Reply With Quote
counting down to xray saying this is all one big liberal gimmick and using the input of lay people (bloggers) to back up his claims in 5....4...3...2...
Working for my base
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Sabrina Eaton
Plain Dealer Bureau
Washington -- Eighteen of America's wealthiest families, including the Timkens of Canton, are bankrolling efforts to permanently repeal estate taxes that would save their families a total of $71.6 billion, according to a report released Tuesday by public interest groups.
Groups funded by the super-rich have engaged in a deceptive campaign to convince the public that estate taxes cause widespread problems for small businesses and family farms when they actually affect about one in 370 estates, said the report released by Public Citizen and Boston-based United for a Fair Economy.
This year, all assets under $2 million for individuals and under $4 million for couples are exempt from estate taxes. Current tax law will boost those exemptions to $3.5 million and $7 million in 2009, eliminate the estate tax in 2010, and reimpose it in 2011 with a $1 million exemption.
The House voted to permanently repeal the estate tax last year, but the measure stalled in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to override filibusters. Majority Leader Bill Frist says he will bring the bill up in May...
COMMON DREAMS
Public Citizen, UFE Expose Stealth Campaign of Super-Wealthy to Repeal Federal Estate Tax
Report Identifies 18 Families Behind Campaign
Seattle PIWASHINGTON - APRIL 25 - The multimillion- dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according to a report released today by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The report details for the first time the vast money, influence and deceptive marketing techniques behind the rhetoric in the campaign to repeal the tax.
It reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.
The report, available at http://www.citizen.org , profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell's soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third- largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world's largest retailer.
These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind -- the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.
In a massive public relations campaign, the families have also misled the country by giving the mistaken impression that the estate tax affects most Americans. In particular, they have used small businesses and family farms as poster children for repeal, saying that the estate tax destroys both of these groups. But just more than one-fourth of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.
"This report exposes one of the biggest con jobs in recent history," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "This long-running, secretive campaign funded by some of the country's wealthiest families has relied on deception to bamboozle the public not only about who must pay the estate tax, but about how repealing it will affect the country."
counting down to xray saying this is all one big liberal gimmick and using the input of lay people (bloggers) to back up his claims in 5....4...3...2...
Dan I take it your position is that those who are successful in a lifetime of hard work should give Uncle Sam half of their wealth because they had the misfortune of dying? Because being taxed at the highest rate when the income was earned just wasn't good enough?
The death tax is the embodiment of socialism. They have more, therefore, we need to take as much as possible and "redistribute" it to those poor souls who have little.
Nevermind the fact that it costs the governement as almost as much to collect the tax as the tax generates making it almost a wash.
"And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable when asked by The New York Times to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability."
Bull !
I could names dozens of ranches that had to be broken up and sold to pay estate taxes down here.
That is such a ing lie, jesus.
When you buy stuff you pay taxes. Why let the government Tax it twice?
You buy a car you pay huge state sales tax, road taxes, inspection tolls etc.
THEN they want to tax it's whole value again? And it was forced to be insured..
Typical ing liberals....
I don't see a single rich liberal give up there Italian Villas and Private islands for the poor....
Okay, here I am and yes it is a bunch of crap. Tax a
man and his wealth his whole life and then take the rest
after he dies. Really, really nice and fair isn't it.
I don't need a blogs or anything else. Common sense just
tells you a man works for his family, not the friggin
government. Unless you are a Kennedy and then you have
a way to protect all the family fortune, which you didn't work
a day to earn. Just the old man and his bootleggin' empire.
Good for the 18. George Soros pretty much had to fund the Democratic Party all on his own in the last two election cycles.
Name a few then. I'm curious.I could names dozens of ranches that had to be broken up and sold to pay estate taxes down here.
Just another reminder that it is all about the Benjamins and how much the fat cats can keep in their pockets.
Often the kids don't simply want to work ranch of their parents, don't want to maintain the building and land, pay annual taxes on it.
They've moved into the city to service jobs, rather than the estate taxes forcing the sale. The sell they ranch because they don't want it, and the estate taxes get paid.
The repeal of the estate tax pushed us towards becomeing Mexico: a country dominated by 1% that own EVERYTHING. The estate tax is nothing more than a gentle redistribution of the wealth of DEAD people.
Dead Presidents.
So, we can come split up your dead relatives things?
Wow Exstatic I thought it was the 11 million + immigrants that was making this country become like Mexico. Thanks for setting me straight, I had no idea it was because the estate tax threshold was raised.
No one likes more taxes, but the $1 million exception was more than enough to protect most family farms. I know if I'm inheriting 1 million + in property, I don't mind ponying up a few bucks in taxes since I can always make it back by reinvesting the balance if I decide to sell, or simply holding on to the land and letting it appreciate.
These 18 super rich families backing the repeal of the estate tax are just greedy s, who don't so much care about the money as much as they care about the power that comes with having more and more money.
That's just great dan. You obviously have never had money or land. How is someone who inherits a 3 million dollar piece of property going to pay the 40% estate tax on the value of the land if all they get is the property?
They are going to have to sell. You may say... Gee... well they got the money they should be happy... Yeah... families that have lived on that land for 150 years are going to be REALLY happy that they get a little over 1.5 million bucks and have to go move and change their lifestyle so the government gets their piece.
In south Texas, because of recreational value of the property, the land many places is worth about 50 times what you can make in a GOOD year running cattle. There is just no way that many of these people can keep the land.
It's not the land...it's the small businesses.
I know a local family business that two sons went to work in; it was succesfull & valuable; the founder built the business, but there wasn't alot of cash in it; IRS valued it at 4.5 milliion - and the tax on that, along with the rest of the old-man's estate was 2.3.
Dude was a smoker 7 didn't have a big life insurance policy. Boys worked in the business, helped build the business, but had to sell the business to pay the taxes. Both lost their jobs, and had to sign a contract to not open up a compe ive company. Yeah, they have some cash - but not nearly enough to retire on, and once thriving small business has been merged into a larger national outfit, and an additional 20 jobs have been lost.
The old-man was short-sighted, and should have had a big life insurance policy to pay the taxes (hey, Dan, how's it feel to be on the same side of this issue as "Big Insurance" - because they are funding what there is of the anti-death tax argument), but he got sick suddenly and kicked - lost his life, his company, and his family's security he had worked his life to try to ensure.
Can you or anyone else explain to me why people (families) should not
be allowed to keep what they have earned? For God's sake, they made
it not the friggin government. Re-distribution, what a laugh. Waste
is more like it.
The distinction here is between personal earnings and family earnings. America "nominally" has a meritocratic ethic, that is, that the individuals who accomplish the most should do the best. Inherited wealth has nothing to do with individual merit, but rather with the merit of one's ancestors.Can you or anyone else explain to me why people (families) should not
be allowed to keep what they have earned? For God's sake, they made
it not the friggin government. Re-distribution, what a laugh. Waste
is more like it.
One might reply that a successful individual should be able to decide who his heirs will be. One can argue that, but then must also realize that wealth is the best and easiest way to create more wealth, such that a pattern of inheritance concentrates increasing amounts of wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer families.
Now that is some essay on what? Someone made the damn money and
it wasn't the damn politicians. A person within the family made it and
paid taxes while they were making it and no one is en led to it except
who he wants to inherit it. He wants to leave it to government, fine, he
wants to leave it to his lover, fine. He wants his family to have it fine.
It is what he earned. Either through his efforts as a worker or
investor. You and the public are not en led to it......you and I are
the government, stupid.
Certainly over the course of human history, it has been done as you say. And in most of the world outside the wealthy industrialized nations, it is done exactly as you say.
The argument against "double taxation" doesn't hold water. I pay income tax, and then when I buy something with what's left, I pay sales tax, too. If I buy a car, well then, even after I buy it, I pay taxes on it every year to keep it registered. That's triple taxation.
Indeed one could argue that people who ac ulate wealth through their work and savings should have sole authority to determine where that money goes when they die. Passing that money onto their children opens a lot of doors for them. They'll have the money to get the best education, the best job opportunities starting out, they'll have the capital right at hand to start their own business ventures, they'll be able to affird the best financial people to manage their money and put it in the right investments to make even more money. Who wouldn't want that for their children?
Of course, it does mean that in such a society, most of the best opportunities for education, and jobs, and starting businesses, and investments, and making even more money will go to the children of rich people, and then to their children. This is pretty much how the United States operated until WW2. So, I cannot say that your views are somehow off the wall or out of left field, since our country functioned with them for its first 170 or so years. There is no shortage of people who think it was a better country back then.
Nice job Stout, but don't forget about access and opportunity. If your the son or daughter of Donald Trump, Warren Buffet or even Shaq-daddy, the movers-and-shakers in the financial and capital venture markets are gonna take a much more serious look at your business ventures than if you have no property or wealth.Indeed one could argue that people who ac ulate wealth through their work and savings should have sole authority to determine where that money goes when they die. Passing that money onto their children opens a lot of doors for them. They'll have the money to get the best education, the best job opportunities starting out, they'll have the capital right at hand to start their own business ventures, they'll be able to affird the best financial people to manage their money and put it in the right investments to make even more money. Who wouldn't want that for their children?
I saw an interview with multi-billionaire Warren Buffet's grand-daughter, he is funding their way through what-ever college they want to go to, but after that the money stops and they get no inheritance. Why? because they shouldn't need it. They have his name, his access, his power.
Yeah, that's great Dan.
Power doesn't pay the electric bill.
Another problem with the "double/multiple taxation" argument is that the wealthy also take advantage of the loopholes in the tax system. I would guess that a lot of that money hasn't even been taxed once yet.
I would agree though that the estate tax (before the recent changes) was unfair. The high percentage was basically a holdover of high income tax percentages combined with gaping loopholes. Also, the thresholds weren't updated for inflation. Why not just increase the threshold (say to $10M) and then index it to inflation? I would think that would be sufficient for the poor farmers and small businesses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
