The Republican Plan For Balancing The Budget

by Alex Urevick, Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 05:48:48 AM EDT

Stop collecting as much taxes on the wealthy. Yes, did you know that taxing the wealthy has a horrible effect on our economy? If they can't buy that new yacht, then the terrorists have already won.

Yahoo! News - GOP's Estate Tax Push May Work in Senate

WASHINGTON - House Republicans call it the "death tax," but their effort to repeal permanently the estate tax has itself succumbed three different times upon reaching the Senate. This year, though, four additional GOP votes may give the measure the boost it needs to enter the tax code.

"Death should not be a taxable event," said Rep. Kenny Hulshof of Missouri, who sponsored the Republican bill, scheduled for debate Wednesday. "The death tax has a very real, negative impact on our economy."

Promising faster tax relief with less damage to the federal budget, Democrats countered with a proposal to leave the tax in place for the largest estates but immediately increase the number exempt from the tax.

"It is certain. It is immediate," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, the North Dakota Democrat who drafted his party's alternative. "It is a significant break from where we are now."

These wealthy Americans have already suffered enough! Give them tax breaks or give all those poor and middle class people with no health insurance death!

Maybe you didn't realize this, but the elimination of the estate tax is really a form of discrimination.

Supporters of the tax's elimination argue that any level of tax discriminates against some at the expense of others.

"Someone will fall below it. Someone will be above it," Hulshof said of arbitrary markers exempting some estates from taxation.

If congress doesn't stand up for this poor, helpless group, who will they have left to represent them, other than their lawyers, bankers, estate planners, money managers, all the people who work for them?

Thank G-d that Republicans are looking out for the big people! Somebody has to!

But don't fret if you're not a multi-bazillionare, the Democrats are doing what they can to stick up for the slightly littler big guy.

Many Democrats argue that the country cannot afford the roughly $290 billion it would cost over a decade to eliminate the tax while budget deficits mount and expenditures for homeland security and war increase.

The Democratic plan would increase the size of an estate exempt from tax to $3 million for an individual and $6 million for a couple beginning next year. It would reduce government revenue $70 billion.

Only 70-Billion dollars? Sheesh, that's a drop in the bucket. It's not like we have anything else to pay for- like Social Security, Medicare, and the Occupation of Iraq.

Ah, fiscal responsibilty, you gotta love it...

Tags: (all tags)

  • 5 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

5 Comments

Shadow_head_small
My Question?
Why do you hate America?
by DanielUA 2005-04-13 06:48AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: My Question?
The smell.
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-13 07:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Taxing the wealthy works better
Historically, the wealthy seem to be willing to work more if you tax them more.

The greatest economic recovery in history (late 1940s-1950s) took place under a virtually repressive regime of taxation.  

Didn't the economy expand after Clinton hiked taxes in 1993?  

So, how did that happen if taxation discourage wealth?

Oh, wait.  It doesn't.  Taxation just forces the wealthy to put in a  little more time.

Plus, how is it that several of the worst economic crashes in history came under rather loose tax structures (1930s, any of the crashes in the late 1800s, 1980s)?

Hell, I think we should raise the margin back up to the 90% range.  Then there would be unlimited economic growth!

Say what you will about taxation, but the model suggests entire relationship between taxes and economic growth is contrarian.

by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 07:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Taxing the wealthy works better
You're getting to one of the major aspects of  Keynesianism- which was the solution to the biggest of those crashes.

To Keynes, excessive saving, i.e. saving beyond planned investment, was a serious problem encouraging recession or even depression
Now, we're probably not at a point where there's enough cash "sitting on the sidelines" to warrent a Keynesian tax hike on wealth (it probablly wouldn't hurt though), but putting more money into the hands of the fabulously wealthy certainly isn't going to help the economy or the government's deficit.
by Alex Urevick 2005-04-13 07:35AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
How could it help?
Anything that reduces the dynamic flow of money is bad.  Anything that gets money flowing is good.

That means trust funds and estates are bad (doesn't the book of MAtthew say so?!) and taxes and public works are good.

The joke of all of this is that the greatest civilizations in history are punctuated by dramatic public works projects.  From the Great Wall and the Chinese riverine canal system to Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system, it's a pattern.

Taxes pay for it all.

by jcjcjc 2005-04-13 06:48PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------