Congress to Vote In Landed Aristocracy

OK, just kidding about the landed part, but the rest is true. Today's Washington Post carries an article I've been expecting ever since the election.  Despite its budget busting consequences, the House is expected to vote today to permanently repeal the estate tax, thereby ensuring that the heirs to the Mars, Gallo, and Campbell's soup fortunes will inherit billions free of tax. (I don't include Bill Gates because he isn't leaving his fortune to his kids - he understands the effects of unlimited money on the next generation's morals).  Thinking this wonky tax policy area is boring?  You won't when you consider what the social and fiscal fallout will be from this.  Read on.

  Remember that when our Republic was founded, the people decided not to have a European-style aristocracy?  The men who wrote our Constitution were well acquainted with the deadening economic effects, poor morals, and societal inequities that flowed from aristocracy.  When people inherit wealth and live off their dividends, they tend to become lazy, drunken, amoral leeches.  

   Worse, they buy and enforce one set of laws for themselves, and another for everyone else.  So in England,  a drunken lord could get away with murder, while starving people were shipped off to Australia for stealing loaves of bread.  

    Just as bad, people who inherit wealth don't create it - they have no understanding of hard work and they don't use their inheritances to build anything, they just hire investment advisors to manage the money for them in the way that will best support them in the lifestyles they follow and create the largest pot of money to leave to their kids.

   So what does this have to do with the estate tax (recharacterized by Luntz as the "death tax")?  The estate tax was first voted in to finance the Spanish-American War back in the early 1900's.  It has been with us ever since, and along with the Anti-Trust Act, it was a marker for the end of the era of the robber barons in America.  An unlimited marital deduction was added (so anything you leave your spouse is tax free), and up until the early 1990's, everyone could leave up to $600,000 free of estate tax ($1.2 million per couple).  A later change was to increase that amount gradually to $1,000,000 per person ($2m per couple).  The tax hit very few people, but the people it did hit, it hit hard (the initial rate on the lowest bracket is 37% and the top bracket used to be 55%, assessed on everything you owned over the $1 mill except for what you were leaving to your spouse).  The very rich have entire industries of estate planners and financial managers who spend their lives figuring out ways to avoid the estate tax.  I once heard one presenter talk about "massaging the numbers" get an extra $40 mill over a 30 year projection by fiddling with the numbers on a charitable trust.  The average Joe wouldn't have believed the numbers, not to mention the sheer greed of it.

  Congress had made it beneficial to donate monies to charities by letting the rich put their money into esoteric things like Charitable Remainder Trusts and Foundations and Charitable Lead Trusts.  The bargain was that in exchange for getting extra money out to their heirs, some public good was also accomplished.  Now, the philathropy of the rich tends to go to . . . their colleges (Harvard, Yale), and their favorite entertainments (opera, the finer arts), none of which I'm quibbling with (and I have to give kudos here to Bill Gates and Ted Turner for bucking that trend by actually doing something for poor people).  Nevertheless, there was at least some public benefit in return for the private advantage.

  Now there will be a permanent repeal of the estate tax.  Consequence No. 1:  philanthropy will dry up.  There will be far fewer Jack Kent Cooke Foundations, far fewer Pew Charitable Trusts.  Consequence No. 2:  The rich will get richer - much richer.  And the richer they get, the more laws they will buy.  Think Bush (they both buy and sell), think DeLay.  The effects on our democracy would be devestating.  We already talk about people buying Senate seats.  Just imagine a Congress with nothing but Kennedys and Rockefellers, except their names will more likely be Mars, and Mellon Scaife, and Coors, and the far right wingnut theocratic heirs to the Dominos pizza fortune.  Consequence No. 3: the economy will suffer -  I firmly believe that when capital is tied up in trusts (which cannot take major risks) and when wealth is being spent on yachts in Europe, while the middle class is shrinking and the poor are driven into extreme poverty, the result is not a robust economy.  Consequence No. 4 (and this is the least of them but having known some of these people I tend to actually feel sorry for how lost and weak they often are): entire generations of leeches will be born.

So the next time you hear about the "unfairness" of the "death tax," remind people that America wasn't supposed to be an aristocracy.

•  Loudest Proponents of Elimination

  The loudest proponents of estate tax elimination that I know are small town and small city "economic elites" -- people with a six-figure income range -- that think that this will some how help them pass wealth along to their kids.  These people cannot imagine or comprehend the level of wealth experienced by the super-super-elite that this kind of reform is intended to assist.

  Upper-middle class doctors, dentists, bank branch managers and the like get zero out of this.

  It just helps keep Paris Hilton's dogs in pink furs.

  by bink on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:29:43 AM PDT

  •  well done.

    guys, contact Chuck Schumer about this.  I believe he is serving as "bipartisan" cover on this.  am I wrong?

    don't email, they don't read their emails.

    call
    write
    letters to editor
    protest outside his office :>

    let's move.

    thanks, really fantastic diary.  we needed to get on this.

    by alivingston on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:59:01 AM PDT

  •  Not just Paris Hilton...

    ...but also the money machine of the Republican Party will benefit from this.

    Don't you think the real driver behind this legislation is the billions that flow into the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" from uber-wealthy families?  If the Republicans can keep all of this money in the hands of major contributors, then they are assured of a continued and steady income stream into the think tanks, non-profits and other money laundering organizations that form the basis for Republican power.

    So, not only will Paris Hilton benefit from this, but also Scaife, Bradley, Olin, Coors and all the rest of the propaganda machine.

    by Getreal1246 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:18:14 PM PDT

  •  exactly

    The loudest proponents of estate tax elimination that I know are small town and small city "economic elites" -- people with a six-figure income range

    Funny thing is, as globalization hurts the communities in which these misers live, guess who's going to have to pick up the slack to cover local services? Yup, local and state government. And they'll have to pay too, as their local businesses will be going under as no one can afford to purchase their goods and services anymore. Free trade and the liberalization of global markets will destroy them too, it'll just take a bit longer....

    Which is why I support total free trade -- it'll destroy the reactionary people that run small-town America. Creative destruction baby.

    Anyway, small town elites are so funny. They don't even realize the uber-wealthy look down on them the same way they look down on the folks they lord it over in Bumfuck, USA. They are just slightly better paid workers for the folks who really run the show.

    by Benito on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 02:37:44 PM PDT

  •  Saudi Arabia

    a prime example of the ill effects of accumulated, unearned wealth.

    by Benito on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 02:42:42 PM PDT

•  The Reframe - The Paris Hilton Tax

  How can you defend more money for Paris Hilton and less for Grandma's social security check?

  Smack them right between the eyes with that question.

  by jetfan on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:34:35 AM PDT

  •  Simple

    For these guys, the answer is very simple.  You cannot tax the rich in any way, shape or form, because somewhere along the line you might hit a small business.  That is their meme.  Small business, small business, small business.  We have to expose it for the political myth it is.

    by Steve M on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:49:01 AM PDT

    •  "Small business" = Rich lawyers

      Every time a wingnut says "small business," we need to say "rich lawyers."

      (And I am a lawyer, but do not condone special tax breaks for my profession.)

      by Sandia Blanca on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:26:19 AM PDT

      •  Re:

        I am a lawyer too, and I don't get what this has to do with rich lawyers?

        There are plenty of well-off lawyers out there.  But the mega-huge estates, the ones that the estate tax reaches, tend not to belong to the rich lawyers but to their much-richer clients.

        I am not looking to be a poor sport, but Republicans have already used lawyers as the excuse for their failure to address the serious health care problems in this country.  It's hard enough fighting against that meme without further participating in the demonization of my own profession.

        by Steve M on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:48:40 PM PDT

      •  The Small Business Myth

        You are right on the money. So many of these "small businesses" are professionals and investors who want to better shelter their earnings from taxation.

        It's tough, because we want to give incentives to real proto-entrepeneurs and shop owners, but we are already doing a lot to give them the room they need to grow.

        I don't resent your success, but then again, it would be hard for me to incorporate as someone in a clerical position getting paid by the hour.

        Also, people need to wake up to the myth of the "family farm". Talk to people from my father's generation to get an idea of what a real family farm is and what happened to them. They still exist, but make up a tiny fraction of the actual farming.

        Good comment. Thank you.

        by Anaxagoras on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:35:23 PM PDT

      •  even better than "rich lawyers"

        Repealing the estate tax means tax breaks for Hedonist Rock Stars and Hollywood Elites!

        I think it was Lakoff who pointed it out -- that small town voters get so angry at "Hollywood liberals" that they race out to the polling booths and vote... to lower their taxes.

        by mikeb42 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 02:00:25 PM PDT

    •  Feingold amendment in 2001

      When the Senate debated this 4 years ago, Russ Feingold offered an amendment that would exempt the first $100000000 of an estate from the estate tax. One Hundred Million Dollars. This amendment was rejected 51-48.

      Small businesses my ass.

      by bonobo on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:40:44 PM PDT

  •  Very nice reframe

    you rock!

    by never forget 2000 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:38:46 AM PDT

  •  And in fact, I heard it described exactly

    in those terms earlier today on the floor.

    by otis704 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:59:41 AM PDT

•  Recommended

  David Cay Johnston had an interesting piece on this in the SF Chronicle this past Sunday.

  Seems like an issue that the "super rich" are succeeding in keeping well below the radar.

  I guess when you own all the corporate and mainstream media -- not to mention US Congress -- you can keep whatever you want to out of sight.

  by november3rd on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:38:29 AM PDT

  •  You're right

    My only question is, why is a vocal minority of this country so eager to shackle themselves into the serfdom which it is more than obvious that the GOP intends for us with measures designed to entrench an aristocracy?  I just don't get it.

    by GN1927 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:14:20 AM PDT

    •  The super rich are the "winning team"

      And Americans assume if you're on the winning team you win.  It doesn't work that way, but there you go.

      by nightsweat on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:06:56 PM PDT

  •  great quote from that article

    Though it is not specifically on repeal of the estate tax.   They appear to have slipped this under the radar. I am now clear on the bushco strategy. Make alot of Noise on noisy issues (Schiavo, Social Security, "Nuclear Option") meanwhile slip financially devestating issues under the table:
    Caps on damages for lawsuits, stringent bankruptcy (with loopholes for rich trust fund holders) and now, repeal estate tax.

    In their first 15 years, more than a quarter of President Bush's tax cuts will go to the top half of 1 percent of the population, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates. The top tenth of 1 percent will pocket 15 percent of the income tax cuts, far more beyond their share of all income. And estate tax repeal will be worth even more to this thin and rich slice of Americans.

    by biscobosco on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:45:11 AM PDT

•  Aristocratic murder

  I can assure you that, when the US Constitution was written, a drunken English aristocrat could not get away with murder. In 1760 Earl Ferrers was hanged for murdering his steward. Anyone who is interested in a piece of English social history can find the details at: -

  http://www.exclassics.com/newgate/ng284.htm

  by Gary J on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:47:55 AM PDT

  •  Small family farms...

    The agriculture community - small ag. farms are the ones we hear about, and I've seen this happen.  The estate tax is so high for this category that the farm has to be sold to pay them.

    I know we can't please everyone all the time, but has anyone done anything in this category?

    Things that come to mind are levels of valuation exceeding 'X' and not sole income, or something along that line get taxed.  Wouldn't that help the small business owner?  Exemptions for capital equipment?  I dunno, I'm brainstorming here.  There is way too much abuse in this area.  On that I agree.  

    by kfred on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:58:37 AM PDT

    •  This is a RURAL MYTH!!

      There are very, very few family farms that are covered by the estate tax, and repealing it to help the family farm is like destroying the house to cure a clogged drain.  

      If the exemption level were set at $3.5 million (see my post below) it is estimated by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that there would be only 50 taxable estates per year in the entire nation in which a family farm or small business (valued at less than $5 million) would be involved.

      The estate tax can be set at either the 2009 level (45% of estates above $3.5 million per person, $7 mil per couiple) or even better, the 2006 level ($2 mill per person, $4 mill per couple) or even graduate the rates, so it starts at 40% and rises to 49% for estates over $10 million and not hurt small businesses or family farmers.  That is just the GOP sugarcoating for a bitter oill for the rest of us.  Don't buy it.

      At a time when benefits for social security recipients and the poor are being cut, repealing the estate tax is obscene.  One really has to ask here, "How much is enough?"

      by Mimikatz on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:17:24 AM PDT

    •  Many People Say This Has Never Happened

      Al Franken for example often said during his first months at A-A that not one example of this had ever been verified.

      It would help if you could point to a concrete example.

      by Gooserock on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:20:42 AM PDT

      •  Possibly in the past

        The exemption level (estate that could be passed free of taxes) used to be $500,000 and then $625,000 per person.  When the property inflation of the '90s hit, some homes, farms and businesses were hit.  

        But the Bush Estate Tax cuts raised the exemption level, so it is now $1.5 million and next year will be $2 million.  In 2009 it will be $3.5 million ($7 million per couple).  This would cover real estate appreciation including farms and small businesses as well.  It is not necessary to eliminate the tax entirely on all estates, some of which are in the multi-billion dollars, to save a few family farms.  

        Remember, what the gov;t loses in revenue from the rich (in this case the very, very rich) it makes up in revenue from wage earners subject to withholding taxes.

        by Mimikatz on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:33:13 AM PDT

        •  It never happened

          I have estate planners and wealth managers as clients, and the industry has never been able to come up with an actual example of this occurring. In fact, in several cases their legal/compliance departments have demanded references to this claim be removed because it is false.

          by Smallbottle on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:52:34 AM PDT

      •  There must be examples

        Just because nobody has found an example doesn't mean there aren't any.  I think there are exceptions for people who are actually farming the land.  But my mother recently inherited a portion of a family farm (which was worth a million or so, and too small to actually farm).  She leases the land to a real live small farming family, and if the taxable threshhold had been a little lower, and if the estate hadn't included a big chunk of stocks that were sold to pay the taxes, she might have had to sell her portion of the farm.  This wouldn't have been good for the family farming the land, and I can easily imagine it contributing to putting them out of business.  

        But there's no excuse for not just raising the estate tax to some reasonable number, like 3 million or 30 million, rather than phasing it out altogether.    

        by i dont get it on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:17:03 AM PDT

        •  For openers

          The current estate tax starts at $1.5 million. That means that the heir gets to keep the first $1.5 million dollars plus some percentage of the rest of the estate. If s/he takes the $1.5 and gives it to a Charles Schwab broker the income in an average year, at 4%, will be $60,000. You could live on that. This tax does not impoverish anyone, nor does it make anyone suffer in any recognizable terms. Living at the level of riches to which they had become acustomed would require investing the $1.5 mil in a business and working as hard as their Parents.

          by johnmorris on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:38:07 AM PDT

    •  There Are Already Lots Of Protections

      for the family farm (not that there are that many of them left in this era of Agribusiness).  The tax code has had a qualified family owned business exemption, specifically designed around making sure the family farm doesn't have to be sold.  There are different valuations used for family farms (special use valuations); and well-off farms can use estate planning techniques like family limited partnerships to reduce the estate tax value of the farm by up to 30%.  

         So if you have seen a family farm go out of business because of the estate tax, it was probably because someone didn't bother to look at the tax code and get a little estate planning.  I have yet to actually see or hear about any specific family farm being sacrificed to the estate tax.

        If the estate tax threshhold were set at $3 million per person, and we kept the protections I mentioned above for family farms, how does this not solve the problem?  And even if it is a problem for a very small number of folks, it is worth giving Richard Mellon Scaife or the Walton family a pass on their transmitting money on the order of $5 billion to their heirs?

      by md jeffersonian on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:01:50 AM PDT

      •  Anyone know what happens to basis?

        What happens to the step-up in basis if the estate tax is repealed?

        Primer (standnard disclaimer - info only not legal advice, etc.):  

        Your grandma bought stock years ago for $10,000.  When she dies it is worth $100,000 and she leaves it to you.  Her estate is way under the $1.5 Million federal estate tax exemption amount so no federal estate tax is due.  Nonetheless you are entitled to a "stepped-up basis" in the stock you inherit equal to its value on the date of your grandmother's death ($100,000)instead of being required to take your grandma's basis of $10,000 (a "transferred" basis - which would be your basis if she gifted it to you while she was still living).

        What's the dif?  Well, when you go to sell the stock, your capital gain will be difference between what you sell it for and your basis.  A step-up in basis can wipe out a lot of capital gain.

        The first time this repeal was floated there was some issue as to what would happen to the stepped up basis.  The stepped up basis has been a huge boon to middle class families who owed no estate tax.  Since they wouldn't owe the estate tax, the repeal won't help them.  But if they lose their stepped up basis because of the repeal they are going to get tagged with capital gains tax.

        I don't know that this will happen.  Any legislative whizzes out there who know the answer as to what happens to stepped up basis?

        by payingattentionandappalled on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:55:52 AM PDT

        •  Good Question

          Not legal advice, but under the current law (I haven't read the new bill), there would be something called "carryover basis."  There would still be a step-up in basis on up to $4 million in capital gains, building in scenarios in which there is a surviving spouse, but anything more than that would pass on to the heir at the same basis at which the deceased person held it.  So under current law the impact on the middle class would be negligible, but there would be a trade off for the very rich who might otherwise build up assets that never hit a capital gains trigger and then got stepped up at death (the reverse of the oft-bemoaned "double tax" of income tax and then death tax -- no income tax, no death tax, no tax period).  The one time a carryover basis scheme was tried in the past, it was a miserable failure of a paperwork nightmare (because you have to keep track of the basis of all assets, even 30 years back).  On the other hand, all the estate attorneys and financial managers would be out of a lot of work if they didn't have to spend 60 hours a week trying to figure out how to help their clients escape estate taxes so there has to be something for them to do . . .

          by md jeffersonian on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 05:40:20 PM PDT

    •  Read this

      http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0408-02.htm

      Especially note the kinds of deductions available for different kinds of folks. For instance, for a family farm the first $4.2 Million of value has no tax at all if the family agrees to stay on the farm for 10 years. Much the same is true for busnesses. If you want to leave your business to your children, and they actually want it, there are many ways to do that while totally avoiding the estate tax. All of them include the kids actually running the business. The people so incensed at the estate tax want to have the money to lay back and breathe easy for generations. That's a good defintition for an aristocracy and that is antithetical to a democracy.

      by johnmorris on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:30:27 AM PDT

  •  Bullshit

    Bullshit, one story does not change history. Please in a time of rampant slavery, non existent women rights, etc etc, it would of been very easy for a powerful well connected whiteman to get away with just about anything.

    by threecents on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:30:22 AM PDT

    •  Evidence?

      I agree powerful, well connected aristocrats could get away with a lot in 18th century Britain, but the case of Earl Ferrers demonstrates they could not get away with murder. To support your argument to the contrary you would need examples of other peers who did get away with murder, because of their status.

      by Gary J on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:36:18 AM PDT

      •  Well...

        If you believe Jack the Ripper was a royal, which many do...

        by nightsweat on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:09:51 PM PDT

        •  Jack the Ripper

          The identity of the killer is not certain as no one was caught. However serial killers are often quite intelligent psychopaths, whereas the Royal candidate proposed in recent years was notoriously stupid. It also seems unlikely that a Prince would have the energy and expertise to go to Whitechapel and butcher prostitutes.

          by Gary J on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:13:46 PM PDT

•  Feudal regime

  1. As you pointed out, dismantling of estate tax, thereby establishing a permanent aristocratic class

  2. Dismantling educational and economic opportunities, thus severely restricting class fluidity and the number of newbies who can ascend to the aristocratic class

  3. Creating a theocratic environment establishing elite aristocratic control (via governmental institutions) of the serfs' reproduction, familial structure, and manner of worship.

  Wow.  Looks like the Bush Crime Family has not only failed to make this country competitive in the global climate, but these clowns have so retreated from modernity that they are actually backtracking this country into a socio-economic system which is a proven failure.

  by GN1927 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:53:57 AM PDT

  •  Purpose of estate tax

    Using religion, terror or propaganda to keep the serfs in line has only ever delayed revolution.

    The estate tax, as one element of a fair society, can help prevent America's own 'guillotine moment'.
    

    by chimpy on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:09:43 AM PDT

    •  Not only is the estate tax

      a preventative of revolution, as you pointed out, but it also functions as a checksafe against a reversion to feudalism, a socio-economic system which is unproductive, inefficient, and nearly always ends in economic and social disaster. WTF?

      by GN1927 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:16:09 AM PDT

      •  Disaster for Whom?

        Once we:
        *Make most of government nondemocratic
        *Remove lethal nation-state sized enemies
        *Liberate the economy from the people

        Economic disaster for the nation pretty much doesn't matter to the owners.

        So if we see any of these trends starting up, we'd better step in and turn them around before they reach the tipping point.

        by Gooserock on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:25:02 AM PDT

    •  I just made exactly this point

      on another thread.

      Anybody remember that the French aritocracy went under the guillotine chiefly because they refused to pay any taxes? The state went broke and the poor starved, but powdered wigs were too important, until they started rolling into baskets.

      Today's depraved, debauched and dissolute rich have no concept of "enlightened self-interest." History will teach them. It always does.

      by Smallbottle on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:56:09 AM PDT

•  Warren Buffett and Bill Gate's Father

  have both publically stated their opposition to this rule.  Gate's Dad was quite eloquent when he testified before Congress on why the estate tax is a GOOD thing.  I believe that he supported the notion of raising the cap to protect family businesses like small farms, restaurants, etc. to keep up with property values. But expressly rejected the concept of doing away with the estate tax.

  by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 08:54:03 AM PDT

  •  Here's Bill Gates Sr. on Call-in Radio

    Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes

    Jan 28, 2003, KUOW Seattle's "Weekday" program.

    The father of the richest man in the world and the heir to the Oscar Meyer fortune say we must not repeal the estate tax. Bill Gates, Sr. and Chuck Collins also argue we must invest in civic and professional projects to strengthen our nation.

    Guest:
    Bill Gates, Sr. and Chuck Collins, co-authors of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes

    by Gooserock on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:17:21 AM PDT

    •  Ans see! This is what I call patriotism.

      "we must invest in civic and professional projects to strengthen our nation."

      Some people understand that strength comes from within.  Some people are smart enough to understand that the value and success of their businesses rely on a the preservation of a stable, prosperous and educated country.
      Some people are just good enough people to understand that it is not "all about me all the time."

      Interesting site... http://www.responsiblewealth.org/

      by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:01:25 AM PDT

      •  Did Tom Delay call Mr. Gates a Commie yet?

        by LionelEHutz on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:17:32 AM PDT

  •  "Wealth and Our Commonwealth"

    Bill Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins wrote a book called "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes". They make a solid case for keeping the estate tax. (Not that I was hard to convince.)

    by Bearpaw on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:22:19 AM PDT

•  they are unpatriotic

  whatever you think of the war... while our nationn goes into debt, loses life and limb fighting this war in iraq - these very few people just want to abandon this country to debt.

  read "perfectly legal" he points out that in previous war situations the very rich thought it was their patriotic duty to pay more taxes to support the war. no more. now the middle class sends the bodies and pays the tab.

  dollars before country.

  by momster on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:03:49 AM PDT

  •  It's just division of labor.

    Poor people provide the soldiers.

    The middle class provides the money.

    The super-rich? Why, they supply the wars.

    by Canadian Reader on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:17:08 AM PDT

•  Very Important Subject! Recommend!

  I was going to do a diary on the Estate Tax but this is a good start.  There is much information at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities site.

  The estate tax is currently at 45% for estates over $1.5 million ($3 mil per couple) and the tax-free limit rises next year to $2 million ($4 per couple) and in 2009 to $3.5 million per person ($7 mil per couple). This is net of death expenses and charitable bequests, so the effective tax is much lower, more like 20% for the larger estates.

  If the tax were frozen at the 2009 level ($3.5 mil) then it would hit only 8,500 estates a year, or only 3 estates for every 1000 people who die in a year.  At this level 3/4 of the tax would be paid by estates over $10 million.  If it were frozen at the 2006 level, 3/4 of the tax would be paid by estates over $5 million.

  The repeal of the estate tax will cost the American Taxpayers trillions in the future, causiong an increase in other taxes that hit the non-rich.  If the estate tax were frozen at the $3.5 million (2009) level, it would cover 25% of the projected Social Security shortfall.  Set at the 2006 level of $2 million per person it would cover even more.

  But make no mistake about it.  If it is repealed, there will be Social Security benefit cuts for seniors even if the cap is raised.  Dog food for Granny so Paris Hilton and the Wal-Mart heirs can wallow in tax-free luxury.

  This is the first of many tax battles.  Go get the facts.  Write your Congressperson and watch their votes.  Bring it up in 2006 when they run again.  If we don't stop this, there will be so little revenue nothing progressive will be possible.

  by Mimikatz on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:07:35 AM PDT

•  The Unearned Wealth Tax

  Its downright disgusting our congresscritters are letting this happen.

  Why on why do we listen to this upside-down nonsense on economic policy:

  Earned Wealth Bad -- tax the hell out of it.  Hell, it would just be spent on mere consumption.

  Investment Wealth Good -- transferring existing assets around (like stocks), makes companies grow.  How?  Umm... it just does!  And inherited wealth is automatically investment wealth.

  I mean, I don't hear economists saying "The used car market is crucial to Chrysler.  When the value of used cars goes up, it makes it easier for Chrysler to sell more new cars."

  I do understand how selling new cars helps (or new stock shares), but investors are concentrating on existing stock...

  Ah well.  Ever since stock became the real product of companies, everything has been a bit upside-down.

  As long as the economy isn't about economic fundamentals of corporations and real job creation and a healthy cycle of rising wages causing more demand causing more sales causing higher profits...  as long as its just about increasing the share price (and P/E ratios) and tax dodges and the counterintuitive belief that American companies creating more jobs overseas is good for the American worker...

  Well, its really no surprise people buy into idiotic proposals like "no inheritance tax".

  They're just being patriotic.  The economists tell them so.

  by Yaright on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:07:55 AM PDT

  •  Passive versus earned income

    Income generated by feudal aristocrats tends to be passive.  The value of the labor of feudal serfs is earned income.  Hmmm, so if I were, like, trying to set up a system by which my offspring into perpetuity would be a natural aristocracy, which class of income would I tax?  If I were, like, also trying to create a system by which I could capture the income earned by the serfs, um I meant non-rich, I would pretty much want to control a political party which would implement these rules and convince the serfs that my decisions are best for them.  And why not also institute a little bit more control over those unruly serfs?  Like reproductive control, familial control (can't let those gays start thinking they can marry), and religious control.

    Repealing the estate tax and using the tax code to gradually eliminate taxes on passive income are just one means to an end: feudalism.

    by GN1927 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:22:02 AM PDT

•  Is it any surprise

  that Bush's most fervent supporters are from the Old Confederacy & from states with a similar history of the few, landed (or ranched, or oiled) super-wealthy controlling everything, while the underclasses toiled for crumbs?

  This is the class war the Repubs, in their various forms, have wanted since the founding of the Republic - - the wealthy few passing on their wealth just as the aristocracies of Eurpoe & England had done for centuries.

  It's a war against the wage-earner, a war that the investor class and the heir class have finally succeeded in winning.  Taxes will be paid from those whose income is from salaries, while those who are rich because of a fortuitous combination of egg & sperm roll around on their millions.

  THEY call it the 'death tax', as though everyone who dies has to pay it.  Why aren't the Dems countering with a good name like the Paris Hilton tax?  Why aren't they putting out releases reminding people of who really pays virtually all inheritance taxes - - the super-rich, who can afford it.

   

  by demokath on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:11:11 AM PDT

  •  It's the Golden Rule

    Them with the gold makes the rules.

    by chimpy on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:30:55 AM PDT

•  Perversely, perhaps

  To repeat what I said in another thread yesterday: The old-money neighborhoods were Kerry's best source of financial support, while new money went for Bush.  On average, those who inherit wealth are more likely to have gentle social views. Progressive liberalism got its start with the Whigs in both Britain and America, many of the most important members of which (e.g., The Earls of Shaftesbury) were heirs to great estates.

  So if the choice is to have our current economic structure, where pay to chief and lesser executive officers and the stars of media and sports creates lots of fresh, rich right wingers, then confiscating that wealth every generation will keep our politics to the right. Letting them pass on that wealth will result in far more liberals with wealth, since a fair proportion of those who grow up in easier circumstances with better education actually feel what they've enjoyed is good for character, and would like to see to spread more broadly to others. It's only first-generation wealth that believes that their own, often less-comfortable backgrounds, are the source of good character, and thus that social policy and investment shouldn't "pamper" the poor.

  Yes. This is all perverse and paradoxical. But allowing individuals to pass down wealth in the longer run provides a counterbalance to a system in which corporations are vastly wealthy (no inheritance tax for them!). There may be as much foolishness among the gentry as among any other class, but they are, on the whole, gentler, and that's good. Georger Washington is accounted by some to have been the richest man in America; Thomas Jefferson may have died in debt, but his attitudes towards the potential of the common man were based in his own gentle background, and in the Whig social theorists he read.

  New wealth is often bad; old wealth is often good. This may go against common American myth, but it's the real social fact of it. The Republicans are, in the longer term, doing themselves in on this one. The better Democratic answer would be to let this one pass (while voicing opposition for form's sake), and then to restore taxes to corporations - whose ability to marshall vast pools of money long-term is the real threat to liberal values.

  by wytcld on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:27:35 AM PDT

  •  Fascinating couterargument

    I'm not sure I completely agree (I still need to think), but it's nice to see some devil's advocacy going on.

    by Winger on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:37:47 AM PDT

  •  cut me a break

    This isn't about parties, so SICK of people putting parties in front on the nation as a whole.  I don't care if it helps dems or hurts them but Estate tax is a GOOD thing for the country as a whole and should not be repealed.  

    Of course I know it will be repealed for good, because I understand that history teaches that the rich will destroy this nation like they have so many times in the past.

     Isn't it amusing how the rich can make us fools focus on poor people running across borders in order to do hard labor in the hopes of feeding their families, all the while having us ignore them ( the rich slobs) who wouldn't know an honest days work if it hit them on the head.

    The rich continue to hide their money off shore, avoid taxes, and manipulate the system robbing our nation blind. Yeah lets woory about the mexican guy who busts his ass picking berries all day for a few doolars in hopes of feeding and clothing his kids, yeah thats where our focus should be.

     Fuck this country makes me sick and embarrassed

    by threecents on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:41:15 AM PDT

  •  But the choice isn't either/or

    This country has always had an inheritance or estate tax of some sort.  The issue should be the size of the estate subject to the tax and the rates, not whether we have one at all.  If the very rich can still pass on some millions, then we will simply stay in the condition we are in today, where SOME old money does good things with it (and some doesn't) and SOME nouveau riche vote GOP (but others, in Silicon Valley, for example) don't.

    I agree we should raise the corporate tax, which has been falling as a percentage of GDP for  years.  (Angry Bear has had some good charts on this.)  But having a reasonable estate tax, which taxes estates above $2 million or $3.5 million at relatively high rates is still a good idea.

    Couple that with a crackdown on offshore tax havens and beef up IRS enforcement.  We are fast getting to the point where the only ones who really pay their taxes are the ones whose income is subject to withholding.

    by Mimikatz on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:45:23 AM PDT

  •  Corporate vs. Individual Wealth

    This is a huge issue in California. Under Prop 13, property is re-assessed for tax valuation only when its title is transferred. The long-time homeowner pays less than his just-moved-in neighbor. But that's small change compared to the break corporate owners get.

    When an individual buys a home, title is transferred, and property is valued at the sale price. When he moves, the same thing happens again.

    When a corporation buys property, it can hold it indefinitely, for many human lifetimes if it chooses. As it is, just a few holding companies own most of the office parks in the San Francisco Bay Area. Though many tenants have moved in and moved on, the parcels are still taxed on valuations from the 1970's.

    Same with apartment buildings. Just a few companies own most of the large complexes. Plus, when a company does want to transfer title, it can get around the rules by transferring less that half the ownership interest at a time.
    

    by chimpy on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:56:12 AM PDT

    •  Prop. 13

      Yeah that is certainly, especially in today's housing bubble.  Perhaps if any building which was let could be reassessed at the start of the lease based on its current value (for any fraction of the building which is let).  Additionally, we could require that the property be the primary residence of the owner to exempt it from reassessment (thus locking out any corporations since they don't actually have residences unless there headquarters count).

      Alternatively we could tie the exemption to static incomes, so that the property taxes on your house cannot increase (as a percentage) more than the value of your property or your income whichever is greater (again as a percentage).

      That would probably hit renters both individual and corporate, but still ensure that property isn't sold out from under someone.

      by Luam on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:37:51 AM PDT

    •  No Shit

      I guess it's clever for the office park owners.

      Being a resident of California, I hate paying sales and Income tax.  The property tax, now that's a fucking travesty.  We have million dollar homes that get taxed nothing because the same family has been in them for 30 years.  But if I want to enter the housing market, get a mortgage that takes half my income for a two bedroom condo in Imperial Beach, then I get to pay the more than million dollar homes in La Jolla.

      The rule was passed on a citizens initiative a long time ago, and I would like to see it repealed, and the sales tax lowered or eliminated altogether.  California's income and sales taxes individually are as high as most states' where they have only one.

      by BlueBaron on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:44:05 AM PDT

  •  You Do Possibly Have a Point

    given the Kennedy and Rockefeller types, but how much money does one individual need anyway?  Keep in mind that even at a 50% tax rate, someone inheriting $500 million still gets to keep $250 million.  That should be enough to create those 2d and 3rd generation liberals, don't you think?  And apparently it didn't work with Richard Mellon Scaife (what is he, 4th or 5th generation?)

    by md jeffersonian on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:15:57 AM PDT

    •  You haven't heard - $250 million is chump change

      How can a person feed a family on that????

      Sheesh

      

      by LionelEHutz on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:29:18 AM PDT

      •  How true

        When Jeffrey Katzenberg balked at his proposed 200 million dollar plus proposed settlement with Disney he said, "they're trying to take the bread out of my children's mouths." Now that's some bread!

        by deacon2 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:09:15 AM PDT

        •  Katzenberg said that? I didn't hear anything

          about that one in the news, but as I did hear people making a big stink about Latrell Spreewell when he made a similar comment about his salary.  

          THE "FEED MY

          FAMILY" WHINE

          Complaining about your salary is hardly uncommon, but whining about your salary when you earn $14.6 million a year -- well, that's something entirely different.

          Minnesota Timberwolves guard Latrell Sprewell said recently that he was disgusted with management because the team would not give him a contract extension.

          "Why would I want to help them win a title?" he said. "They're not doing anything for me. I got my family to feed. Anything could happen."

          For the record, the team had offered him a three-year, $21 million extension, which Sprewell called "insulting."

          I wonder why nobody bitched about Katzenberg?

          by LionelEHutz on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:33:10 PM PDT

•  Read Thomas Paine

  It's old school, but I recently read Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man."  Don't bother with the first part, unless you're French Revolution wonk, but the second part is fascinating.  In it, he proposes all sorts of ways to take down the aristocracy of King George's England via reformed tax codes.  In fact, his proposals were so progressive that they would have had estates capped at 25000 lbs.  (Beyond that, everything was taxed away.)

  It's a great read, as in it, Paine proposed a social security system, the near elimination of the militaries of the world, and government funded half-way homes.  Good stuff, especially for 1790.

  by nanoboy on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:32:45 AM PDT

•  Take heart! I have just completed

  a personal inspection of Rivièra pleasure harbours and have to report that there are hardly any rings available. I saw two at port St Laurent, but those are for riff-raff dingys and chug-a-lug tugs. There's one in Antibes, and absoutely none in Beaulieu. That's packed to the gills.

  Seriously, though this legislation is almost as huge a blunder as tax breaks for religious "organisations".

  A new definition for the Land of the Free? Pig Heaven!

  by Heteraetcaetera on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:36:31 AM PDT

•  And this is only the beginning

  In July, we will get the report from the the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform. Yesterday's Washington Post had a column by Allan Sloan, Newsweek's Wall Street editor, where he makes some predictions as to what "reforms" this panel will come up with:

  So I'll bet my (nonexistent) refund that the tax "reform" proposals will go something like this. Leave Bush's existing tax cuts in place. Eliminate the estate tax. Eliminate some or all of the remaining taxes on income from investments. Eliminate or pare back the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Make up for these cuts by adopting something like a broad-based national sales tax or value-added tax. Eliminate or pare deductions for state and local taxes, which the AMT has begun to do indirectly.

  The AMT mostly affects people in high-tax (read: Democratic-leaning) states but is spreading to taxpayers throughout the country. Even though it's clawing back an increasing proportion of the Bush tax cuts, the president has never proposed cutting it. Clearly, an AMT fix is being held hostage to make a national sales tax or value-added tax more palatable.

  Regressive, regressive, regressive...as the AMT starts hitting more and more people (especially all those Bush voters in the property-rich, McMansion-filled exurbs) maybe they'll finally wake up and toss the kool-aid.

  by thebes on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:46:39 AM PDT

  •  That's why it's imperative

    That the Democrats propose a progressive, pro-earned income, and simplified tax system before this commission get's off it's ass.  What the hell could be taking it so long anyway.

    by BlueBaron on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:24:37 AM PDT

•  As it happens...

  A number of people very close to me will benefit from this.  And they're all against it anyway.  

  America was made to be as close to a classless society as was possible while still rewarding hard wark, ingenuity, perservence and pluck.

  This tax repeal is a slap in the face to our Founding Fathers and the beginning of the end of our democracy.

  by ultrageek on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 09:48:06 AM PDT

•  The Silver Spoon Tax

  although I do like the Paris Hilton Tax moniker as well...

  What do folks think about Democrats standing up for small business owners and farmers who've worked hard all their lives and have first-generation wealth? Perhaps Dems should support only raising the floor from $3 million (what I think it is now) to maybe $5 million - and say that xx,xxx or even xxx,xxx numbers of additional taxpayers would rewarded for their lifetime of work, but the Silver Spooners like Paris Hilton would still have to pay the Silver Spoon Tax.

  Because Democrats believe firmly in rewarding hard work and playing by the rules, to ensure a better life for the next generation.

  by JK Minnesota on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:00:18 AM PDT

•  Billionaire Tax

  Rove himself, when asked a few years ago how the democrats should frame the issue, said they should call it the Billionaire's Tax.  But did they take his advice?  Nooooo....

  So now, here we are, waiting with baited breath as the House debates whether or not billionaires should be able to pass on all of their unearned income in perpetuity to their progeny without paying their share for the infrastructure that makes this country work.

  So much for the famed American work ethic. So much for community and everyone being created equal.

  In the brave new world of 2005, the mantra has become: "Wealth is for the wealthy, you foolish peasants."

  And by the way, the indentured servitude act comes up for a vote this week, too.  Call your Congresscritters, even if they're evil - just to let them know we're watching.

  by mataliandy on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:06:31 AM PDT

•  An observation

  
  A President whose only success in life has come from his inheritance and family connections is proposing policy to benefit... folks just like him?

  I'd love to see a roll-call of votes on this -- and beside each and every name an estimate of how much difference this is going to make to that person's bottom line.

  Call it "Voting yourself a raise".

  Top it off by dividing each figure by the average tax paid by a family of four.  Add a column for that called "The number of families that have to pay taxes to repay this tax break for the wealthy"

  Sounds like a fun web page to me.

  I don't know if these guys have any shame, but they sure hate negative attention.

  by Yaright on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:08:52 AM PDT

•  Feudility

  The "landed aristocracy" part isn't so much of a joke.  This is one more step toward replacing our system of government with a feudal system.  

  Right now, the differences between the poorest of the working class and the serfs of the feudal system are minimal.  Millions work so that their bosses can get richer, while they live in poverty, unable to afford basic medical services, quality food, or opportunities to escape poverty.  

  The differences between barons and lords and the wealthiest American's are also not significant. They have incredible power over the lifes of their serfs, access to government at the highest level, and a virtual guarantee that they will not be held legally accountable for their actions, as long as they can hire top quality lawyers or pay politicians to protect them.

  Poverty is rising, and wealth is becoming more concentrated, while the middle class shrinks. We are moving toward a feudal system, in which the "landed aristocracy" live in luxury and priviledge, while the rest of society lives day to day.  

  by dianem on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:27:56 AM PDT

  •  you've gotta see this.

    For those who haven't seen it, there is a web site with a graphic representing the extreme disparities of wealth in this country which will blow your mind:

    http://www.lcurve.org/

    If only every voter in the US could see this, I feel our problems would be half-way solved.

    by Nate Roberts on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:19:46 AM PDT

•  This is exactly what it is about

  The repeal of the estate tax goes hand-in-hand with the elimination taxes on all forms of investment income: dividends, capital gains, interest income, etc.

  What this is about is protecting wealth -- not rewarding hard work.

  Wages will still be taxed. Therefore, the bulk of tax revenue will come from regular working people trying to get by, not from the investment growth of the wealthy.

  by LiberalFromPA on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:37:35 AM PDT

•  I agree with it all...

  but I think that many of the comments and the diary are framing this in an overly polarized way that isn't necessarily helpful.

  My dad inherited 1.6 million when his parents died.  They didn't earn it, my grandfather was an ordained Lutheran pastor and ran an orphanage most of his working life (really).  Later they saved up and bought an apartment block outside Albany thinking they could live there and finance their retirement at the same time.  But a family friend in the 1950s started a business and they bought a lot of stock as a favor, and 30 years later, guess what, it's a gigantic corporation and they're rich, by their standards anyway.  They retired to Arizona, and my grandfather played the stock market like a demon in the 1990s and built up even more, even while financing my great grandmother's 20 year stay in a private nursing home (she died at 102).  He put together a tax shelter, and my dad and uncle inherited ~1.6 million.  The accountants claim estate taxes would have taken the lot if it wasn't for the shelter.

  My dad is not in favor of aristocracy.  He would grit his teeth and vote against an estate tax, if it was put to him.  And he's not living too high now, since the bubble burst right after his parents died and all those tech stocks took such a dive.  He just sold one of their two cars and is taking the bus a lot more, he and my stepmother live in the same house they bought in the 1970s when they were living hand to mouth. But he's been able to stop working, buy good health insurance (he was self employed for years and on a payment plan with dentists and such), help his stepkids with education and emergencies, and fly out to see grandchildren once a year.

  My point is, I'm sure he's not the only one in a similar situation, where the money isn't billions, or even two million.  When you haven't saved for retirement, inheriting a little over 1.5 million at the age of 60 means not being scared of the state nursing home anymore, more than 'I won the lottery'.  

  I am not saying the estate tax is bad.  I agree completely that getting rid of it for good will create a permanent aristocracy and further consolidate the wealth of this nation in the hands of a few.

  But to frame our opposition in terms of 'billionaires' could alienate some middle class people as well.  That's all I really wanted to say.  

  by sarac on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:43:56 AM PDT

  •  Thats why...

    ... No tax on 3 million or less is probably OK, which is where it is headed.  But over that, bring it on!

    by d3n4l1 on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:04:47 AM PDT

  •  In Defense of my Framing

    I sort of agree, but how do you get anyone's attention otherwise?  Really, you point to the fact that the Republicans have outframed us badly on this, because you think that your parents would get hit (or would have gotten hit) by this tax.  Yet with relatively minor estate and gift planning, they wouldn't have gotten hit even back when the threshhold was $600,000.  

     Anyone who lives on a coast near a city understands that just owning real estate and having some life insurance was putting them into the danger zone on the estate tax, which is why the amount was on its way up to $1 million.  And which is why having it set at $3 million with indexing for inflation makes a lot of sense.  That's a far, far cry from eliminating the whole thing permanently.  

       Also note its budget busting aspect: if they are just voting to make the current system permanent (and I admit I haven't read the bill), then the estate tax really goes away in 2010 - conveniently far enough out in budgetary terms that the Republicans don't have to deal with any political consequences stemming from the need to cut now to give money to the rich now.

    by md jeffersonian on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:13:37 AM PDT

  •  Reframe it as the Republicans Raising Taxes

    Its really simple, just point out that when Republicans repeal this tax they will raise taxes on people like your father, since the exemption on smaller inheritences would be gone as well.

    Making them subject to Capital Gains tax.

    by RangerShade on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:25:54 PM PDT

•  With all of the money they save,

  the neo-feudal lords will be able to afford the seasoned private armies coming out of Iraq.

  by coldwynn on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:10:30 AM PDT

•  A Question on Permanent

  Along with the repealing the estate tax, I have heard politicians talk about making the Patriot Act permanent, the tax cuts permanent, etc.

  Does this actually mean PERMANENT?  Can't, say, a democratic controlled executive and legislature reverse the "permanence"?

  by FRANKL on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:39:41 AM PDT

  •  no, it can be repealed

    Any law can be repealed by the same process by which it was first passed.

    What "permanent" means in both of these cases is: the law does not have any automatic expiry date. Sometimes laws are passed with what are called "sunset clauses", provisions that they cease to take effect on a certain date. There are various reasons for such clauses. Sometimes the legislative sleight-of-hand experts find it easiest to sneak a provision through as a rider to a spending bill, which by nature only lasts for one fiscal year. Sometimes, because a provision is particularly controversial or considered particularly radical, it will be passed only if it has a sunset clause -- passed for a trial period, as it were.

    Parts of the USAPATRIOT Act were permanent from the start: they can be repealed any time, but unless Congress specifically does that, they remain in effect. Some other parts came with a sunset clause, and will soon expire unless extended. Congress could decide to make them permanent, to extend them with a new sunset clause, or to let them expire -- but the third option is what will happen if Congress does not specifically act to do otherwise.

    by MGK on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:30:10 PM PDT

•  Who this protects

  The repeal of the estate tax protects such "small family businesses" as the Seattle Times, a publishing empire wholly owned by the Blethen family. The Blethens have been pushing for the elimination of the estate tax for years. So have other robber baron families.

  The small family farm being hurt is a myth; very few small family farms are worth more than $3.5 million. It's a convenient myth. This is more likely to protect Big Agribusiness and its largest shareholders in their attempts to gobble up the small family farm and to hurt the small farmer in the process.

  Of course, that's the idea.

  by Kitsap River on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:51:46 AM PDT

  •  Myth indeed

    The "small family farmer" is an attempt to reframe the debate by dishonest means.

    As to Blethen, fuck him, I have nothing to say to that little thug.

    by eugene on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:52:04 PM PDT

•  Is anyone watching? Debate's off the hook!

  Dems are kicking some ass. "Let's keep the estate tax and maybe get those humvees armored properly, how about that?" - Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA)

  Katherine Harris up now.

  by catfish on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:52:30 AM PDT

  •  Deductions for...

    home defense...concertina wire, pillboxes, gun ports.

    See this in a budget supplementary in the next couple of years.

    by rgilly on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:00:17 PM PDT

•  Please explain for foreign naif

  how something can effectively be made "permanent".  Can't later administrations repeal something crummy that a former administration put in place?

  by Loquatrix on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 11:53:05 AM PDT

  •  Yes of Course

    Except increasing taxes in frequently lethal for the career of the politician, while eliminating them rarely has the same effect. So re-enacting tax laws is much harder and slower.

    by easong on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:37:31 PM PDT

  •  The initial repeal was temporary

    As in, it was only designed to last for a few years. This legislation would delete the estate tax from the tax code entirely, with no expiration date.

    Of course, it could be re-instituted later, but the point of this legislation is that unless it does get voted back in, it's gone for good.

    by eugene on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 12:50:04 PM PDT

•  If the tax is repealed, reintroduce it

  Only earmark the funds to help pay for Veteran's benefits, or education, or Medicare or social security.

  Call it the "Funding America's Future Act" or some other such twaddle and ask why Republicans are against families or seniors or veterans.

  This could be a killer campaign issue if we are forced to take a defeat here.

  by nightsweat on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:19:53 PM PDT

•  so are they voting?

  or what?
  updates?

  by torridjoe on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:34:33 PM PDT

  •  They voted and America lost

    It passed and is now one step closer to law.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/13/181552/269

    by RangerShade on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:22:40 PM PDT

•  Now, I stand

  to make an assload of money if the estate tax is repealed.

  How much is an assload? I hear you cry. My dad won't say. Personally, I hope he indulges the hell out of himself and his wife and spends it all.

  I say tax my inheritance. I didn't earn it anyway. If the estate tax is repealed, whatever I don't save for my future kids' college fund goes to charity. Unearned wealth is evil, and I'm a big enough ass as it is.

  -Jim

  by herooftheday on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 01:59:17 PM PDT

•  one set of laws for themselves,

  and another for everyone else... I think you just described the entire Republican party: Anything IOIYAR (Is OK If You Are a Republican), but not ok for anyone else...

  Jesse Helm's Consultant Marries His Gay Partner

  Yes, hypocrisy reigns once again. Arthur Finkelstein, who masterminded the political career of Jesse Helms (who called gays not human) and several other notable Republican gay bashers, has married his male lover...in that liberal bastion on of Masssachusetts, no less.

  Best Comment:
  One of the most endearing traits of the extreme fascist set is their eagerness to hop onto any benefit the good sense of the moderately liberal community manages to work into the system. - AMERICAblog

  by lawnorder on Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 03:36:04 PM PDT