Posted on 06/04/2006 10:55:45 AM PDT by nj26
A decade-long drive to permanently repeal the estate tax is about to come to a head, but proponents are finding it surprisingly difficult to get their political football into the end zone.
The repeal proposal may be an indirect casualty of Hurricane Katrina, which forced Senate leaders to postpone a vote on the plan in September, when hopes it would pass were high.
Now, with the Senate poised to vote as early as this week, even some of the most ardent supporters of estate tax repeal predict they will come up short. Some of them are pushing an alternative that would reduce but not eliminate the tax.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), a longtime estate tax critic, is urging a tactical retreat because he believes that support for permanent repeal is eroding at a time of big budget deficits. And he fears that the political climate would be even less hospitable after the 2006 elections if Democrats win control of either the House or the Senate.
"Our political position could be dramatically negatively impacted this fall and after the next presidential election," Kyl said recently...
The House since then has voted repeatedly to repeal the tax permanently, but the measure has been blocked by a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. It takes 60 votes to cut off a filibuster.
In recent years, the size of the federal deficit has prompted second thoughts among some who supported estate tax repeal in the past, including Sens. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
RINOs. 'Rat's What's the diff?
A democratic filibuster will kill this anyway.
According to the Tax Foundation: "...the history of the federal estate tax makes clear that the tax has never been an important federal revenue source, typically accounting for 1 to 2 percent of federal collections. A growing body of economic research suggests the tax may raise zero or even negative net tax revenue once widespread estate-tax avoidance is accounted for...."
It is an INCREDIBLY inefficient tax. It must be abolished.
Please See: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1635.html
As long as we have this repeal in a temporary state we can score points with it. If the rat was as smart as some "experts" think he is, he would just suck it up and pass some of these tax cuts in odd years, then rely on the fact that his lemmings are stupid ( which they are ) and take tax cuts away from the GOP as an issue.
It really is laughable how many of these tax cuts are "temporary" and ALWAYS seem to need re-passing in election years. :-)
Tax Reform Ping.
This abomination will never be repealed. Small businesses and upper-middle income folks are hurt exclusively, which is exactly what the "elites" (who escape the tax altogether through various shelter schemes) want. Pure theft.
I don't see what the problem is.
The Estate tax probably protects more money from taxes than it reaps, and it probably costs more to collect the tax than the money they collect.
And what's wrong with letting a billionaire hand off their wealth to their erstwhile offspring, who will probably waste it, thereby enriching the next generation of hardworking entrepreneurs? Or just letting the old, rich geezers disburse their monies willy nilly however they want without a care for trying to keep the taxes and penalties on those who inherit the money from taking away from the enjoyment such money can bring in the form of spending sprees that enrich retailers, and employees of said retailers.
But we need that money for the 13 million illegals in our country....
What government services are consumed in the transfer of this wealth? Probably very little. It's safe to conclude, then, that this tax is unfair.
That said, most wealth still needs a military to protect it. So a tax on wealth isn't necessarily always bad so long as the monies paid are used to fund the military.
A clear case of why the voter cannot sit back and just assume legislation is going to pass just because there in a Repub majority.
The Senate plays by its own rules in this game, and anything less than a super-majority looses.
I ain't every over until the fat lady sings.
If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all federal income, SS/Medicare payroll, and estate taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
I don't have work myself into a frenzy about the Democratic takeover this Fall. There will be not a whole lot of difference......we have a Liberal Senate now, and we will have the same then. What a load of crap.
And, in California, we could not beat Boxer. There is no hope of beating Dianne.
I guess in the Senate it just takes 60 votes to pass anything. That whole "majority rules" thing? A quaint practice from a less enlightened time.
Hey Cry Baby Voinovich....let the Democrats FILIBUSTER, you IDIOT!! Or do you WANT to bring down the Republican Party on purpose??? Geesh.....the Democrats are destroying themselves, and cry baby George gets in their way!!
The purpose of the estate tax is to make it harder for upper-middle-class families to progress into the upper class, where they could compete with the existing elite
Yeah, but do you really think Republicans are going to repeal the tax breaks on such things?
I once suggested to my Republican representative that the deduction for state and local taxes be done away with and replaced with an overall reduction in tax rate. The idea being that state and local governments that over-tax are being subsidized by taxes collected from people in low-tax areas and this encourages state/local government to tax even more.
He would have nothing to do with it. He said eliminating deductions would cost taxpayers too much money.
He seemed to miss the part about lowering the overall tax rate to make up the difference.
Precisely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.