COL Gene COL Gene

Phony Spin On The Estate Tax

Phony Spin On The Estate Tax

Bush wants to put our country further into DEBT!



Posted on Mon, Jun. 05, 2006



The Editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer today debunks the Bush claim that the BIG BAD Estate( Death Tax as the GOP calls it) should be eliminated. Here is the truth about this tax according to the Inquirer:

The Tax is paid by 5 out of every 1,000 estates. That is ½ of 1% of the estates pay this HORRIBLE tax. We hear about all the family farms and businesses that have to pay this tax. In 2000 that was 123 Family Farms and 135 family-owned businesses. In other words, this tax does not impact 99.5% of Americans.

What would it mean to the Federal budget? In the ten years from 2012 - 2022 the Federal Budget would lose $1 Trillion dollars at a time when the National Debt is over $8.3 Trillion and heading for $10 Trillion by 2010. It is time for the Democrats to say NO and filibuster this irresponsible proposal by Bush and the conservatives in Congress!!!


Editorial | The Estate Tax
Death to the phony spin

The Republican-controlled Senate will attempt this week a feat that is breathtakingly irresponsible - abolishing the tax on multimillion-dollar estates.
Conservatives have done a masterful spin job in vilifying the estate tax. They've effectively renamed this progressive, needed source of revenue the "death tax."
It sounds so unfair to tax death. And a tax on death sounds as if it might snare everybody.
In truth, the estate tax is paid by only five of every 1,000 people who die.
Let's repeat that, so it can sink in and dislodge the misconceptions that a decade of false "death tax" rhetoric has planted in Americans' brains:
The estate tax is paid by only five of every 1,000 people who die.
This year, only estates of more than $2 million (or $4 million per couple) will owe the tax - about 12,600 estates total.
What's more, under current law, that exemption level already is set to rise to $3 million for an individual and $7.5 million for a couple by 2009. When that happens, this tax will be paid by only three out of 1,000 estates.
Next time you're sitting in a traffic jam on the Schuylkill Expressway or Route 42 in South Jersey, look ahead of you. Look left. Look right. Chances are, even without repeal, no one you see will have this tax levied on his estate after he dies.
Oh, but what about the sacred "family farm"? This is another falsehood promoted during the annual fights in Congress to provide another boon to the Paris Hiltons of the world: The estate tax is causing the extinction of the family farm.
Actually, the estate tax rarely hits family farms.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that, if the current $2 million exemption had been in place in 2000, only 123 family farms and 135 family-owned businesses nationwide would have owed the tax.
In 2009, only 65 farms across the country are projected to owe the tax. And the American Farm Bureau, in one news report, could not cite a single example of a family farm being sold to pay the estate tax.
The tax might mean fewer baubles for Paris and her set, but it is not forcing families to give up their hard-earned legacies.
Opponents of the estate tax also would like people to believe that this levy guts estates by taking half of their value. Not so. In 2003, the estates that were subject to the tax (including 1,183 in Pennsylvania) paid an effective tax rate, on average, of 19 percent. That's because if an estate is valued at $2.5 million, the heirs pay taxes on $500,000 - only the amount above the $2 million exemption.
Bill Gates Sr., father of the founder of Microsoft, says opponents of the estate tax are conjuring up a "mythical bogeyman."
"Wealthy people have been paying estate taxes, and we have been getting along just fine," the elder Gates said.
What the estate tax does do is provide a vital source of income for a federal government that is running up way too much debt on its charge card. If the tax were repealed, the Treasury would lose nearly $1 trillion in revenue over the first decade of its full effect, beginning in 2012. Already feeling the pinch of earlier tax cuts, the government is running annual deficits of more than $300 billion and beginning to trim funds for vital tasks like homeland security in large Northeastern cities and the rebuilding of Iraqi cities.
Repealing the estate tax would only increase the misguided determination of this Congress to cut useful programs that have already faced the chopping block - health care for the poor, student loans, mass transit, food stamps, child-care subsidies. That's an immoral trade-off.
You say you still don't trust how the government spends money? Fine, the estate tax also boosts the nonprofit sector, because it provides an incentive for rich people to make large charitable donations and set up foundations to do good works.
One GOP proposal would keep a tax rate of 15 percent on estates more than $5 million. But this plan would lose nearly as much revenue as a repeal.
The nation can't afford an estate-tax repeal. But the few estates that pay the tax can indeed afford it.
15,021 views 63 replies
Reply #26 Top
Oh, btw, I should also say congrats to Gene for truth in advertising in his headline for this article: yet another "phony spin" on anything related to Bush.
Reply #27 Top
This has NOTHING to do with trolling. All of what I have posted is true and is backed up by economics and the condition of the Federal Budget. I fully understand how to run a business and balance a budget. I did just that in various profit and non profit enterprises for over 35 Years. This country has had ONE year of a balanced budget since 1981!
Reply #28 Top
"The proof is at hand, the tax cuts are ADDING to the deficit which is because 1/2 the Tax cuts is going to the wealthy that do not spend it! "


Tax cuts don't add to the deficit. The money was never the government's to spend in the first place. You act as if it is owed when it wasn't even asked for. We only owe as much as the government requres us to pay. It isn't as if it was taken away from Congress, that money wasn't on the books to begin with.

Yet, the Congress kept right on spending more and more money knowing they didn't have as much revenue coming in. That added to the deficit. Anyone who can balance a checkbook knows not to spend more than they take in. The difference is Congress can just keep borrowing and borrowing indefinately.

But you go on and keep blaming taxpayers, Col. I think I will go bounce a check and blame you for not paying the extra.
Reply #29 Top
You know oh clueless one that even "if" we rolled back EVERY tax break we got from GW they only equal 700 billion $'s? Now how does that even come "close" to helping the deficit @ 7.2 trillion?

That is NOT TRUE. The wealthy have the ability to pass on a large portion of their estates to their families. Much of the money that is accumulated has escaped tax by the many legal and illegal means and loop holes. The people receiving the money did not work for it. They receive up to $2 Million per person with no tax and only a few people pay ANY tax. This tax truly JUST for the very wealthy and 99.5% of Americans will NEVER pay a cent. That is not any thing like Communism


This is EXACTLY like communism. Taxes were "already" paid on these monies. Thru income tax and capital gains tax, etc. So "why" should the government get to double dip into these funds?
Reply #30 Top
Bakerstreet

O Contraire-- Under our system we elect representatives that enact budgets and taxes. That process has resulted in spending FAR more then we are enacting in taxes. WE were told that there was this SURPLUS that meant the American People were being OVER TAXED and thus is was right to return that Surplus to the people via tax cuts. ONE PROBLEM-- There was NO SURPLUS except in the mind of Bush!

Then we were told that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy and in effect generate enough NEW TAX REVENUE, due to this increased economic activity, to replace the lost revenue from the tax cuts. Although there has been SOME economic growth it has not been enough to make up for the reduced tax revenue from the tax cuts. At the same time Bush and the majority in Congress agreed to increase the level of spending. Guess what happened, we created a situation where we are spending a lot more then we are taxing.

Now Bush and the conservatives faced with deficits as far as the eye can see propose to make the tax cuts permanent including the Estate Tax. That will insure that the deficit continues and in fact the Brookings Institute released a study that showed making the Bush tax cuts permanent would add yet an additional $2.4 Trillion to the already blooming deficit over the next ten years.

This is a farce in the most basic sense. What reasonable person that can not pay their bills reduces their income and makes the difference between what they are spending and their income even greater? If Congress and the President as our elected representatives choose to spend $2.6 Trillion this year, as they have chosen to do, they must also TAX at that same rate and insure that we have $2.6Trillion in tax revenue to meet our obligations. What we have done is provided about $2 Trillion in tax revenue and now proposes to further reduce the future tax revenue by making the estate tax end which today is producing many Billions of dollars as part of the $2 Trillion currently being generated. That is not only irresponsible but unreasonable. If you or I acted the same way we would soon go bankrupt! We can not afford the loss in the tax revenue ending the Estate Tax would create and I will urge any rational member of Congress to reject the asinine suggestion of President Bush! I find it impossible to believe that Bush has an MBA. His policies do not reflect the most basic understanding of corporate finance.


Reply #31 Top
What percentage should the "rich" be taxed? And are you a socialist?
Reply #32 Top
No, Col, that beloved Congress of yours approved a tax cut. The money you are missing isn't theirs because they opted not to ask for it. They are the ones that decided to spend money that wasn't theirs. i.e. the deficit is their problem to fix, not ours.

I figure now you'll say that they were "misled" by bad old Bush the way they supposedly were about Iraq. Of course they wouldn't know what they spend and take in, even though they are the ones that are most responsible for the budget. In reality they knew exactly how much money they had to spend, and opted to spend more. Take this up with your crook buddies in Congress and stop playing panhandler for them.
Reply #33 Top
I believe I have said we need to return to the tax rates that were in effect just prior to 2001. The Reason we should return to the former levels is because we were told that they were TOO high was because of a non-existent Surplus. Thus the tax cuts should NOT have been enacted in the first place since the reason why they were enacted was not valid. I have also pointed out that BOTH Greenspan and O'Neil said the tax cuts should be tied to the surplus. Had we headed their advise the tax cuts would have ended as soon as it was clear there was NO SURPLUS!

In addition, borrowing money and paying interest on that borrowed money to continue tax cuts to a segment of the population that does not NEED the added money is DEAD WRONG! That has nothing to do with socialism it has to with COMMON SENSE and sound fiscal management !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #34 Top
No, what you have said over and over is that the tax cuts are to blame for the deficits. That isn't true. Congress knew how much money they had to spend, and they chose to spend more. Had they opted not to spend more than they had, there would be no deficit. Holding us up is no more ethical than borrowing it, just cheaper in the long run.

You can glam it up with all the capitalization and obfuscation you want, but the fact is as simple as it can be. They are borrowing money so that they don't have to limit their spending. When you and I do that, eventually we get into trouble unless we make ourselves a more realistic budget. It's time for them to do just that.
Reply #35 Top

I believe I have said we need to return to the tax rates that were in effect just prior to 2001. The Reason we should return to the former levels is because we were told that they were TOO high was because of a non-existent Surplus. Thus the tax cuts should NOT have been enacted in the first place since the reason why they were enacted was not valid. I have also pointed out that BOTH Greenspan and O'Neil said the tax cuts should be tied to the surplus. Had we headed their advise the tax cuts would have ended as soon as it was clear there was NO SURPLUS!


I can't help but notice how you just skipped over my last post. Could that be because you have no answer for it?

You know oh clueless one that even "if" we rolled back EVERY tax break we got from GW they only equal 700 billion $'s? Now how does that even come "close" to helping the deficit @ 7.2 trillion?

That is NOT TRUE. The wealthy have the ability to pass on a large portion of their estates to their families. Much of the money that is accumulated has escaped tax by the many legal and illegal means and loop holes. The people receiving the money did not work for it. They receive up to $2 Million per person with no tax and only a few people pay ANY tax. This tax truly JUST for the very wealthy and 99.5% of Americans will NEVER pay a cent. That is not any thing like Communism


This is EXACTLY like communism. Taxes were "already" paid on these monies. Thru income tax and capital gains tax, etc. So "why" should the government get to double dip into these funds?
Reply #36 Top
I ask a simple question. What percentage of a successful American's income should be taxed?
Reply #37 Top
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan yesterday defended his support of tax cuts in 2001 after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) suggested that he bears some blame for helping create the federal budget deficits that followed those cuts.
Reply #38 Top
Okay, I have been reading here and elsewhere.

I am now completely spun up on this whole estate tax thing, at least to my own satisfaction. And I have come to a definitive conclusion regarding this whole thread:

COL Gene, you are full of crap.

But I will say one thing: at least I was open-minded enough to give you the benefit of the doubt. And I was willing to concede a point; in fact, I did not even take up a contrary position. I actually took what you said at face value and believed you, instead of presupposing that since it was from you, it was instantly wrong.

For that, my dear COL, I have still won the day. You love to post your poopies up on your blog and have already decided beforehand that your opinion is an unassailable castle. No matter how many orcs come a-knockin', you have plenty of boiling oil and archers to take them down. This adversarial position does not inspire a debate, a sharing of information... it's your way or the highway, no matter how grounded in reality your opponents are. Tsk tsk tsk.
Reply #39 Top
The tax cuts have created some of the deficits. In fact over a trillion dollars of the almost three trillion dollar increase in the National Debt are due to the tax cuts!
Reply #40 Top
The tax cuts have created some of the deficits. In fact over a trillion dollars of the almost three trillion dollar increase in the National Debt are due to the tax cuts!


BULLSH*T!!! You obviously did NOT read my reply! ALL the tax cuts given only total to 700 Billion which is NO WHERE near a trillion!!!
Reply #41 Top
Now it's "some" of the deficit. I love when col gets stomped in his own thread and goes off and starts another one about basically the same thing.
Reply #42 Top
If the tax cuts hadn't happened we'd still be hopelessly mired in debt. What does that have to do with the estate tax?

We've been in debt for decades, and I don't want to hear about how Clinton balanced the budget. He balanced it with projections based on the upward curve of the tech bubble, not grounded in realistic growth rates. Remember "irrational exuberance"? That was the Clinton "balanced budget".
Reply #43 Top
Another abandoned thread because he lost.
Reply #44 Top
Today another columnist pointed out how the GOP has distorted the Estate Tax issue.

Andrew Cassel said in his column:

"This is a textbook example of how even the elite can exploit the rhetoric of populism. At most the estate tax never applied to more than about 2% of American families.”

“Yet it was framed effectively as a monstrous threat to the republic."

Yes, the estate tax is an issue for only the super wealthy and not what should be done. Mr. Cassel went on to ask, "Is liberating wealthy Americans from the burden of estate taxes more critical then figuring out how to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent?"

“A well financed and slickly packaged effort on behalf of a handful of superrich American families."
Reply #45 Top
Of course col. A columnist must be right. Another anti-Bush, anti-Rich columnist can't be wrong.
Reply #46 Top
"Mr. Cassel went on to ask, "Is liberating wealthy Americans from the burden of estate taxes more critical then figuring out how to keep Medicare and Social Security solvent?"


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

Stealing profits from upper class Americans so they can pass the damange down to the middle class in the form of less wages and benefits just means MORE PEOPLE RELYING ON MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY. Gah, how can you be this dense...
Reply #47 Top
Taxing is not borrowing. The issue is what does the most good for our country. Granting tax cuts to less then 1 % of people that are so wealthy the added money means nothing except greed or using that same money to help insure the health and retirement of almost 100% of the retired Americans? That choice is a slam dunk. Anyone that would ignore the NEEDS of the Millions so a few thousand super rich can be a little wealthier has no conscience or concern for what will benefit this country in the long run!
Reply #48 Top
"Granting tax cuts to less then 1 % of people that are so wealthy the added money means nothing except greed or using that same money to help insure the health and retirement of almost 100% of the retired Americans?"


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

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

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

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

As I said elsewhere, go look at France's economic position right now. Your dogma is exactly what they have followed for a long time, and that is what you end up with when you do.
Reply #49 Top
The Col complains about low wages, less benefits, and a bad trade deficit. Then he suggests that we raise taxes on America's investors and business owners. In response to having less money, they'll no doubt raise wages, offer more benefits, and slash their prices to better compete globally.

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

If no-benefit, low wage Wal-Mart jobs are what you are looking to create, then rob the economy of capital, put half the nation on welfare and the other half will be working at Wal-Mart. China will thank you. If you want to help the economy, you leave the capital where it is so there will be money for jobs and benefits, and so that there is a reasonable amount of profit allowing for lower, more competitive prices.
Reply #50 Top
Retaining the Estate Tax is NOT raising taxes. The handful of people that will benefit by eliminating this tax compared with the hundreds of Billions of dollars that will not be available to help people is clear. I wonder how many of the people on this Blog site will be impacted by this tax. It is just like Mr.Cassel said:


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

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