Tuesday, January 13, 2009
|
|
Death Tax Gets New Life
|
|
Posted by:
Michele Bachmann at
2:57 PM
|
Democrat leadership in Congress and President-Elect Barack Obama have made it perfectly clear that they are dead set on renewing the Death Tax rather than letting it expire in 2010.
An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal does a nice job detailing the ins-and-outs of the death tax and it's impact on the struggling middle-class businesses that Obama and the Democrats say they want to protect.
Democrats want to make the current death tax rate of 45% permanent, and while the Democrats like to portray the tax as targeted to those super-wealthy folks like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, that is simply not the case. According the WSJ piece:
"The death tax strikes most heavily at small- and medium-sized family-owned businesses that generate the majority of new American jobs. So hitting these family businesses with a multimillion dollar tax bill when the owner dies won't help job creation."
I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 205, the Death Tax Repeal Act, just reintroduced in the House. Don't let the them fool you with their messaging -- this tax isn't about the wealthy. It impacts family farms and businesses -- the lifeline of Main Street that is vital to a healthy economy. With the economy in such a fragile state, renewing this tax will continue to hamper the economic prospects of our nation. Let's let the death tax die, once and for all.
|
|
|
compromise and settle on a 45% rate with an exemption of $100 million? |
|
|
Why are we not more concerned with the personal income tax. In a free society, an individual is allowed to keep what he works for. In the case of a death, the transfer of property from the deceased requires the creation of an artificial legal entity (the estate) to be recognized by the government. While a tax rate above a couple percentage point is ridiculous, cutting the personal income tax is more in line with freedom then cutting the death tax. |
|
a "death tax"........
If your dad dies and wills the family business or farm to you, why is the gov't "double dippin'"??????
YOUR DAD has already paid the appropriate property and income taxes!!!!
Why do these Socialists have the right to more????
Makes me sick......
but NOT sick enough to die.......
Sorry Commies......
look for your "free" money somewhere else!!!!!! |
|
|
Actually there is no such thing as a death tax. No dead person is being taxed. It's an estate tax, and there is ample historical justification for it. You may disagree with the concept, but it's not a death tax. Living people pay the tax. |
|
"there is a historical justification for it."
Really? Can you point that out, because the person who died already paid the appropriate taxes on the income/property/dividends, and there is no real reason to acquire more of the property after (s)he passed. All that it accomplishes is to prevent the descendants from carrying on the family business, especially since the threshold that triggers the "partnership with Caesar" is so ridiculously low. |
|
It is apparent that you have never dealt with the death tax and do not appreciate the intricacies of having to deal with the death tax.
The father (a farmer) of a friend died. In order to generate funds to pay the death tax the widow was forced to sell the farm land which had been in the family for three generations.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was even more odious. After the bill was signed into law by Clinton, I acted as the Administrator of an estate and was required to pay the additional tax due on the income and the estate of the deceased.
While the living pay the tax, it is still a death tax assessed against the deceased.
Ample historical justification? Please provide support for that statement, with emphasis on the word justification. |
|
Why is there even such a thing as a "death tax" when the person being taxed has been taxed their entire lives? Is that not "double taxation"? Or "Tax without representation"?
Someone enlighten me here. |
|
"uber rich gluttony in silk to continue farting through"
Lola C ex-WindowCleaner, is that you?
You need to develop a different style but then, when one gets a wiff of one member of the family Mephitidae, you have pretty much smelled them all. |
|
|
comes from the idea that an artificial legal entity oversees the transfer. Since artificial legal entities are government granted privileges, they can be taxed accordingly. That being said, a 45% tax on anything is too high. |
|
Bush income 2006 - $765K
Bush income 2007 - $923K
Obama Income 2006 - $991K
Obama income 2007 - $4.2 million
Clinton income 2006 - $15.8 million
Clinton income 2007 - $20.4 million
|
|
Why did Bachmann vote against giving farm subsidies to wealthy farmers? Could it be because she's one of the wealthy "farmers" who collects federal farm subsidies? And how does Bachmann afford a $1.27 million house on a congressional salary? Not bad for a "farmer" who doesn't live anywhere near the family farm. |
|
...for wealthy farmers. When Congress voted on an amendment to end subsidies to wealthy farmers, she voted against the amendment. That's because she would ahve been voting to end her own little gravy train. |
|
"They've got you guys doing their dirty work to keep THEM in silk to continue farting through. Boy, you never learn, do you?"
Hey Lola C., ex-Window-Cleaner, ex-whoever you are: Lerxst just shredded your polyester skivvies.
Delightful. Cheers, Lerxst. I'll buy a round for the house.
|
|
"And how does Bachmann afford a $1.27 million house on a congressional salary?"
Only two days ago you were attacking Representative Bachmann for the benefits package her family's company offered their employees. As you correctly cited it was a employee mental health care practice employing over 40 people. The company is owned by Rep. Bachmann and her husband. Maybe that's how she can afford it.
I really wouldn't be bringing up politicians and how they afford their homes unless you want to talk Rezko.
|
|
WindowCleaner is back in yet ANOTHER reincarnation.
Multiple identities before the Cleaner "ID"....
Then Lola C.......
I guess 'ol Lola got banned for her multiple "wanker" comments...
Now she's back as, guess what??????
A SLAVE OWNER, NO LESS......
aka Scarlett O'Hara.......
And I believe that the new troll on the blog, Monkeywrench, is actually 'ol Bob Munck.....
They think they are sooooo clever!!!!!!
That's what you get when you have that liberal "superiority complex"..... |
|
On her disclosure forms, Bachmann lists “Bachmann Farm Family LP, Independence, WI,” as an asset with a value up to $250,000, that produced 2006 income for her of between $2,501-$5,000. The farm is owned and operated by her husband's brother, not Michelle Bachmann.
Michelle Bachmann is a wealthy farmer? It's only one letter that separates cheap shot from cheap $hit. At least try to be honest Monkeywrench.
Michele Bachmann has done nothing illegal by collecting these federal farm subsidies. The establishment of a limited partnership for a farming operation no doubt is to reduce her tax liability—i.e., a tax shelter. Democrats never use tax shelters, right?
Bachmann never denied that she received the subsidy.
Obama's appointee, Geithner, failed to pay his taxes and only did so when he got caught. Now that is an act that speaks of dishonesty. |
|
"Obama's appointee, Geithner, failed to pay his taxes and only did so when he got caught."
In light of the complexity of the tax issue here and the fact that the IRS says this a common mistake with IMF 'employees' I'm not going to lose much sleep over the missed tax.
BUT, and I think it's big "but" is why, when his latter years (03/04) at the IMF were audited and he was found to owe about $14K, did he not immediately think that the same was going to be true for the first couple of years he worked at the IMF and pay up for those two?
Did he think he'd got away with the first two years? Surely the treasury secretary elect was knowledgable enough of tax law to realize he probably owed a bunch of money for 01/02 as well He eventually paid up for those years in 2008 apparently. |
|
foxmustang at 7:43-
Would that be the same Bob Munck who said the other day on this blog that "my students refer to me as Professor" and "I teach mostly upper level and graduate students?"
How do "professors" who have actually fulfilled the requirements of the designation feel about an "adjunct lecturer with an AB in Applied Mathematics (Brown, 1967)" calling himself one? (He provided the information that his resume is online and it is.)
You are a fraud. |
|
RE - last post.
"You" in last statement being Munck, not foxmustang. |
|
The underlying rationale for the death tax is envy and government greed for revenue.
If someone on the nice side of the tracks can "fart through silk skivvies", good for them. It doesn't hurt me one bit. I want everyone, even some of the snarky envious amply documented here, to have the freedom and the opportunity to be filthy rich, and pass it on to their descendants.
Government isn't the center of the universe, folks.
v/r,
-- Bud
|
|
is correct. A number of decades ago William Buckley, on his PBS TV show Firing Line, asked rhetorically why the government insists on taxing the dead and his answer was, "Because the government doesn't want you to have it."
The danger is that many politicians would like for the government to be the center of the universe. |
|
"How do "professors" who have actually fulfilled the requirements of the designation feel about an "adjunct lecturer with an AB in Applied Mathematics (Brown, 1967)" calling himself one?"
There's no "requirement;" Brown right now has a full, tenured professor in CS who has only two years of college. It's not common to have a faculty member at an Ivy League school without a PhD, but it's not unknown either. In 1967, when I received the faculty appointment, there were exactly two people with PhDs in Computer Science in the whole country (van Dam and Wexelblat). My later appointments at Trondheim and Virginia Tech were more based on industry experience.
There's no fraud involved; I've never called myself a professor. |
|
The "Death Tax" or "Inheritance Tax" was instituted-voted- into existence to avoid the accumulation of wealth by individuals whose desire is to leave their accumulated fortunes to their families who continue to accumulate more wealth. What a hoot!
WEALTHY AMERICANS ARE PHILANTHROPISTS WHO DONATE TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE! GOVERNMENT SPENDS OUR WEALTH FOR NEEDLESS and MEANINGLESS POLITICAL GAIN!
What amount of money constitutes an accumulation of wealth? Is not this what capitalism is all about? Would any sane man or woman spend their lives accumulating wealth for their family to allow the government to steal 50% of their wealth? NO! Hence, offshore accounts and outsourcing.
There are multi-billionaires, billionaires, multi-millionaires and millionaires in our country, who use loopholes in the laws to avoid this thievery of their fortunes. Offshore banks are overwhelmed with accounts from the wealthy in the United States.
Incoming President Obama should know there is over a TRILLION dollars in offshore accounts and perhaps a TRILLION more outsourced. This money would be here if it were not for the outrageous tax system that greedy, political parasites want to spend as if the money belonged to the government.
The IRS and the Treasury was not designed to dream up ways to rob American citizens of their income. This is insane and outrageous! The first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was directed to manage government revenue, period.
TAXES should be administered fairly and intermittently raised when there is a definite need for an increase in funds for emergencies and to protect the interests of our country. When the problems are solved...TAXES should return to the amount previously required to finance the inherent needs of our country.
The Inheritance Tax should be put to death, not renewed, by incoming President Obama now and forever.
|
|
The estate tax is akin to, when seeing someone die in an auto crash, going to the dead body and picking through their pockets. Doing something like that is evil, pure and simple.
It's not the government's money, and they have no business robbing the grave. Let everyone have the freedom to decide how their possessions will be divided among the living, through their will. |
|
|
What won't the Libs tax? What's wrong with working your butt off to build up a fortune(you have been paying taxes on) and leaving it to your family. They'll pay taxes on it afterwards and will until they pass it on. Tax it so heavy the business fails or the fortune is spread too thin amongst heirs and then there is nothing to collect on afterwards. Stupid tax and always has been. |
|
|
|