, accident rates have been decreasing.  This is because our cars have been improving - a modern car is considerably more stable and safer than a 70s vintage car.  The truth, according to a fair number of NHTSA studies, is that difference from traffic flow is the major factor in accidents on highways not involving intoxicants.  This is because traffic flow generally takes into account road condition, car condition, and driver condition inherently.  Most people drive safely by their nature, without reference to the speed limit.  As a result, the recommended speed limit is (barring major interfering factors like pedestrian traffic, high levels of emergency traffic around fire stations and hospitals, and other such interferants) the speed at which 85% of traffic is either at or below.  NHTSA also does not recommend changing a speed limit to slow traffic down if that's needed for interference reasons; they state that the only effective way to slow traffic is to change conditions such that drivers will feel compelled to slow down.  In other words, speed bumps, narrower lanes, etc.

        There are sections of highway in Utah and Montana which don't have a speed limit.  These sections are consistently safer than much of our highway system, despite having neither a solid comprehensive driver's ed program nor improved roads.  As to your claim about Mercedes TDI taxis... well, there's a company in my old hometown that does Audi taxis.  Nicer cars ride nicer, its just a fact.  But Germans have cheap crappy cars too (coughOpelcoughVW), so that point's just inapplicable.

        by sub version on Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 02:33:06 AM PDT

•  I wonder

  what happens after gaffes like this - do his handlers go over the mistakes he made and offer advice?  I can't imagine Baby Chimp taking criticsism to well.

  To be a fly on the wall of Karl Rove's office....

  by arg on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:07:16 AM PDT

  •  isn't

    isn't this line part of his stump?  I thought he said it last week as well.  I thought it outrageous then.  Definitely a gaffe in the end because it is so stupid.

    by seamus on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:31:18 AM PDT

    •  last week

      he did say that.  if he repeats it enough maybe the sclm might notice....nah.  maybe krugman will pick it up.  better yet...let's send it to him.

      by x on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:48:31 AM PDT

  •  Probably not much going on

    They know by now that almost any Bush gaffe will be ignored by the SCLM. It will get the most play in media outlets which have a low percentage of Republicans and independents.

    They probably bet (rightly) that this comment won't move the polls a single percentage point.

    by jd in nyc on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:34:22 AM PDT

  •  See, that's the thing--

    --it wasn't a "gaffe," exactly, it was completely intentional. He's saying this a lot lately, and once might be an off the cuff misstatement, but twice or more means it's Karl Rove-approved.

    So, BC04 thinks that Bush casually slandering the ultrawealthy as though he weren't one of them is a vote-getter. For all the reasons cited here, I don't think they're right, but I seriously doubt we've heard the last of this line.

    I'll say this, though, as someone who has never had a problem with how Kerry's run his campaign: if I don't hear about this in a debate or an ad, I'll scream.

    by Matt on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 05:55:41 AM PDT

    •  That's not slander

      it's admiration.

      (And I'm with you both as someone who never had a problem with the Kerry campaign and re. screaming if this isn't raised. Of course, remember 2000, when Bush finally admitted: 'Of course 90% of the tax breaks go to the top 2% of the people. They're the ones who make all the money." And nobody cared ...)

      by GussieFN on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 08:06:06 AM PDT

  •  These folks are drowning

    and reaching for any PFD they can get.  In the last coupla weeks, we've had "results", "corner-turning", and this inanity, along with all the other pap and crap we've been fed all along (my personal favorite - "historical value", re the AQ airplanes on our soil PDB).

    Desperation may lead to heroism.  It may lead to success. It may lead to glorious failure.  In the case of Bushco, it leads to ruin, derision and, hopefully, prison.

    by wozzle on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:28:54 AM PDT

•  So if the Rich were already dodging their taxes

  how exactly was a tax cut for the wealthy supposed to stimulate the economy?

  by ETinKC on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:07:23 AM PDT

  •  The Angles

    And if Small Business people are rich..... then why would they pay taxes. Why do we need the "death tax" lowered.....This has truly become the theater of the Absurd, the verbal gaffage from Bush is filling tanks of Snark everywhere.

    I had some fun with this and newly minted loyalty oath related campaign activities at my place of cathartic release.

    Just when you thought you'd heard it all........

    by kent on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:18:46 AM PDT

    •  GOP perspective

      I had this discussion last night with a GOP relative. He noted that the "death tax" caused many family owned small business to be broken up and sold by the kids in order to pay the estate taxes on the business after the owners death.

      Where is the reality of such a statement as I didn't know how to respond. It seems logical, but I'd bet it's not that easy. I can't imagine that a savy business person would leave their busines open to such issues.

      by michael in chicago on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:35:30 AM PDT

      •  I'm not sure

        of the figures of how it affected small businesses - although I'd bet it didn't kill them - but there has never been a single instance of any family losing its farm over the estate tax, ever. And they've looked, long and hard.

        But that hasn't stopped them from lying about it. Remember that big red tractor that some guy used to drive to some big presentation about the estate tax? The guy who rode it didn't even come close to being affected by it.

        by bjako on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:40:59 AM PDT

        •  I brought something like this up

          and also mentioned that this wasn't a tax increase as much as a roll back to Clinton era rates in which small business seemed to be doing just fine.

          He cited a McDonald's owner who's kids would have to sell the McD's to pay the estate taxes.

          I need a better argument for this one.

          by michael in chicago on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:45:48 AM PDT

          •  I don't see how a franchise owner in a

            multinational corporation is a small business?

            by rolodomo on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:16:33 AM PDT

            •  McD's

              Seriously, McDonald's franchises are hard to get, and cost about $500k. And the folks fortunate enough to get them tend to make money hand over fist.  Not a good example of a small business owner, by any stretch of the imagination.

              by Nim on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:35:28 AM PDT

          •  My answer

            Taxes have to come from somewhere unless you wish to eliminate services.  Do you think it makes more sense to take money being passed from one generation to another or to more heavily tax the working middle class?

            Estate taxes only nail the wealthy and usually only on items like stocks/businesses/real estate etc. that have had capital appreciation over the holder's life that have yet to be taxed.  It's not double taxation for the most part unless Daddy just sat on his wages or what he inherited for his whole life.  The deduction is pretty large so for most folks, the original, taxed portion of the investment is already exempt.

            So the kids have to sell the McDonalds or take out a loan to cover the estate tax if they want to keep it.  It's not like they aren't still getting a huge chunk of unearned income anyway.  Boo hoo.  My Daddy died and had $10 million.  We only got to keep $5-7 million of it.  It ruined my trip to the Riviera thinking about all that tax money we paid.

            It could be worse, your parents could piss the money away on right wing think tanks!

            by HiD on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 05:55:20 AM PDT

          •  Ask some questions:

            How much was the McDonald's owner worth?

            How much did the kids walk away with?

            (In 1997, the average worth of a McDonald's unit was $1.5 million. The average owner owned three units. That's $4.5 million, just in the franchises--not including any other investments, real estate, etc. In 2004? You can bet those numbers are far higher. So the kids of some guy who's probably worth well in excess of $5 million, but almost certainly in excess of $1.5 million, had to sell the hamburger shop? First, I bet it's not true: if they'd wanted to keep the McDonald's, they could've arranged payment schedule with the IRS. Second, who cares? So they only got a half million dollars each, for nothing? Poor babies.)

            by GussieFN on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

            •  There are

              provisions that can be used so that people whose estates are valued until a few million dollars - I want to say $4-5 million - are exempted from a lot of the tax. And if memory serves me correctly, Daschle wanted to hike it up even more, so only the super rich (Judy Wicks, Bill gates Sr., etc) would have to pay, but the Republicans rejected it.

              by bjako on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:01:38 AM PDT

      •  Death Tax...

        ...is a misnomer. There is no suck thing and when pressed in 2000, Bush could not produce one family that got hit with this tax and lost there small business.

        I think Al Franken covered this in his book. I'm also reading a book called 'Perfectly Legal' (You can look it up on amazon). Anyway, they have a whole chapter on the so-called "Death Tax".

        One other person that covered the death tax is Isakov (I think that is name) He covers the use of terminology of the right.

        i hope you find some of this info helpful.

        Tommy

        by Tommy in Ny on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 12:47:14 AM PDT

        •  Like I said above,

          I am not sure about small businesses, but no family farm has ever gone under because of the estate tax.

          by bjako on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 10:04:02 AM PDT

        •  Lakoff, not Isakov

          The guy you're thinking of is George Lakoff, a professor of Linguistics at Cal-Berkeley. Not Isakov.

          And he's a really, really interesting thinker.

          http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/moral_politics.html

          by jnourse on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 11:44:53 AM PDT

      •  huge exemptions

        I beleive the Dems also proposed an ammendment that would exempt $100 million, so only estates with more than that would pay, and that too was voted down.

        Al Frankedn talks about it - anyone have details?

        by tis on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:00:26 AM PDT

      •  It's simple

        It is a complete myth that any small business has been broken up, or that any small farm has been sold.  (see Perfectly Legal, as the post above said).  The selling of repeal of the "death tax"  is the grossest example of brainwashing people to act disastrously against their own interests.  Ask your friend if he will enjoy paying for free rides for generations of the super wealthy with his future income taxes.

        If it weren't so tragic, you'd almost have to admire the cynical way the GOP has succeeded in creating solicitude for the plutocrats among the masses, drastically against their own interest.

        by Upper West on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:04:47 AM PDT

        •  ONE factual case I know of...

          did not involve a business, but you can see from the example how it could happen:

          My wife's Grandmother died, leaving her estate to three daughters.  They all hated each other.  The Grandmother had cash, stocks and lots and lots of antiques, paintings etc.  The whole estate was only worth a couple of million, not a lot for 90 years of living fairly well-off.  Well, the sisters did a scrupulous inventory of all the stuff, had it valued and it turned out the cash remaining was not enough to pay the estate taxes on the value of the stuff.  So they had to sell some stocks (and pay cap. gains tax) to pay the tax on the vases, paintings, china etc.  They could have avoided a lot of that if they had gotten along better, because, honestly the government would never have inventoried the possessions and the majority of the stuff could've just ...walked away.  But the main culprit was the executrix, who got a percentage of the total estate, so she counted everything she could find to drive the value up.  Anyway, that is one way assets have to be sold to pay the taxes...

          by PBJ Diddy on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:18:50 AM PDT

          •  There is a problem with this example...

            ...there is no capital gain tax unless you hold the stock for a prolonged period of time. You get a stepped up basis when a person passes away.

            The capital gain would be added into the estate, that's where the tax would have to be paid.

            Tommy
            

            by Tommy in Ny on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 01:36:10 AM PDT

            •  Well, that is correct.

              The stock was sold by the estate, which increased the amount of tax they owed because of the capital gain - i'm not certain the exact nature of the transaction since I wasn't directly involved, only that they had to liquidate assets to pay the taxes, and they ended up paying more in taxes than they owed before the sale.  

              Part of the issue also might have involved 'inheritance taxes' versus 'estate taxes'  the former being imposed on the survivors, and the latter on the deceased's total estate.  One was federal (estate?) the other imposed at the state level (the sisters lived in two different states also, presumably with different inheritance laws).  The point being that there ARE examples where assets have to be sold to pay the taxes because the estate isn't 'cash rich'.  

              Kind of like when you win a car and prizes on a game show, but no cash...you still have to pay the taxes on the value of the goods.

              by PBJ Diddy on Tue Aug 10, 2004 at 08:29:17 AM PDT

              •  Not all 'possessions' are the same kind of thing.

                There ought to be 2 kinds of capital gains tax: a low rate tax on material personal possessions, and a much higher tax on gains from investments.

                Might people then prefer to invest in personal possessions over paper investments? Yes, but only if the personal possession were to appeci