DEATH TAX REFORM DIES

The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid ^ | Thursday, June 08, 2006 | Don Luskin, Daniel Clifton

[FreeKeys]

DEATH TAX REFORM DIES Our friend Daniel Clifton at Americans for Tax Reform sends us this angry note about the defeat of death tax reform in the Senate today:

The vote to proceed to Estate Tax Repeal failed 57-41 falling short of the 60 votes required to even CONSIDER the legislation. Many members of the Senate have talked about how they are for reform but not repeal but today’s vote showed this was just a red herring. You can not reform the estate tax if you vote against considering the legislation which is the vehicle to implement that reform. As such, a vote against considering the estate tax legislation today is an endorsement of the pre-2001 rates of 55 percent with a $1 million exemption, which go into effect in 2011.

Interestingly, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, and Ron Wyden voted for full repeal in 2002. Today, they voted against even considering the legislation for some type of reform. Hence they went from supporting a 0 percent estate tax to a 55 percent rate. That’s because this is not whether you support or oppose estate tax repeal. The Dems have actively traded votes to let their vulnerable members up for reelection support the legislation and have other members not up for reelection vote against the legislation, even if they support estate tax repeal/reform. This ensures incumbent protection while also ensuring 60 votes can never be reached.

As an example, Sen. John Breaux, the prime sponsor of the legislation for repeal, voted no in 2002 so Mary Landrieu can vote yes.

These three flip-floppers made the difference between 57 votes and 60 votes. Also Tim Johnson has not learned his lesson from the 2004 race in his home state where Tom Daschle, then sitting Minority Leader, was ousted in which this issue was used. How about Ken Salazar from Colorado whose campaign focused on a major reform due to the agriculture issues in their state?

But last and certainly not least is Mark Pryor from Arkansas who constantly speaks about the harmful effects of the estate tax. Well he was a no as well.

It is one thing to vote no on the legislation – but it’s a totally different ball game when you vote to ensure that the Senate cannot even CONSIDER legislation these Senators promised to their constituents in the past.

True to form Harry Reid held his caucus tightly together and we won’t know the impact until after the fall elections.

[FreeKeys]

"Those who support the death tax generally do so not for economic reasons but for political ones. They want to make the tax code 'fair' by taxing away the lifetime wealth of others." -- William Beach

[b4its2late]

Many in the Senate could give two craps about us, the common folk. And actually, they enjoy crapping on us.

[FreeKeys]

The envy, hatefulness and careless short-sightedness which motivates this crap really PI$$E$ ME OFF!

[Red Badger]

Don't let the looters get your mind. That's all you've got.......

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The Death Tax punishes middle-class families while the real rich (Bennett, Gates, Soros) are exempt for it.

Plus the life insurance lobby is against the repeal too.

[prophetic]

The Death Tax punishes middle-class families while the real rich (Bennett, Gates, Soros) are exempt for it.

And let us not forget about the Kennedy's too!!

When momma Kennedy croaked some years back all of a sudden she was found to be a resident of FLORIDA and therefore exempt from the MASS death tax of around 70%.
A lot of hands were greased to have this deal done.

[PGalt]

Thanks for the ping & getting the information to a wider audience. Good article.

The United States of America Senate at work.

[FreeKeys]

Here's a 2004 article on how the number of millionaires is growing: http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/16/pf/millionaire_households/

[A CA Guy]

The Estate Tax should be substantially redirected toward paying the national debt since those dying played a part in making the debt.
Seems a big part of conservatism is paying off the debts we have.
Conservatives wouldn't be the kinds of folks to run away when the tab is due.
Conservatives wouldn't try and pass the bill to their grand children.

People with businesses and farms can do things in trusts to prevent losses of the family business, so the issue is, what can we do to redirect the Estate Tax to repayment of National Debt and what can we put in place to prevent politicians spending it more as it comes in.

As much as a third of all USA wealth could pass through the estate tax in the next thirty years and we should IMO not pass our debt to future generations.

Who are the liberals here that would suggest we run out on our bill?

[FreeKeys]

Who are the liberals here that would suggest we run out on our bill?

What you mean "we," paleface?

... With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.

We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not the government; the government is not "us." The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet.[3] Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. -- excerpted from Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays by Murray N. Rothbard (Auburn: Mises Institute, 2000 [1974]), pp. 55-88. extensively quoted HERE -- with even more on the "GOVERNMENT=SOCIETY FALLACY" HERE

[pigdog]

All the more reason to push for the FairTax - and the sooner the better - as it rids us of nonsense like the "estate" tax (among others) ... and the IRS, too!!