4 Senate "Democrats" prove they absolutely hate the poor

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was a cloture vote on a permanent complete repeal of the estate tax.  It failed 57-41. Baucus, Lincoln, and both Nelsons voted AYE.  2 Democrats were absent.

Roll call vote should be here, but it mysteriously disappeared.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00164

Can someone explain to me how Ben Nelson is a Democrat?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Repealing estate tax = helping and loving the poor

Your brain isn't functioning.

How the hell does it help the poor? Talk about a brain-dead attack.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was a cloture vote on a permanent complete repeal of the estate tax.  It failed 57-41. Baucus, Lincoln, and both Nelsons voted AYE.  2 Democrats were absent.

Roll call vote should be here, but it mysteriously disappeared.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00164

Can someone explain to me how Ben Nelson is a Democrat?

Yeah, that is a little f-ed up.  The estate tax brings in a few hundred million in revenue.  Wonder where they're gonna get it from.

Why is Ben Nelson a Democrat?  Is he becoming a Zell Miller?

It brings in more than that. There are 18 wealthy families pushing hard to permanently repeal it. Those 18 families alone stand to save $72 billion.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was a cloture vote on a permanent complete repeal of the estate tax.  It failed 57-41. Baucus, Lincoln, and both Nelsons voted AYE.  2 Democrats were absent.

Roll call vote should be here, but it mysteriously disappeared.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00164

Can someone explain to me how Ben Nelson is a Democrat?

Yeah, that is a little f-ed up.  The estate tax brings in a few hundred million in revenue.  Wonder where they're gonna get it from.

Why is Ben Nelson a Democrat?  Is he becoming a Zell Miller?

It brings in more than that. There are 18 wealthy families pushing hard to permanently repeal it. Those 18 families alone stand to save $72 billion.

And seeing other people make money and you not justifies stealing their money to give to you.  Aren't you honorable.

You claimed that getting rid of the estate tax helps the poor. Can you elaborate instead of mindlessly attacking me for wanting the rich to pay their fair shar?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Repealing estate tax = helping and loving the poor

Your brain isn't functioning.

How the hell does it help the poor? Talk about a brain-dead attack.

In some cases, the estates are small business assets, that employ a few people and do not produce huge wealth for the owners.  The owner dies, the heirs get hit with the tax and close or cut down on expenses, by firing employees.  More unemployment.

They can't be too small a business or they won't be taxed. Anything under $2 million for an individual or $4 million for a couple is completely untaxed.  Nice try at right-wing propaganda, but it failed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It helps the poor by helping the rest of society.

The richest 0.1% is not the rest of society.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think there should definitely be a higher exemption amount, and it should be indexed to inflation.

As always with the federal tax code, there is an element of regional discrimination here.  With home values in this part of the country, an estate of $1 million + is not at all unusual here, even for a person who lived a relatively modest life.  In this section of the country, a net worth of $1-2 million late in life is that of an upper middle class person, not a wealthy one.

This tax should be hitting the truly wealthy, not the upper middle class.  I'd put an exemption amount of $5-10 million on it.  That would easily rope in the 18 families that jfern is talking about.

I don't necessarily support full repeal of the tax for practical reasons.  I'd much sooner lower taxes on working people given the choice, despite the fact that I have some philosophical problems with the estate tax.  Still, in many ways, the government facilitates tax-free inheritance, through mechanisms like adjusted basis, which allows those who inherit real estate to set their tax basis at the value the property had the time of inheritance, and thereby avoid the tax on the increase in value from the time the decedant (sp?) purchased the property.

Housing prices are likely higher where I live than where you live, and $2 million is still not middle class. Middle class people can't afford mortgage payments of over $100,000 a year. In places like Mill Valley, CA, only the truly rich can afford to buy.

You are correct that areas like the bay area can get screwed over by failing to take into account cost of living, but that's a can of worms the Republican party will never open.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think there should definitely be a higher exemption amount, and it should be indexed to inflation.

As always with the federal tax code, there is an element of regional discrimination here.  With home values in this part of the country, an estate of $1 million + is not at all unusual here, even for a person who lived a relatively modest life.  In this section of the country, a net worth of $1-2 million late in life is that of an upper middle class person, not a wealthy one.

This tax should be hitting the truly wealthy, not the upper middle class.  I'd put an exemption amount of $5-10 million on it.  That would easily rope in the 18 families that jfern is talking about.

I don't necessarily support full repeal of the tax for practical reasons.  I'd much sooner lower taxes on working people given the choice, despite the fact that I have some philosophical problems with the estate tax.  Still, in many ways, the government facilitates tax-free inheritance, through mechanisms like adjusted basis, which allows those who inherit real estate to set their tax basis at the value the property had the time of inheritance, and thereby avoid the tax on the increase in value from the time the decedant (sp?) purchased the property.

Housing prices are likely higher where I live than where you live, and $2 million is still not middle class. Middle class people can't afford mortgage payments of over $100,000 a year. In places like Mill Valley, CA, only the truly rich can afford to buy.

What you're forgetting is that the people currently dying didn't buy at today's prices.  Many neighborhoods with sky-high prices were once modest middle class neighborhoods with affordable prices, and many of the people currently living in those neighborhoods are holdovers from that period.  They are wealthy only on paper, and they didn't necessarily have a high income or live a particularly lavish life.  These are not the sort of people who should get hit with an inheritance tax when they pass on.

Some people win the lottery too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

Just because someone gets lucky doesn't mean that we should change the tax laws just for them.

The exemption is $2 million for an individual, $4 for a couple, and then you pay taxes on the value over that. I fail to see how this is at all unreasonable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

Just because someone gets lucky doesn't mean that we should change the tax laws just for them.

The exemption is $2 million for an individual, $4 for a couple, and then you pay taxes on the value over that. I fail to see how this is at all unreasonable.

I don't think you understand my point.  Maybe you will when you get past living on a government stipend, if ever.

WTF are you talking about? I understand damn well what housing values are around here, and they're a lot higher than in CT, and I still see no need for people to get over $4 million tax free at a time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And I simply see no reason that society (including YOU) should take MY STUFF that belongs to MY FAMILY after I die.

Well it's no surprise that the apartheid supporter supports having a permanent landed aristocracy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

Well, soon enough no one will be able to steal Paris Hilton's hard earned money.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

People should quite obviously not be taxed for any sort of inheritance they want to leave for their children. Any sort of tax on inheritance is little more then legalized theft.

Well, soon enough no one will be able to steal Paris Hilton's hard earned money.

Good. If her parents want to leave her that money that is their absolute right to do so. Who are you to tell them what they can leave her? And what does it matter whether she works or doesn't work? That doesn't justify legalized theft. Should a person with a junker car be able to steal the neighbors cadillac just because the poor guy thinks the neighbor didn't "earn" the caddy? Hell No! Theft is theft.

Well, we'll see if Paris Hilton's fans in Congress pass the Paris Hilton tax cut.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some people win the lottery too.

meaning......??

Just because someone gets lucky doesn't mean that we should change the tax laws just for them.

The exemption is $2 million for an individual, $4 for a couple, and then you pay taxes on the value over that. I fail to see how this is at all unreasonable.

The local middle aged couple that owns the dry cleaning store on Broad might very well be one of those with $4 million in assets.  Maybe they have a nice house in the suburbs that they've saved up for 20 years to pay, but they's been showing up to work six days a week for the last 20 years to get it, or more likely sent their kids to college.

These are not exactly hereditary peers.

Do you have any idea how much net worth is tied up even in a small business?  If you are talking about something like a single owner small (10-15 employee) construction company, you are easily talking about more than $4 Million in equipment and supplies.  One statistic I saw was that the average is $13 million in assets for a small company.

Take something like a mini-mart.  The physical plant, and inventory, is more than $4 million.  Same with a mechanic that owns a repair shop.  That is all counted.

Same with farmers; they might be sitting on top of $10 million dollars worth of land, but they have huge costs in maintaining it.

These people are not the idle rich.  These are hard working, oven not particularly well educated, not high living, people.

I thought the Democratic party was suppose to be the working man's friend; I guess not.

Nice try, but

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, provide a real example, or stop spreading your propaganda.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I support calling it income and taxing it at the appropriate rate.

^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, that's the best overall way to look at it. I'd support eliminating the estate tax if it was simply rolled into the regular tax structure.

I have no problem treating it as income if the heir sells it.  He takes it over he's technically going to "inherit" several million dollars.  He runs the business, he doesn't see a penny of it; it is all tied up in the equipment and assets of the business.

The current inheritance tax says, in effect, sell the business to pay taxes.

The numbers don't back up your propaganda.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I thought the Democratic party was suppose to be the working man's friend; I guess not.

That hasn't been the case for a very long time.  They stopped being the working man's friend around the time they started advocating high taxes on the middle class, racial preferences, forced busing, and soft treatment of criminals.

Haha, we're niot the working man's friend because we support taxing Paris Hilton and other extremely rich people's estate, instead of letting them get all the assetts without paying a dime. Hilarious.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I thought the Democratic party was suppose to be the working man's friend; I guess not.

That hasn't been the case for a very long time.  They stopped being the working man's friend around the time they started advocating high taxes on the middle class, racial preferences, forced busing, and soft treatment of criminals.

Haha, we're niot the working man's friend because we support taxing Paris Hilton and other extremely rich people's estate, instead of letting them get all the assetts without paying a dime. Hilarious.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything about Paris Hilton.  Nice dodge.

How am I dodging? This bill would have permanently and completely repealed the estate tax. I have documented statistics on how few "small businesses" this affects, and have asked if you can name a single one that had to be sold. Meanwhile all I get back lying right-wing propaganda.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You know, I wish they had voted differently. But JFern, the thing you never get is that these senators don't represent you or me or the left wing of the Democratic Party; they represent the people of their state and likely acted accordingly.

The estate tax affects under a percent of estates. These "Democrats" are not representing their states.

You know, I wish they had voted differently. But JFern, the thing you never get is that these senators don't represent you or me or the left wing of the Democratic Party; they represent the people of their state and likely acted accordingly.

True, plus their votes didn't affect the outcome of the legislation. If they have to make votes I don't agree with in order to get reelected, and those votes don't actually affect the passage of any bills, I'd much rather have that than have them vote the "right" way and lose their bid for reelection as a result.

These guys voted for cloture on a permanent repeal of all estate taxes. Next, they'll probably have a bill that reduces estate tax revenue by 90%, call it a comprimise bill and get the votes of these anti-poor extremists plus a few more DINOs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, provide a real example, or stop spreading your propaganda.

Well, the uber-liberal Washington Post does provide some:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501360.html

Note that in 2000, one-third closed.  That does not take into account how many had to lay off or fire employees, nor how many had to decide to cancel plans for expansion or hiring more employees.

Farming is less problematic, where less than 10% had to be sold.

Quick question, I've you were inherit a business with $10,000,000 in assets, how much more money is now in your bank account?

So where's the single real example of the family farm? Oh, BTW, when that article was written the estate tax exemption was only $675,000. The Democratic plan was to permantly increase that to $2 million. The Republican plan that was passed will have it decrease to $1 million in 2010, so that they could claim that it didn't cost trillions of dollars.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Again, this does not affect the over 99% of estates that are less than $2 million for individuals or $4 million for couples.

And if you do inheirit some farm or something that doesn't have significant liquid assetts, there are these things called mortgages.

There has not been shown to be a single case of a family farm that had to be sold due to the estate tax. Obviously most family farms aren't worth $2-4 million.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You know, I wish they had voted differently. But JFern, the thing you never get is that these senators don't represent you or me or the left wing of the Democratic Party; they represent the people of their state and likely acted accordingly.

The estate tax affects under a percent of estates. These "Democrats" are not representing their states.

So, if it doesn't affect you, you must be for it? If you are a man and won't be getting an abortion, you must be against abortion?

If 99% of people in a state wanted this, I assure you, the Senator would have voted for it.

They would if they knew that less than 0.5% of estates were affected instead of getting all of their information from the so called media and other Republican propaganda organizations.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You know, I wish they had voted differently. But JFern, the thing you never get is that these senators don't represent you or me or the left wing of the Democratic Party; they represent the people of their state and likely acted accordingly.

The estate tax affects under a percent of estates. These "Democrats" are not representing their states.

So, if it doesn't affect you, you must be for it? If you are a man and won't be getting an abortion, you must be against abortion?

If 99% of people in a state wanted this, I assure you, the Senator would have voted for it.

They would if they knew that less than 0.5% of estates were affected instead of getting all of their information from the so called media and other Republican propaganda organizations.

Agreed, but that still does not protect those small family businesses (about one third) and farms (about one tenth) that fall under the tax.  The small business numbers were particularly shocking.

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

So, my family's business would potentially be one of the 135 small businesses that would be effected by the estate tax.  I find that hard to believe.

Oh wait... 

Except you're not taking into account that most small family businesses fear the estate tax so much, they use the many and various loopholes provided to them in the tax code to avoid paying hardly any estate tax whatsoever.  Since you've spent your time in college or graduate school or posting on the Internet, or whatever the hell else you do and not out in the real world, I don't blame you for not interacting with these businesses so you know what their concerns.

I've said that I'm not opposed to raising the exemption and tightening the loopholes, so that you might be able to get some money (which you're not presently doing) out of the truly rich families to fund more government programs.  But now I'm done being nice. 

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Wouldn't you like to be able to get your filthy leftist, stink-ridden hands on my family's money, you socialist pig?  I'm sure that would fit your class-warfare ideals to a tee, jackass.

Have a nice day. 

Well, gosh, your post totally convinced me that you rich people deserve to not pay a dime in taxes.,

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

Well, actually, the data is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060501360.html

Interestingly, it is the same figures that your cite notes.



Now, six years ago, in 2000, 123 farms and 135 businesses had assets over $2 million, but in those six years, assets have increased.  Also keep in mind that the minimums are not indexed for inflation, so as time goes on more will fall under this.

Again we the policy of the new Democratic Party, screw over the farmer and small  businesses.

Well, there's the problem with your data. My data says that those 1659 farms and 485 businesses are the only ones that would have to pay any taxes with a $675,000 exemption. It does not  that they'd be forced to sell them, and may I remind you that the exemption is now $2 million for individuals and $4 million for couples?

No, from the 2000 data, there were only 123 farms and 135 small businesses over the $2 million threshold. Couples currently get $4 million tax free.
http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm

So, my family's business would potentially be one of the 135 small businesses that would be effected by the estate tax.  I find that hard to believe.

Oh wait... 

Except you're not taking into account that most small family businesses fear the estate tax so much, they use the many and various loopholes provided to them in the tax code to avoid paying hardly any estate tax whatsoever.  Since you've spent your time in college or graduate school or posting on the Internet, or whatever the hell else you do and not out in the real world, I don't blame you for not interacting with these businesses so you know what their concerns.

I've said that I'm not opposed to raising the exemption and tightening the loopholes, so that you might be able to get some money (which you're not presently doing) out of the truly rich families to fund more government programs.  But now I'm done being nice. 

My family is one of those "small businesses" that has assets +$4 million dollars and will pay no income tax under current estate tax laws, regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

Wouldn't you like to be able to get your filthy leftist, stink-ridden hands on my family's money, you socialist pig?  I'm sure that would fit your class-warfare ideals to a tee, jackass.

Have a nice day. 

You also have to remember that the businesses effected are only those where the owner dies.  So over ten years that, on average, would effect 1,340 small businesses.

Further, as noted in some of the links, some farmer are donating their land to conservation groups, just to prevent from being developed; they are not in those statistics, but it still takes farmland out of production.  The cannot afford to pay the taxes so they give it away.

Let's face it the new Democrats favor hurting farmers, small businesses, food production, and oppose open spaces.  That's a real winning policy.

And Sam, tell us how you really feel next time. 

No, we support helping them by having universal health care. The high costs of health care are really hurting small businesses.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, there's the problem with your data. My data says that those 1659 farms and 485 businesses are the only ones that would have to pay any taxes with a $675,000 exemption. It does not  that they'd be forced to sell them, and may I remind you that the exemption is now $2 million for individuals and $4 million for couples?
regardless of whether it's $4 million or $675,000.

We don't have the data from 2006.  What your saying is that if these people had the same assets and died six years later, they wouldn't have to pay it now.  To real problems with that theory:

1.  The value of assets tend to increase over time.  You don't take that into account and the you can't revive the people after six years.  Some might have physical assets, like land, that was worth $1,000,000 in 2000 and it might be worth $3,000,000 today, even though they have not made any improvements to it.

This is especially true when areas near existing farmland are developed.  Remember open spaces?  Under what you think is good, that will be all you can do, remember them.

2.  The population is getting older and is approaching death more quickly.  The number of people subject to this tax will be increasing.  It's called "demographics."

1. Real estate sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down. I will concede that things would be worth about 20% more because of inflation, but that's not a huge difference.

2. The death rate is DECREASING.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005131.html