Posted on 12/10/2007 11:38:09 AM PST by Dane
Death and Whoopi's Taxes December 10, 2007; Page A18
We don't normally look to Tinsel Town liberals for insights on U.S. tax policy, but Whoopi Goldberg's comments on the estate tax last week deserve more attention.
During a discussion of Republican Presidential candidates on ABC's "The View," which the comedian co-hosts, Ms. Goldberg said, "I'd like somebody to get rid of the death tax. That's what I want. I don't want to get taxed just because I died." The studio audience started applauding, but she wasn't done. "I just don't think it's right," she continued. "If I give something to my kid, I already paid the tax. Why should I have to pay it again because I died?"
Back in 2001, before President Bush signed estate tax reform into law, the death duty topped off at 55% on estates worth more than $3 million. Today the top federal rate is 45% with an exemption of $2 million, and under current law the rate falls to zero in 2010. In 2011, however, the death tax is resurrected, with the top rate restored to 55% and the exemption set at $1 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Whoopi, despite some of her major leftist views and personal abortion history, does seem to tend towards a fiscal and economic conservatism at times. It’s not the first time she has.
You’re correct. She’s been on Sean Hannity’s radio show a few times and made some level of sense.
We watch it because it comes on after the Local AM Northwest and before Martha.
I am running around doing work stuff so the View is on in that time space.
To the point I agree 100% with your post and to add to that the other black woman is adament about her Christian Views and keeping Govt out of her parental teachings as a Christian.
We watched when Ron Paul was on and that was very frustrating to have Joy B take over the whole segment with her pro choice rant so bad that Ron Paul could barely get a word in.
Seems he was trying to explain his pro life veiw but who knows she ranted so loud and long.
Given the existing “expiring” tax law the Gates found another tax that is good for you but not for them. They are arranging to give the money to Foundations that they will control and thus keep the money out of reach of the big spenders in Congress.
They will control where the money goes and to whom and pay the salaries they choose and take all the credit and get sucked up to for it.............
You’re right.
C'mon, girl! We're pulling for you!
I believe Mr. Buffett, long time advocate of the Estate Tax, recently gave away a substancial amount of his fortune to charitable (assumedly tax free) donations...in advance of his meeting with a Mr. G. Reaper.
Not exactly part of the Democratics' plan.
Until that moment she never realized she was one of the evil rich and would actually be subject to the death tax.
It didn't change her mind.
Interesting story. If the kids were present it would have been funny to ask them how they felt too.
If Whoopi ‘gets it’ why is she a tax and spend liberal?
She doesn’t ‘get it’ at all.
the only thing relearned here is she’s an idiot politically.
As the book read, you can never win an argument or change anyone’s mind. So don’t bother. - just remind them of one fact.
The same one that I use to annoy my liberal relatives in Pa. to no end.
| taxes don’t hurt the rich - they keep you from becoming rich |
If the politicians really support the estate tax, they should get rid of all exemptions, outlaw trust funds and all the loopholes to avoid paying the tax.
“Here is why. The ultra wealthy and exceptionally powerful corporate titans view the death tax as a vehicle to purchase businesses and assets at greatly reduced prices. When the busines owner dies, the family has to pay a huge sum, and often to raise it they have to sell that which brought them wealth to begin with.
Thats how Warren Buffett has become so wealthy. Snapping up businesses at discounted prices because of forced sales.”
I thought Buffet offered this option to business owners before they die. Buy the business, but let the family still run it.
A lot of this nonsense could be avoided if parents would just give with a warm hand.
The idea that the estate tax forces a person to "pay twice" is based on the questionable assumption that only income should be taxed. It can be argued that income should be taxed to help pay for those government institutions which make it possible for people to earn incomes. However, many of those institutions likewise help people to maintain wealth. For example, in a country with no police, an wealthy individual would likely need to hire their own security force. Hence, there is a valid argument for some sort of tax on wealth.
Property taxes are an existing tax on a certain type of wealth. Taxing all other wealth on a yearly basis, however, would require some additional mechanism to calculate and report that wealth. Taxing wealth just at the end of a person's life, on the other hand, is much more efficient. There needs to be an accounting of the estate anyhow, at least if there are multiple beneficiaries. Hence, the current estate tax may be the most efficient way to tax general wealth. However, it could arguably be improved by turning it into a "levy on inheritance" as suggested in an Economist article titled The case for death duties.
On the topic of Buffett, I suspect that he would have contributed to the exact same charities even if there were no deduction for charity. The only difference is that he may have lessened the amount of the charity by the amount that needed to be paid in taxes. In fact, I have wondered before if it might be better if, instead of allowing a deduction for charity, the government simply matched a portion of people's reported contributions. The matching could be set such that charities receive the same total contributions. However, there would likely be much less cheating under such a system. In any case, you can't blame Buffett for using the laws as they are currently written to maximize his charitable contributions. If people don't like the deduction for charities, they would do better to push for its abolishment than to criticize all those you use it.
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.