CBS' Attkisson adopted GOP term "death tax" while reporting on the estate tax
On the November 9 edition of the CBS Evening News, CBS Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson adopted the Republican-preferred name for the estate tax, referring to it as "the death tax." While reporting on Democrats who are likely to lead committees in the House of Representatives, Attkisson noted that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) "is in" as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which could mean "higher taxes on upper-income Americans and perhaps reinstituting the death tax." As Media Matters for America has noted, many conservatives refer to the estate tax as the "death tax," a name that, as Republican pollster Frank Luntz found, polls better for conservatives.
Further, the estate tax is set to be repealed entirely for only one year, 2010. The tax would automatically take effect again in 2011, unless Congress extends the repeal. So, contrary to Attkisson's assertion, if the estate tax takes effect again in 2011, it would not be because Democrats "reinstitut[ed]" the tax; it would be because the repeal extends only through 2010.
As part of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Republicans voted to cut the estate tax and repeal it for the year 2010. When the act was passed, the estate tax applied to estates worth more than $1 million. The law raised the estate-tax exemption from estates worth $1 million to $3.5 million and gradually lowered the "maximum [tax] rate" from 55 percent to 45 percent by 2007. The law repealed the estate tax altogether for the year 2010. Then, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted, "[f]ollowing the 2010 sunset, the estate tax reverts to prior law, with an exemption of $1 million and a top rate of 55 percent." But, contrary to Attkisson's suggestion, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Democrats oppose a reversion to the estate tax structure before the 2001 act. The Chronicle quoted Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy with Deloitte Tax, as asserting: "Mr. Rangel had a proposal to have a $3 million exemption per person. He's interested in a realistic estate tax, not the one we had back in 2000." In an April 12, 2005, report on the "Consequences of Republican Tax Policy," Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee said: "For the overwhelming percentage of estates (in excess of 99 percent), a simple extension of the law in effect during 2009 [when the exemption would be $3.5 million] would be the optimal result."
From the November 9 edition of CBS' Evening News with Katie Couric:
KATIE COURIC (anchor): Meanwhile, the shift in power means new leaders for every congressional committee, and some have waited a long time for their moment. Here's Sharyl Attkisson.
[begin video clip]
ATTKISSON: Today, the man presumed to be the new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, staked his claim on Capitol Hill.
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): The election is over. It's time for a change.
ATTKISSON: After 12 years as backseat drivers, Democrats move into the driver's seat. Issues that were mere notions last week are now front and center: raising the minimum wage, passing the 9-11 Commission recommendations and letting the government negotiate cheaper group drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. From there, the agenda will be largely set by the powerful congressional committees, with some of the longest-serving liberals in charge.
On the House tax committee, known as Ways and Means, Republican Bill Thomas [CA] is out as chairman, Democrat Charles Rangel is in. When asked about tax increases, Rangel has said, quote, "Everything has to be on the table." That might mean higher taxes on upper-income Americans and perhaps reinstituting the death tax.
Republican Tom Davis [VA] on Government Reform will be replaced by liberal Democrat Henry Waxman [CA], who is known for tough oversight of corporations and government. Duncan Hunter [R-CA] moves aside as head of Armed Services. Democrat Ike Skelton [MO] replaces him. He calls a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq a priority.
And in the Senate, Arlen Specter [R-PA] gets bumped by Patrick Leahy [D-VT] as chairman of Judiciary. That means if there's an opening on the Supreme Court, it'll be tougher for President Bush to push through a conservative Supreme Court nominee, and it's less likely Roe v. Wade will be overturned.
[end video clip]
ATTKISSON: But even with the majority, Democrats can't count on steamrolling through everything they want. As a minority, Republicans can always filibuster in the Senate, and the president has his veto pen.
Typical liberal, concentrate on how to label a tax so it sounds more cushy and acceptable, as most have never met a tax they don't like. If it's such a just and fair tax, then why worry about what name is affixed to it in the first place?
Be proud the Democrats want to reinstitute it instead of letting it's repeal continue, don't call it a death tax then, call it a "tax from heaven" - that would be more accurate and pleasing to tax lovers everywhere.
...I see your point. My take on this matter - instead of what one should call a tax - is how ready the 'news' appears to buy into the GOP rhetoric. Call it their own.
The US government doesn't tax DEATH, they tax RICH DEAD PEOPLE'S MONEY. Rebranding the Estate Tax the Death tax is an intentional distortion to incite sympathy for repealing a tax which affects only upper crust. Less than 2% of all estates are subject to Estate Taxes. Stop pretending this isn't a GOP tactic. It is. Like rebranding third trimester abortions "partial birth abortions". Anything to provoke an emotional response, even at the cost of the truth, such as equating a vote for the Democrats as a win for the terrorists. Sickening but to be expected from the Greedy Old Party.
You miss the point so spectacularly and with such frequency that people might start to think you were intentionally doing so in order to distort the issues...but that couldn't be the case now, could it? Certainly not from Tommy, our paragon of conscientious and thorough debate.
In fact, the very reverse of your claim is true. People have called the estate tax "the estate tax" for years, and it's the Republicans who are trying to get the general public to call it the "death tax" in order to make its abolition more palatable.
Calling it a "death tax" is absurd. The government doesn't tax people for dying! The tax is on the transfer of the assets of the deceased to his/her beneficiaries.
If the estate tax were permanently abolished, in a few generations we'd have enormous wealth concentrated in the hands of a very few people who had done absolutely nothing to earn it. Not the state of affairs I'd like to live under.
Unless the beneficiary is a charity*...then the estate pays no tax!
* children don't qualify as a charity, though understandably often mistaken for one by their parents
"Typical liberal, concentrate on how to label a tax so it sounds more cushy and acceptable" --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where is any liberal doing that? What is cushy or acceptable about "estate tax"? It is the description used in legislation by BOTH sides.
Are you actually advocating/justifying the media use non-neutral language when describing national issues?
I suppose the prefered liberal name for the tax be "Paris Hilton &al. Economic Relief Tax-Break". How would you have felt if the reporter had put it that way? Would that be just as fair?
The reason the left likes the "estate tax" is because it implies that, as you bring up on cue, it taxes the Paris Hilton-types, the lazy rich who do nothing but sit idley by and collect their trust funds off filthy disquisting greedy rich Mommy and Daddy.
Forget those that have earned their wealth through hard work and ingenuity, and along with their family and loved ones have lived the American dream and would like their family to see the benefits of their struggle and achievement.
That is why the "death tax" is appropriate. It taxes people after their death, when the outstretched arms of the government follows them beyond the grave, taking as much as they can - that's the greedy irony.
"The reason the left likes the "estate tax" is because it implies that, as you bring up on cue, it taxes the Paris Hilton-types, the lazy rich who do nothing but sit idley by and collect their trust funds off filthy disquisting greedy rich Mommy and Daddy." --Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It would really help if you would actually READ my posts once in a while. Your post actually backs up my point.
It appears you would not prefer Paris Hilton brought up from a reporter because it is non-neutral language or not fair to the hard workers whose estates are taxed at their deaths. I feel the same about "Death Tax". It is not neutral language.
It is always better for the news media to use neutral language to avoid the appearance of advocacy. "Estate tax" is the more neutral term. It should have been used.
It seems you just can't get over your pretty obvious bias on this one.
Yes, I am cutting and pasting from Wickepedia. Sue me...
The term was popularized by a famous memorandum written by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. He recommended that the party use the term death tax when referring to the estate tax, writing that the term death tax "kindled voter resentment in a way that inheritance tax and estate tax do not" [1].
The estate tax covers fewer than 2% of estates. In 2006, the tax is applicable to estates valued over $2,000,000 and the maximum rate is 46%, which is due to drop to 45% in 2007, where it will stay until 2010.
The reason that most people refer to it as the "estate tax" is because that's the shortened version of the title it's given in the tax code. The tax code refers to it as the "Gross Estate" tax. Some states have their own version of it, calling it either a "gross estate" tax, or an "inheritance" tax. In Europe, apparently, it's called a "death duty."
"Death tax" is a term made up for Republicans so they can distort the issue and get people who would normally never worry about a tax that would never affect them into voting against their own interests.
It's propaganda, Tommy. Pure and simple.
Tommy apparently prefers the propagandistic term "Death Tax", but gets wrankled when opposing propaganda about Paris Hilton enters the mix.
Conclusion: Tommy doesn't mind propaganda as long as it is favorable to his point of view.
That is about as plain a hypocrisy as you can get.
Call it whatever you'd like, it really doesn't matter. Death tax, estate tax, coffin tax, rich people's tax, stiff tax, funeral tax.............it doesn't change anything.
It's just more class warfare to toss out to divide people. "The rich can afford it, they got plenty of money, won't hurt them, let 'em pay". The fact is the rich do pay, in fact we all pay too many taxes that go to a bloated inefficient government now that sucks money away from us with limited accountability. When that accountability is far more stringent than today, then come to the "folks" about taking more money - dead or alive.
"Call it whatever you'd like" --Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't really need your permission to call it what I like. The issue is that the media are repeating Republican/conservative propaganda. You either think that is okay -- as it appears you do, or you think it is wrong. It is really that simple.
It appears you are just trying to deflect the issue at hand.
In case I wasn't clear, yes, I see no problem with the terminlogy. I am much more concerned with the tax itself than what the media calls it. You want to get hung up the semantics of it because the death tax term sounds unsavory, or something. Or incorrect, in your view.
The tax does not need to be reinstated, that is my opinion. You don't share it, that's fine.
"Typical liberal, concentrate on how to label a tax so it sounds more cushy and acceptable"
Sounds like you don't like the "labeling", suggesting that it's purely for effect.
"The reason the left likes the "estate tax" is because it implies that, as you bring up on cue, it taxes the Paris Hilton-types, the lazy rich who do nothing but sit idley by and collect their trust funds off filthy disquisting greedy rich Mommy and Daddy."
So the left likes the "estate tax" because of the image it conveys, an image you clearly don't agree with. And again, suggesting that the term"estate tax" is something liberals came up with.
"That is why the "death tax" is appropriate."
Clearly favoring one label over another.
"You want to get hung up the semantics of it because the death tax term sounds unsavory, or something. Or incorrect, in your view."
Coming from someone who was hung up on the way "estate tax" sounded, and argued the correctness of "death tax".
"In case I wasn't clear, yes, I see no problem with the terminlogy."
It's quite obvious that you did have a problem with the terminology, Tommy. What is vague about your comments? How much more clearly could you have expressed it?
You totally misrepresented and smeared Tommy by using his own words! You're not allowed to do that! You're no better than Media Matters using Bill O'Reilly's own words to misrepresent and smear him! How dare you quote him to himself to point out flaws and contradictions in his own arguments! You American-hating pinko-commie liberal! You must want open classwarfare and a Marxist revolution! AAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Nice job.
Dead on and devestating Brabantio, good job.
It IS the estate tax. Dude, you've got a bit of a problem with what's opinion and what's fact. We don't call it the estate tax because we like it.....we call it that because that's what it IS.
...and repition not to mention distortion of the issue involving taxes is completely ridiculous.
As Warren Buffett has noted in 2004:
"Buffett, who has been a vocal critic of a number of Bush administration tax policies, used the letter to voice his opposition again.
"Tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives," he wrote. "If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."
Inehreited wealth like virtually every industrial nation in the world does. But its NOT class warfare to give such wealth a pass and EXEMPT it from taxes like virtually NO other industrial nation in the world does. You never stop carrying water for the wealthy. Such envy is tawdry. Keep kissing their butts tommy one day maybe you will get some crumbs off their table.
The old rich work very hard and are ingenious in their production of wealth. I am sure some are. However it seems to me that the poor and middle class are constantly getting screwed. Production is at all time high, middle class wages are stagnant, CEO salaries are at all time high. We are running up huge debt, why should this tax be repealed, 99% of it affects only the super wealthy. Who should pay instead? Or would you like to cut another popular social program? Since they are the only ones doing well in this economy shouldnt they pay this tax? Sorry to bring this up but the CEO of Exxon-Mobil is not ingenious, did not risk any capital of his own, and I would love to see his typical work week. He will be paid 650 million plus over 10 years. So yes when he dies I think his estate should be taxed. The middle class made this country great not super wealthy white men
A person cannot be taxed after they die. When you get money it can be taxed. Estate tax is liked by the left because it is A) THE OFFICILA NAME, and B) more accurate it is the estate being taxed as it changes hands and become income for another. Yet lets forget the guy that worked hard ( Like Bush did, worked hard and achieved. WAIT he didnt he tanked every bussiness he ever ran and got his wealth based on his political clout due to his name, made by his father to get a tax increase in Arlinton Texas) Lets forget him because he is DEAD. Taxes have to be paid they are the cost we pay to live in a SOCIETY. Conservatives only want wages taxed, those who REALLY work hard, not buy and sell, WORK. Lower the taxes on capital gains, buying and selling, END the taxes on inherited wealth, ONLY tax the workers whose sweat CREATES all wealth.
Dying is one way to get out of paying YOUR taxes. I assume you would have no problem if he had called it the Paris Hilton tax.
"If it's such a just and fair tax, then why worry about what name is affixed to it in the first place?" --Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Conversely, if the tax is so patently unfair, why do YOU need to worry about how it is described?
Obviously the phrase "death tax," which is not the correct name, was invented to create an impression. Taxes must be collected, and given a choice between collecting 46% of a dead multi-millionaire's estate or from a trying-to-make-ends-meet lower or middle class worker, the choice seems to be obvious to me. Many disagree, and that is their right. However, the media should be using the tax's proper name. On the other hand, if they (the media) want to incorporate this GOP lingo in their news programs, let's ask that they no longer use the phrase "minimum wage" but "living wage" instead, which would suggest an hourly pay scale that allows earners to get somewhere closer to the poverty line.
...you would think this estate tax hits everyone instead of the extremely, extremely small percentage of estates it actually does. We won't even mention the many billionaires like Gates or Buffett who say we shouldn't get rid of the estate tax.
Be proud the Democrats want to reinstitute it instead of letting it's repeal continue, don't call it a death tax then, call it a "tax from heaven" - that would be more accurate and pleasing to tax lovers everywhere. // tommy
The label of the estate tax has not been changed since it was conception, it was Grover Norquist whom decided it needed a new label. That was'nt good enough for Grover, so he decided that he needed to make his arguement for it's end by linking it to the common man, family farms.
That's right he needed to make a tax targeted only at the wealthy to be heart felt by the middle class, or the poor. He needed to lump the family farmer into the arguement so that the rich man would not be left alone to argue for thier tax relief to pass the money to their legacy. That is to re-create a new Guilded Age of the super rich for the rest of us to serve.
Where is that family farm that was lost to the estate tax???? George Soros actually agreed to pay for the tax of any family farmer that fit the discription the Anti-Death Tax lobby could find, and stil no takers!!!!!!!!!!
The estate tax has leveled the playing field, and has subsidized the end of the Great Depression, WWII, and most of the social programs that survive today from FDR and LBJ. That ticks the super rich off and upsets the desire to control wealth in American for generations as the did in the Guilded Age of the Industrial Revolution. It was their exesses that created Marxism, and the eventual Soviet Revolution.
I'd say the common sense re-distribution of the wealth of the wealthiest of us has been a proven stabilizer in our society.
I don't think anybody of the Walden family will be left destitute with the estate tax, just ask Bill Gates and his dad.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Remember when Fox news thought it was just a funny little joke when Olbermann got a letter full of white powder, and they made big fun of his response? Well, Chad Castagana is considered the prime suspect by the FBI for sending dozens of these letters to anti war celebs, liberal politicians and journalists. Interestingly enough, it appears this man has ties to the Free Republic site. Tell me again now how many liberal blogsites are more likely to drive death threats et. al?
[link to www.rawstory.com]
It is irresponsible for this journalist to parrot the Republican "death tax" talking point. The estate tax does not tax one's death; it taxes one's estate. Thus, estate tax, not "death tax."
as several posters have already pointed out. it is and always was called the estate tax. that is the official irs term. "death tax" is a gop talking point, which is intended to make the american people think they are going to get automatically taxed when they die, when in actuality very few estates are taxed. there is no reason and no excuse for a supposedly objective reporter to use such a term. i wonder why katie didn't correct her. [sarcasm]
is how the right has convinced many working people that the Paris Hilton tax is going to affect them.
I know people personally who are very opposed to this tax. People who probably won't make enough to be hit by it in 40 or 50 lifetimes at their current income.
Katie probably didn't feel the need to correct her because Katie "earns" $15 million a year.
Heck, I'd be willing to do what she's done - take CBS to the bottom of the nightly news ratings, through her hard work and ingenuity - for half that.
Katie earns what the market forces pay her, whether she's "worth" that is as debatable as whether Michael Jordan or Tom Cruise are "worth" what they get paid.
I guess in the left's view, the government would determine each person's "worth" and pay them accordingly. And then tax them so as they draw their last breath the tax collector is right there draining them of every last penny.
Keep guessing; someday you might get something right.
I got it right. Your smug answer only reinforced that. If you feel Katie is overpaid, then propose some "tax" or "law" that keeps paychecks in line with their recipients worth. Otherwise you are just engaging in more of your liberal doublespeak. After all, the government always knows best. Why should this be any different?
I'm sure that, in your mind, you "got it right." How could it be otherwise?
Let's just say this - if "getting it right" means arguing the point of the topic, initiating debate, conceding well stated and thoughtful adversarial points, in a forum dominated by opposing opinions, well, you are right about me then.
However, if the opposite is "needling" and smug responses peppered with insults, instead of addressing topics, in a forum where any challenge is threatening, well, there are some of those types here too, I guess.
Let's just say this - if "getting it right" means arguing the point of the topic, initiating debate, conceding well stated and thoughtful adversarial points, in a forum dominated by opposing opinions, well, you are right about me then.
This has got to be the single funniest thing I've ever read on this site. Kudos to you, sir!
This has got to be the single funniest thing I've ever read on this site.......
****************************
Normally when a nerve is struck that is the stock response. So, I imagine this post will surpass the previous one as the funniest one yet?
Come on Rusty, you feel I am inflated with some superiority complex? Why would you think that if?
The earlier one was funnier.
"Come on Rusty, you feel I am inflated with some superiority complex?"
Tommy to Solon, 10/18/06:"As for my debating skills vs yours, I have one thing to say on that. Which one of us is more fearless and likely to jump in and debate those with differing points of view? Me - who discusses issues with people with very different viewpoints than mine........or You - who discusses issues here with people who agree and parrot everything you say?..You tell me which of has more cajones, and which of us doesn't depend and need their views reinforced constantly for validation?"
[link to mediamatters.org]
What do you people do, save all my posts? Another hobby might be more fun, huh?
In any event, despite the fact that you are taking my post of nearly a month ago out of context, I stand by it.
And for the record, I was talking about debating, not my stance or opinion on issues. Rusty seems to think that I think I am right all the time, never wrong or some such nonsense. I have stated over and over, as many do, these are my opinions. Some agree, fine - some do not, fine.
I have admitted often when my opinions have been changed and admitted many good arguments and points made from the other side. I have no problem admitting any error on my part - I did it when I plagiarized someone else's words, so to say I am some egotistical maniac is unfair.
That being said, we all have forceful and strong opinions - we don't post here because we are wishy washy. that's for sure. I respect all other points of view and honest debating, you know that. People disagree, I am cool with all of that.
Yeah, I'm taking it out of context, that's exactly why I posted the link so everyone could see the whole thing. Think, instead of spouting nonsense.
For the record, here's the relevant quote:"Let's just say this - if "getting it right" means arguing the point of the topic, initiating debate, conceding well stated and thoughtful adversarial points, in a forum dominated by opposing opinions, well, you are right about me then."
You're talking about how you debate in both instances. Rusty was laughing about the above comment, so my quote was perfectly relevant. You're all for personal accountability, so you should welcome being held accountable for your own comments.
Incidentally, did you admit plagiarizing out of the blue? Or did someone else notice it? I was away during all that, so I missed it. It seems entirely possible that this is not a fantastic example to prove your point.
And you knew I saved that thread, so don't give me this "Wow" BS, like it's a big shock.
Tommy(in a post titled "be my guest!!!"):I welcome whatever you feel you must do to keep me in your "Bookmarks".
Yes, I've had the same thing happen: accurately quote something from Tommy on a past thread, thereby totally destroying his current argument, and instead of acknowledging it like a real debater would, he goes off on a new, irrelevant tangent by claiming that you must be "obsessed" with him by so quoting him in the first place. In terms of debate skills, Tommy is third rate even among the conservatives on this board.
up on the board. faster than the appearance of a two day troll. able to leap logic in a single bound. it's .....super tommy. how about the you're killing us tax? [a little humor]
i liked this guy. [well, there was that nasty business of subduing the filipinos] theodore roosevelt in his 1906 state of the union address, proposing an estate tax: "the man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."
"I guess in the left's view, the government would determine each person's "worth" and pay them accordingly." --Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Rusty really advocating that? I don't think so. Classic strawman. Your mind-reading abilities (however amazing they may be) do have limits, I hope you know.
Is Rusty really advocating that?
All I was advocating was having CBS News hire me as their anchor for $7.5 million. That would save them $7.5 million per year, and I can guarantee that they wouldn't be any lower-ranked than they are now (last).
If CBS is too foolish to understand how the market works, I'd also be happy to coach the Duke football team for half of what their current coach makes (probably in the high six figures). The school would save money, and I guarantee that their record would be no worse under my leadership.
Market forces demand these adjustments.
If there is one thing I know, and it doesn't take any mind reading abilities to figure it out, it's how certain liberals debate. Throw up some issue and then when asked or cornered for details, act all indignant and throw out the mind reading accusation. Speak in vague generalities and offer no specifics, then there is always plenty of wiggle room.
It's nothing new.
Same old strawman arguments from you. You THINK you know how liberals think. I peronally have no confidence you do considering your amazingly dumb take on them. No possible reading of Rustys post could come up with an assertion that he wanted the Government to decide what people make. Taking Couric to task for doing a poor job while making a huge amount of money is not in the same universe as that. Thus the mindreading, which you also suck at, becomes relevant. None of this is new. Make false, and baseless assertions about what liberals MEAN since you have no hope of reasonably and successfully refuting what we SAY. Pull arbitrary and ludicrous venal motives directly out of your rectal database in order to smear us. Its all old hat. The thing is it really doesnt work that well here. You get called out on it constantly. I will give you credit for perserverence in the face of continual and abject failure
The bottom line for you Solon and most liberals here is that you absolutely are giddy over taxes. And when anyone mentions eliminating a tax, or decreasing one, or reducing the tax burden on anyone - it is met with such a wrath and overwhelming contempt, it is astonishing.
That's what this is all about, and you know it. So keep proposing your tax increases and get all huffy and bent when someone advocates tax decreases, because all your insults and thumping on your collective chests just proves the point even more. YOU LOVE TAXES!! Just say it, and be honest.
I resent your lumping in of most liberals on this site. I am a liberal and I do not feel you are adequately representing my views at all. Shocking!...I know!
I believe that each tax should be taken upon its own merrit. I am neither universally for or against taxes. I think either absolute position is quite silly to tell you the truth. It is also silly IMO to cut taxes without cutting spending. The Republicans wanted it BOTH ways. They wanted to be able to give tax-cuts to apparently keep their (mostly wealthy) donors happy and NOT cut spending to keep the Democrats from exploiting the Republicans' perceived lack of compassion.
Open_mind, I wasn't specifically referring to you at all. I said some liberals, not all. You are more than reasonable.
About phantom people who exist only in your fevered imagination, the ones whose minds you can read that dont exist. My gerbil has a better grasp of reality than you ever will
It would serve your time better if you argued with your gerbel, now wouldn't it?
Of course it might serve my time better but it wouldnt be as much fun
"I said some liberals, not all." --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But I won't quible too much here. You originally said "most liberals here" and my reply said "most liberals on this site".
You didn't say "some liberals". I will take it that was what you meant to write.
You have no idea what I or other liberals think. You apparantly BELIEVE you have amazing mind reading powers and so when we object to the specific tax cuts that just happen to time after time benifit the extremely wealthy, you use your imaginary miind reading powers to discern what we feel about ALL tax cuts. I was always in favor for instance of the Earned income tax credit. Here is the deal. YOU are delusional, you cant read minds, your constant portrayals about what we think mean absolutly nothing except in your delusional hate reality mind.
I know no such thing and neither do you. Delusions are not knowlege just delusions. NOT ending the estate tax is NOT a tax increase it just isnt giving another tax break to the rich who have had plenty of them since Reagan. If we can afford a middle class tax cut, I would be all for it, its our turn. Of course spending billions on a go nowhere war in Iraq makes that a pretty tough sell. Its not that I love taxes, I doubt anyone does, I DO love this country and our society, unlike YOU I am willing to pay for it. I dont LOVE paying my electricity bill either but I do like electricity and I LOVE being responsible enough to pull my own weight and pay my fair share for what I get. You Ebeneezer Scrooge lovers want a free lunch. YOU want societies benifits you dont want to pay for them.
Pull arbitrary and ludicrous venal motives directly out of your rectal database in order to smear us. Its all old hat. The thing is it really doesnt work that well here. You get called out on it constantly. I will give you credit for perserverence in the face of continual and abject failure.
*******************************
If all you say is true, then why do you care? Why do you respond? Why do you get so upset? Why bother?
I would think someone so useless, nonsensical and debates so sloppily and poorly as you say I do, wouldn't deserve the attention. Wouldn't you?
Those amazing mind reading abilities of yours that dont really exist. At the very least you assume facts not in evidence. Who says I am upset. I amuse myself here. YOU are particularly amusing. Any other function you think you perform, is purely ancillary to that if it exists at all
Tommy has us to believe that Tom Cruise, or Katie Couric would be making the kind of notoriety and money if they lived in Venezuela, or Costa Rica, or maybe Bulgaria, or some other small struggling country that isn't the greatest economy, and democracy in the world. I suppose the middle class that has lead the world into the light of freedom should stand aside for the few wealthy to lead us where??? To greater wealth for the wealthy, and greater separation between the socially economic classes?
I suppose we should pick a side, and prepare for the next great class war, I wonder whom will be the next Lenin, or Marx??
Does our history speak to our future, or are we that deaf????
Is the legacy of the super wealthy so important that the vast majority should learn it's place and accept that they will be held down for the continued wealth of the super rich. Walmart engages in price wars to eliminate the competition, as middle America has already seen the squeeze. Should we just accept the cast system of economic servitude that would make icons of the shallow among us like Donald Trump, and learn to enjoy their excesses from afar??
Those whom have the money make the rules??? Until they don't and then revolution???
Would you invite the days of Laisse Faire Economics and it's inevitable popular revolution it will produce?? Has the Soviet Union and the Cold War stil a memory for you??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
As a minority, Republicans can always filibuster in the Senate, and the president has his veto pen.
But we know the Republicans would NEVER do that, given their reaction to threatened filibusters from Democrats. Clearly, they don't think such things are appropriate acts for the minority party.
Up or down vote, up or down vote, up or down vote! (Repeat endlessly)
Maybe they have a dream, and maybe it will come true.
Do you have to be directly affected by a law to vote for or against it?
However, it is deceptive at best to work to convince people that they will indeed be affected by it, when they most likely won't be affected by it at all. That is how the lobbyists for the repeal of this tax have tried to frame the debate. Changing the name from "estate tax" to "death tax" is a big part of that strategy.
Nice to see the media picking that ball up and runnig with it.
You wrote (of working people who are against the estate tax);
"Maybe they have a dream, and maybe it will come true.
Do you have to be directly affected by a law to vote for or against it?"
Dreams do come true sometimes, and I find your childlike optimism very endearing. I just think that voting to give advantages to a very small, already ridiculously advantaged group of people because you're so bad at math that you think you've got a pretty good shot at getting into that group is as greedy as it is stoopid.
And no, I don't have to be directly affected by a law to vote for against it. I don't have kids and I vote with public education in mind as I think it's good for society.
I'm not gay, but I wouldn't vote for a gay marriage ban because I don't want the Gov't telling me who I can marry, so would feel a little hypocritical telling somebody else the same thing.
The estate tax, on the other hand, does affect me, as well as all working people directly. While the U.S. is a free, capitalist country, we do have laws that ensure that those who benefit and prosper the most in this society pay their share. Conservatives like to start shouting "socialism" and "wealth distribution" ( because their trainers in the media have told them to) but our system is actually designed( to a very small degree, at that) to mitigate the sort of concentration of wealth that leads to the monarchiies and dictatorships that most of our ancestors left.
Check your history regarding societies where all of the power money and influence was concentrated within small groups and passed on from generation to generation. Usually leads to the extreme class divisions that conservatives like (until the nasty old revolutions come along), and the totalitarian regimes that conservatives pretend to hate ( more envy, I think).
I don't like the ideal of having a tax design and set aside to tax rich people after they die just because they were rich. I don't understand this punish the rich mentality a lot of left leaning people have. Rich people pay more in taxes than any other group because their earned income is higher. They also make money through passive income. Then you are going to tax them again after they die? Why is that a good thing?
PLAIN ENGLISH?
"Then you are going to tax them again after they die? "
You can't tax dead people. You aren't taxing "them again after they die"...you are taxing their HEIRS because they are GETTING money. Isn't that exactly how income tax works? You make money, you pay taxes on it. Same principle.
Why should the heirs of rich people be excluded from that social contract?
If it is an income tax, then don't create A NEW TAX!!! Get rid of the estate tax and allow it to be part of the ordinary income tax.
It IS a type of income tax, just like captial gains is a type of income tax n just like the tax on interest is a type of income tax. There are many types of income. Wages arent the ONLY type of income. Conservatives just like to tax wages. They keep cutting capital gains, which they want to eliminate along with the estate tax. Any tax that hits the rich they want to get rid of and ONLY tax the source of income that hits working people.
If it is an income tax, then don't create A NEW TAX!!!
The estate tax isn't new; it has been in effect since 1916.
...not a death tax.
"The 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax (aka the Paris Hilton Tax) on heirs of the super wealthy has been financed and coordinated by just 18 families, according to a new report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy.
The families include “the candy magnate Mars family, Waltons of Wal-Mart fame, Kochs of Koch Industries and Dorrance family of the Campbell’s Soup Co.” Together, they are worth a total of $185.5 billion. The estate tax repeal would “collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.”
Bending to the will of these families, House and Senate conservatives are proposing to permanently repeal the estate tax — or seek a “compromise” that is nearly as bad — even though such a move would cost over three quarters of a trillion dollars in the next decade. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has promised a vote on repeal in May.
Meanwhile, a new poll finds that 57 percent favor reforming or leaving alone the estate tax; only 23 percent back repealing it. And for good reason: Americans are about four times as likely to be hit by lightning than to have to pay estate taxes on small businesses or farms. "
[link to thinkprogress.org]
rich people pay only a very slightly larger amount than ordinary people. Due to tax shelters, deferred payments, etc. they often pay NO tax on a large part of their income. Read "Perfectly Legal" by David Kay Johnston for an eye opening look at the American tax system and how it favors the very wealthy. It is his contention that the highest tax brackets end up paying only about %1 more than most middle-class people.
..and heard him interviewed before. Don't tell certain people on this site about tax shelters and such they won't believe it is true.
If bill gates had grown up in central africa, he wouldn't have made it as far as he has. Success is achieved on the shoulders of others, and individual success is largely a product of the society in which one lives. Those who prosper most owe an additional debt to the culture at large.
That is what charity is for.
CHARITY is supposed to fix historic inequality? Are you delusional?
People who are rich benefit most from social structures and governments. The silliest argument I hear conservatives make is that this money is taxed twice, once when the parent is earning it and once when the heir inherits the estate. What has the heir done to "earn" such a windfall of income? How does such inheritance represent responsibility and effort by the person actually benefiting? How is this person any more "deserving" of the money than someone born to a poor family? Republicans like to preach about personal responsibility and their great dislike of "entitlemet" programs. On a individual basis, how is inhheriting a fortune based simply on who your parents happen to be not an entitlement? That's kind of the definition of being "entitled!" Taxing the inheritance does not tax the person willing the estate, it taxes the person receiving the inheritance. That person has not EARNED such automatic privilege. S/he had it given to him/her.
1 out of 5, or 20%, of American children are under the poverty line. No other age group has such a high percentage. These children have NO control over their poverty.
2% of households qualify for the estate tax.
Who do the Republicans decide to fight for and to make sure they don't "suffer" from "class warfare?" Those poor heirs gauranteed to move into privilege who are being "puniished" by having to pay taxes on something they didn't earn.
Pathetic.
I do not feel that Paris Hilton or any other rich person owes me or anyone else a damn thing. That is what charity is for. On average, rich people tend to give the most money to charity and CREATE JOBS. I never said charity was design to solve historical differences. So now the estate tax is design to solve the historical differences between the rich and poor? OMG, all it does is give the government another income stream that most likely will be wasted. If you want to give money to the poor, let people do it with their free will and not let the government force it.
How about responding to the actual points I made.
As far as what you did respond to, why doesn't Paris Hilton owe society? It is only through society's economic and political structures that she is as privileged as she is. She is wealthy because her family is, not because of anything she DID. We privilege or oppress people from birth, based on whose sperm and egg create them. How are the Paris Hiltons of America a realization of the American dreamas individuals. As far as rich people giving more to charity, that has obviously NOT worked.
Again: 1 in 5 children are poor. Do we not as a society with the greatest wealth in the world to prevent so many people from AUTOMATICALLY being stuck in oppressive conditions, just in terms of statisticalliklihood in terms of health, education, economic achievement, etc. ? If not, I guess you think we are all "responsible" just for ourselves. If so, how has Paris Hilton (as an individual, regardless of her family) been "responsible" for the privilege she has?
She isn't.
You want to defend 2% of the population from what amounts to an inconvenience, not a punishment. Jail is punishment. Not being able to buy your 5th car is not punishment.
I believe the wealthiest country in the world should not condemn 20% of its children to the predictable consequencees of poverty.
I read your post. I guess we are just going to have to disagree. No matter how much money you give away, there will ALWAYS BE POOR PEOPLE. No matter how hard you try or how many give aways there are, POVERTY WILL NEVER BE ERADICATED. I will never ever accept the concept of government sanction wealth redistribution. EVER. I do not believe in the Robin Hood mentality of some folks. As I stated before, rich people give more to charity than another other group. Look at the millions of dollars Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey give to charity. Charity will never solve poverty, but it helps. You ever heard of the old saying "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life"? Think about it.
If the Hilton family wants to pass their wealth to their kids, so be it. That should be between THEM, not me, not you, not the government.
but it will be promulagated through lack of mutual responsibilty.
And yes you do believe in redistribution of wealth, just upward redistribution of wealth. Do you believe corporate welfare doesn't exist? For example government subsidies go to giant agribusinesses to superficially keep down the cost of produce for MacDonalds and others while family farms are foreclosed.
Since you are fond of the Bible, what did Jesus tell us about our responsibility to the poor? What did Jesus do to the money changers in the Temple?
I don't like corporate welfare because it totally against the ideal of free enterprise.
As far as the responsibility to the poor, again that is what charity is for. Jesus didn't say use the government to force me to give money to Joe Blow cause I am rich and he is poor.
That's right free enterprise is an ideal not exactly a reality.
Is government not a voluntary organization of people? People helping people is charity. Government is neither the answer nor the enemy, it is a facilitator for the people. The question is whether the people believe in a benevolent society or a selfish society.
Taxes are not punishment, they are a fee we pay to live in a great society. If you are so opposed to contributing to the commonwealth, stop partaking of the commonwealth and see how effectively you can amass your fortune.
Jeremiah 5: 28-29
28'They are fat, they are sleek, They also excel in deeds of wickedness; They do not plead the cause, The cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; And they do not defend the rights of the poor. 29'Shall I not punish these people?' declares the LORD, 'On a nation such as this Shall I not avenge Myself?'
Shall God not avenge himself on JUST THE KIND OF NATION you are advocating we be. Not defending the rights of the poor, nor the cause of the orphan that he may prosper. This is what Franken was talking about in the Supply side Jesus cartoon you didnt get. Just because YOU have a pin up poster of Ebeneezer Scrooge in your bedroom doesnt mean he should be a role model. Just because you have somehow bought into the conservative storyline that GREED and SELFISHNESS are the greatest good doesnt mean it is somehow ethical.
IS ALLOWING PEOPLE TO HAVE FREE WILL TO CHOOSE TO GIVE TO THE CHARITY OF THEIR CHOICE BEING SELFISH?????????????
Why can't an individual make that choice on their own instead of having a governmet FORCE them to do it???????
And we are all bound by it. Why should I be forced to pay for nuclear weapons? The corporate welfare I mentioned earlier. Military misadventures like Iraq? The people WANT the less fortunate to be cared for. We saw what happens during the great depression when private charities are overwhelmed. Meanwhile my point stands as Jermiah pointed out the NATION will be held accountable when they follow YOUR perscripion of not caring and use Ebeneezer Scrooge as a role model. What is wrong with the NATION deciding NOT to do that and be seen as providing for the needs of the needy? You only want excuses NOT to help them. The holy Grail of conservative philosophy, why GREED and Selfishness (which is EXACTLY what the why should I help philosophy you advocate obvioiusly is) are the highest public calling and more ethical than empathy and compassion keep looking, you havent found it. Its probably hanging out with unicorns and Dragons.
"As far as the responsibility to the poor, again that is what charity is for." --Osiris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ironically, elimination of the death tax would likely be bad for charities according to a study by the Brookings Institution:
"We find that estate tax repeal would reduce charitable bequests by between 22 and 37 percent, or between $3.6 billion and $6 billion per year. Previous studies are consistent with this finding, and also imply that repeal would reduce giving during life by a similar magnitude in dollar terms. To put this in perspective, a reduction in annual charitable donations in life and at death of $10 billion due to estate tax repeal implies that, each year, the nonprofit sector would lose resources equivalent to the total grants currently made by the largest 110 foundations in the United States.1 The qualitative conclusion that repeal would significantly reduce giving holds even if repeal raises aggregate pre-tax wealth and income by plausible amounts."
When they take tax dollars and create the highway system that HL Hunt uses to become a billionare that is redistribution. When they take tax dollars and and public land and GIVE them to railroads that Jay Gould, and Cornelius Vanderbilt use to make then fabulously wealthy that is redistributing wealth. When they take tax dollars and discover and develop Taxol then GIVE it to Bristol Squibb Meyers to sell at outrageous profits that is redistributing wealth. A whole lot of this economy is public cost turned into private profit. When it is decided that capital gains be taxed at a lower rate than wages earned by labor that is redistributing the wealth. Why in the world is it somehow wrong to say to whom much is GIVEN by this society much is expected? Why in the world is it too much to ask that there be an estate tax like most industrial countries? Because you dont REALLY disagree with wealth redistribution, its just that you only want it to go one way. UPWARD to the rich.
Why will there always be poverty?
It's a serious question. Why, in a world that has the resources to feed, clothe and shelter us all, will poverty always exist? Why is it a necessity?
Another serious question: Why is the PRINCIPLE that EVERYONE, no matter how wealthy, must keep every penny and never give any of it back to the society within which they "earned" it more important to you than the practical and principled goal of making sure that 20% of our children are not poor? Why do you fight for one and choose to ignore and deflect the other?
I'd like to know.
"I do not feel that Paris Hilton or any other rich person owes me or anyone else a damn thing"(osiris2k5)
Does that mean that only rich people owe nothing, or does NOBODY owe ANYTHING to ANYBODY?
If so, could you please stop using these here internets? Them internets were largely developed and are still subsidized by the Government, and since you're obviously opposed to pitching in to any group activities that society undertakes, I hate to see you making a hypocrite of yourself.
Grab those bootstraps and go build a computer outta coconuts.(Yeah,computer technology probably wouldn't be where it is without that nasty Gov't, either)
if I was rich, I should not be obligated to make the life of Joe Blow on the street better.
Them that have gets, them that dont can starve to death.
And those who profit more from our society owe more to our society.
Its like the story of the city that has a large public park with delishious berries. Now the city INVESTED in planting them, an irrigation system, protects them and makes them available to the public. All they ask is that one baseke in six they pick goes to the city to sell to pay for the continued investment. About one basket in a hundred is dontated to those who cannot pick berries for reasons of health or incapacity. Conservatives snivel. They are MINE, all MINE, I shouldnt have to give any of MY berries to anyone else. I picked them. WWAAAAHHHHH, I want all the berries. Screw those people who cant pick their own berries
You've made a lot of great points in this thread, in your own colorful way. Unfortunately, and as usual, they are ignored by the master debaters of our time. Same thing happens regularly to Kgonz. Curious.
I agree about Kgonz he is good. You arent bad yourself. What are we gonna do other than keep on trudging?
That is what social responsibility IS
if you Google "history of the estate tax," you'll find some interesting sites. Here's one: [link to www.faireconomy.org]
includes FDR's argument in favor of taxing estates:
"First, there was the belief that the hereditary transfer of concentrated wealth is incompatible with American values and democratic aspirations. Several decades after the passage of the tax, Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “Great accumulations of wealth cannot be justified on the basis of personal and family security … Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our government.”"
also Teddy Roosevelt's justification for proposing an estate tax in the first place:
"A second belief was that society played a significant role in the creation of individual wealth and therefore had some claim upon the wealth of the very rich. In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed a federal inheritance tax, saying, “The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.” Roosevelt recognized that wealthy citizens benefitted particularly from government protection of wealth and property rights."
I think people who object to the estate tax want to believe that there's some "fairness" at play. That people who acquire great wealth do so on the basis of their own talents and industry and that they should then have the right to distribute that money however they want.
Indeed, that's the way it used to work in this country. But anyone who has studied the history of economics in the 19th century understands the problems created by the accumulation of great wealth concentrated in the hands of just a few families. It was with those problems in mind that people in power acted to break up the wealth of those families.
What's that line about those who don't understand history being doomed to repeat it?
How about teaching people what it takes to become wealthier instead of taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor?
I would support that, its the rightwing that keeps torpedoing that route. Of course did you think the FAIRIES would administer it? It would cost money, since you are congenitally opposed to the rich giving ANY of their money away for programs to help the poor, I guess the working class would shoulder that burden as well.
I never said anything about the rich not given anything to charity or whatever. In all of my post, I stated that I feel a person should give by their own free will. I don't like the ideal of having the government forcing a wealthy person to give to another person because that other person is poor or that other person didn't work as hard as the rich person. Even in the Bible, it says "the poor you will always have with you". Giving away money has never ever in history cured poverty. It only treats the symptons.
If I give $1000 each to a poor man and a rich man, what do you think would happen? Sooner or later, the poor man will deplete his $1000. The rich man is more likely to figure out a way to double or triple the money. The answer to poverty is not just money, but education and/or knowledge.
If bill gates was flat broke, he would deplete his $1000, too. Don't you see? The difference between your two characters is having, and having not. It doesn't matter if you're a financial genius: If it comes down to EATING or opening a savings account, eating comes first. The most important luxury of wealth is having the freedom to CHOOSE what you do with your money.
There are smart, educated hard workers who remain poor; and there are dumb, uneducated lazy people who become rich.
Do you belive that you cannot be rich unless you're awesome, and that you cannot be poor unless you suck? If so, I think that you might live in a bubble.
Not that your original post did either. Where exactly is that wealth school? What you said was why not teach people to be wealthier. Any way you slice that it would take money. IF the answer were that the wealthy would do this through charity and its that simple why hasnt it already happened? So it must be some kind of program. Therefore paid for by taxes or administered by the fairies. Forget about the fairies and you dont want to tax the rich so that leaves this program to be paid for again by the middle class. There really isnt any way out of this. Society costs money, taxes are what pays for that. Society as a whole makes decisions on how to spend that money. YOU dont want that money spent feeding the hungry, I dont want it spent making nuclear weapons, neither of us get to make that specific choice. I got over the one long ago, perhaps its time you got over the other
Their success is as much based on the society in which they live as it is on their education, natural apptitude, and luck.
Remember, the estate tax is not about taking extra money from the estate of all the electricians and engineers of the world....it's about LARGE estates.