Tax bill stalled
The sticking point at the moment seems to be something to do with tacking on a raise in the estate tax, but you try to figure it out (see also here).
It should never have come to this, of course; the tax cuts should have been dealt with earlier. But Obama and Congress were obsessed with passing HCR and cap and trade and a host of other goodies on their agenda, and that seemed to take up the bulk of their time while they still had time left; now they’ve run out of it. But more importantly, until now they saw no reason to extend the tax cuts, because they were dominant and they didn’t want to do it.
Their defeat in the election of 2010 changed that, especially for Obama, who suddenly re-connected with his inner bipartisan—you remember, the one who spoke so eloquently in 2004 and then again during the 2008 campaign but who went into hiding while the president was taken over by his evil partisan twin? Now that there is a renewed reason to compromise, lo and behold, we see the first glimmerings of it.
Hiking the estate tax further is apparently irresistible to some, however. Of course, the objection that the money involved has already been taxed during the deceased person’s lifetime is not considered worthwhile by those who believe the rich should not be able to leave their money to their children. After all, isn’t the money’s only temporarily on loan, and doesn’t it really belong to the government, which is just reclaiming a large portion of it?
Most prognosticators seem to be saying that this is merely a little blip, and that the tax cut bill will pass, so that the American people will at least get an idea of what their taxes will be before the next Congress convenes. And that latter event can’t happen a moment too soon, although no illusions should be retained that the new Congress will be significantly more functional than the old.
Have you noticed the Dems always appeal to people’s basest emotions, greed. envy, avarice and hatred? Gotta punish those fat cats, they don’t deserve their money because they stole it from poor people..
In the 1950s De Jouvenal published a book, “The Ethics of Redistribution” and he showed redistribution is ethically indefensible. Obama needs to read it.
Yes, the bankers have stolen a few trillion dollars from both the poor and middle classes.
Sorry, you don’t see that Ray.
You won’t get rich stealing from poor people. They don’t have enough money. You also won’t create many jobs giving money to poor people.
If you took all the wealth in America and distributed it evenly to the entire population, the equality would be short lived. A few years later the poor would be poor again and affluent families would be reasonably well off. Few would be very wealthy because it takes years and sometimes generations to grow wealth.
The brutal truth is poor people have poor ways.
Straight talk, Mr. Frank, except it’s a kind truth. Poverty, along with property laws, are God’s way of preventing the acquisition of ways and means by those who would abuse it.
Neo, please don’t fall into the trap of calling the continuation of existing tax rates a “tax cut”. This is a linguistic device perpetrated by the Democrats and their propaganda machine, the legacy press, to bamboozle the credulous into believing that the “wealthy” are going to be getting something extra. It’s not the case…everybody’s taxes are going to remain the same.
stumbley: you’re correct, and I’m aware of the distinction, but I just use the phrase (incorrect thought it is) because it’s commonly used and everyone knows what I’m referring to,
Hi Neo-neocon,
Can you explain how families like the Kennedys manage to keep their wealth, instead of having it taken by the Government? That is something that has always puzzled me. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc should be pennyless, and yet, have somehow insulated their wealth in a way “The Rich” have been unable to.
Re tax “cuts”:
When a government agency’s budget is increased by any amount less than the increase the agency asked for, that’s a spending cut. They’ll use the term with a straight face. Really. And the MSM may echo it.
re: “the tax cuts should have been dealt with earlier”
They wait until the last possible moment in order to create a “crisis” that cannot be wasted! (Same with the 1900+ page omnibus spending bill.) Then quick action is required so that there’s no time to look at what all is hidden in the legislation (payoffs for your friends, power for yourself, and punishment for your “enemies”).
It takes a killer. LIke Sarah Palin and Chris Christie.
And Newt:
http://www.breitbart.tv/newt-urges-gop-fillibuster-of-spending-bill/
Adopting the language of the Left (“tax cuts”) is the first step onto the slippery slope. That allows them to further define the rules, and you wonder the score is always 5-4 against?
The tax imbroglio shows both parties at their sausage-making worst. The present taxes are to sunset 12/31, by Congressional agreement in 2001. The “compromise” bill merely kicks the same can down the road two more years. The estate tax, at whatever rate, will only be set for the same period.
Neo thought in an earlier post this showed Baraq a poor negotiator, a notion with which I disagreed.
It is McConnell who is the poor one, and Baraq doesn’t even bother to know his name is Mitch, not Mike.
The Dems are much much better at this game than the silly ol’ Repubs. All of the fiscal legislation was surely drawn up months ago, and the present manufactured crisis deliberately set up by them. No one can crank out a 1900+ page Omnibus Bill with 6400 earmarks overnight, not even with hundreds of word processors churning away.
Steve: good lawyers can work their way around anything. The Kennedys have good lawyers. However, the money gets dispersed over time in later generations, because there are so many descendants.
John Kerry married a woman who was the widow of a very rich man, Heinz.
Correction: the bankers have stolen a few trillion dollars from the taxpayers. Guess the bankers got a good return on their massive contributions to the Democrat Party.
Here are the data from OpenSecrets.org.:
Top Industries Giving to Members of Congress, 2008 Cycle
Securities/Invest $41,739,683 64% 36% Barack Obama (D)
Misc Finance $15,451,969 54% 46% Barack Obama (D)
Commercial Banks $11,999,920 53% 47% Barack Obama (D)
The first figure is the total, followed by the percentages given to the Dems and Reps, and the last column, where young Hussein appears, is the name of the top recipient from that industry.
Does that help?
Now back to tonight’s favored talking points…
Yahoo! the Omnibus Bill was withdrawn tonight, all 1924 pages of it. “Tax cutting”, AKA extending unemployment bennies while leaving income taxes as is, paid for by no one, remains alive.
“believe the rich should not be able to leave their money to their children.”
Ohh no no no no, that’s not the reason at all. The reality is you didn’t *earn* that money so the govt has every right to take a great deal of it. Same thing with gifts and lotteries – you didn’t *earn* it so they can take a great deal of it. at least that is the justification I’ve seen for several decades now (same thing with capital gains taxes and other non-direct salary related incomes – you didn’t *earn* it so they can take all they want).
Now what the Federal govt did to earn the ability to take it way I’ve never figured out – seems to me the earned it much less than I did. Nor have I ever remotely understood why they earn their top rate incomes and “gifts” (which, because they did so much to earn them are not treated the same as ones to me – no harder working person than our Congress Critters!) – but hey I’m just a peon and should know my place.
As someone above said – the money is on loan to us anyway so we ought to be happy, right?
“It should never have come to this, of course; the tax cuts should have been dealt with earlier”
the Obama administration deliberately stalled so the tax cuts would expire, in order to blame the GoP when it fails to pass in congress after the new congress (GoP heavy but still a Dem majority) takes over.
“Most prognosticators seem to be saying that this is merely a little blip, and that the tax cut bill will pass, so that the American people will at least get an idea of what their taxes will be before the next Congress convenes.”
It’s not a tax cut they’re haggling over, it’s prevention of a tax hike (or rather reduction of a tax hike).
Can you explain how families like the Kennedys manage to keep their wealth
A small army of accountants and lawyers can do wonders. Also, if you create your own foundation to “give away” you wealth, your childern (and grandchildern) can sit on the board of directors and draw a healthy “salary” for minimal amounts of actual work. And because they sit on that board, they may get invited to sit on other boards for additional revenue.
And they may even get invited to sit on boards at Wall Street…
strcpy: “The reality is you didn’t *earn* that money so the govt has every right to take a great deal of it. Same thing with gifts and lotteries – you didn’t *earn* it so they can take a great deal of it.”
There are three categories of what I may someday leave to my children.
After-tax income, money that I’ve saved/invetsed, for better or for ill — how ^dare^ the government tax that money ^again^ via a death tax??? It’s already been taxed, dammit!
Before-tax income, e.g., traditional IRA, 401(k), 403(b), etc. — my beneficiaries get to pay the income tax in due time. Again, there should not be a ^double^ taxation of the money via a death tax in addition.
An asset, such as my dwelling — Right now, there’s a stepped-up basis on the dwelling upon death, the stepping-up being a legal dodge of much capital gains tax. Tell ya what: forget the stepping-up, but index the tax basis for inflation. Say the basis in my dwelling is $250,000, but its market value is $500,000. If the inflated basis at the time of my demise is $450,00 instead of the $250,000 basis, then tax the capital gain on the after-inflation $50,000 (which is $500,000 less $450,000).
Except I wonder how many dwellings end up in the hole — a capital ^loss^ — that way, instead of a souped-up, phony capital gain!
CBO scores and states that the capital gains tax destroys jobs.
That’s the bottom line.
Dear Democrat/Liberal,
Are you for or against jobs.
Doesn’t look like it with your voting pattern.
Signed,
Common sense centrist conservative