4 Senate "Democrats" prove they absolutely hate the poor

[dazzleman]

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.

That could be a perfect solution, in a sense, because no tax would be owed unless the business was sold.  Therefore, nobody would have to break up a business to pay their inheritance tax.

In the case of cash inherited, perhaps the tax could be spread over several years, in order to lower the effective rate somewhat.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[dazzleman]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[TomC]

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.

[Nym90]

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.

Except that most Democrats don't support those things today, so it doesn't really make any more sense than if I argued that Republicans were racist or sexist simply because the few people who support forced segregation or whatnot tend to be Republican. Obviously both sides have their extremists, and both sets of extremists have many repulsive views, but the vast majority of both parties are comprised of good reasonable people.

I feel that overall Democratic policies (at least moderate Democratic policies) benefit the poor and middle class and small business more, and benefit the wealthy more in the long run too by strengthening the economy, though they usually hurt the wealthy and big business in the short term.

Yeah, I know you don't agree, I just have this compulsion to not let things like this stand unrefuted.

[Nym90]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[dazzleman]

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.

Except that most Democrats don't support those things today, so it doesn't really make any more sense than if I argued that Republicans were racist or sexist simply because the few people who support forced segregation or whatnot tend to be Republican. Obviously both sides have their extremists, and both sets of extremists have many repulsive views, but the vast majority of both parties are comprised of good reasonable people.

I feel that overall Democratic policies (at least moderate Democratic policies) benefit the poor and middle class and small business more, and benefit the wealthy more in the long run too by strengthening the economy, though they usually hurt the wealthy and big business in the short term.

Yeah, I know you don't agree, I just have this compulsion to not let things like this stand unrefuted.

What do you mean they don't support these things?  Do you read the newspapers?  Seriously.  Do you mean to tell me the Democrats don't support racial preferences or higher taxes?  And that the liberal wing is not highly sympathetic to criminals?  They even still support forced busing in theory; it's just that now there's no practical way to do it since the white middle class has been driven out of the areas where they successfully implemented this policy.

You should only know how the liberal Democrats in the New York State assembly block any bill that is intended to crack down on crime.  There must be a very different Democratic party out in Michigan than there is around here.

[J. J.]

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?

[Nym90]

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.

Well, hopefully such a bill won't pass; if it does, and the votes of Democrats make the difference, then I will agree with you. But in the meantime, they can vote however they have to in order to get reelected and thus help the Democrats win back control of the Senate, so long as it doesn't make the difference in the outcome of the overall vote, and it doesn't bother me too much.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[MaC]

4 democrats=FF

[Nym90]

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.

Except that most Democrats don't support those things today, so it doesn't really make any more sense than if I argued that Republicans were racist or sexist simply because the few people who support forced segregation or whatnot tend to be Republican. Obviously both sides have their extremists, and both sets of extremists have many repulsive views, but the vast majority of both parties are comprised of good reasonable people.

I feel that overall Democratic policies (at least moderate Democratic policies) benefit the poor and middle class and small business more, and benefit the wealthy more in the long run too by strengthening the economy, though they usually hurt the wealthy and big business in the short term.

Yeah, I know you don't agree, I just have this compulsion to not let things like this stand unrefuted.

What do you mean they don't support these things?  Do you read the newspapers?  Seriously.  Do you mean to tell me the Democrats don't support racial preferences or higher taxes?  And that the liberal wing is not highly sympathetic to criminals?  They even still support forced busing in theory; it's just that now there's no practical way to do it since the white middle class has been driven out of the areas where they successfully implemented this policy.

You should only know how the liberal Democrats in the New York State assembly block any bill that is intended to crack down on crime.  There must be a very different Democratic party out in Michigan than there is around here.

It is possible that some of these things may be supported by a majority of liberals, although even that is debateable. Obviously Connecticut and New York Democrats are more liberal than those in Michigan, that's true, and there are local differences.

But even if a majority of liberals did support them, liberals are still only about half or less of the Democratic party as a whole, so I think my statement that a majority of Democrats don't support these things still holds true.

Most Democrats certainly don't support a middle class tax increase, I certainly don't think the majority would support busing, the majority wouldn't support going soft on criminals (I guess it depends on how you define "soft" of course, but I'm not seeing any major push to decrease criminal sentences or anything like that..most Democrats don't even support complete elimination of the death penalty even if you consider that position as being soft on crime, which is of course itself debateable given the moral implications and other considerations involved).

Affirmative action is a policy which has strong support within a small part of the Democratic party, and certainly is not actively supported by most within the party; it's certainly not something that I've heard anyone seriously propose increasing.

Obviously some poll numbers on these things would be nice to see as I'm not aware of any recent such polls, but I think the things I've said are reasonable.

[J. J.]

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.

You'll note that the site cited 138 family farms, in one year; and the article was written on June 6 of this year.  That's 2006.  They use 2000 figures for some reason.

In case you've forgotten, we entered into a recession in 2001 and had a little thing called 9/11, which really slowed down the economy.  We're also dealing with an aging population, at about the same time

Look, I'm not in favor of abolishing it and certainly, when the assets of the business are sold. but there clearly needs to be better protection for those working people that the Democratic party use to claim to support.  The new motto for the Democratic Party could be "Work hard, and screw your kids on taxes," if they really don't support some reform of this.

That said, something like increased value in stocks could be taxed, because these (in most cases) is not a business asset.

[Richard]

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

Me, me, me

Dave

Send me $1,000 RIGHT NOW.  What?  No?  Me me me me me.  Bastard.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, the repeal of the estate tax will hurt the middle class.

Suppose the parents bought a hoiuse for $10,000 that is now worth $210,000 and they have total assets that are low enough to not have to pay the estate tax.  Under current law, when they die, the basis price of the house for the capital gains tax is increased to $210,000.  With the estate tax repeal, it remains $10,000 so when it is sold, the heirs will get socked with a capital gains tax on the sale of $30,000 ($40,000 if the reduction in the capital gains tax is not made permanent).

I would much rather see the capital gains tax eliminated than the estate tax.  It creates a lot of useless accounting rigamarole and record keeping for the sole purpose of satisfying the tax, and that's without even considering the other economic benefits of its elimination and/or reduction.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

Me, me, me

Dave

Send me $1,000 RIGHT NOW.  What?  No?  Me me me me me.  Bastard.

If I had $1,000 and thought you needed it, then I might consider it

Dave

[J. J.]

Actually, the repeal of the estate tax will hurt the middle class.

Suppose the parents bought a hoiuse for $10,000 that is now worth $210,000 and they have total assets that are low enough to not have to pay the estate tax.  Under current law, when they die, the basis price of the house for the capital gains tax is increased to $210,000.  With the estate tax repeal, it remains $10,000 so when it is sold, the heirs will get socked with a capital gains tax on the sale of $30,000 ($40,000 if the reduction in the capital gains tax is not made permanent).

I would much rather see the capital gains tax eliminated than the estate tax.  It creates a lot of useless accounting rigamarole and record keeping for the sole purpose of satisfying the tax, and that's without even considering the other economic benefits of its elimination and/or reduction.

Actually, I have less of a problem with using capital gains taxes in these cases.  That is a tax when the asset is sold and assumes that the seller gets a nice hunk of cash.

Even in businesses, if the heir sells it, fine, that is a capital gain.  The heir is no longer using the assets for the benefit of job creation, at least in that business.

Interestingly, the question I asked was never answered.  That question was, "...you were inherit a business with $10,000,000 in assets, how much more money is now in your bank account?"  That answer is zero.

[Inverted Things]

I am of the belief that hard work should absolutely be rewarded. I'd much rather have the estate tax than the income tax for that reason. Abolishing the estate tax will probably end up raising other tax rates, which will tax hard work in some form (i.e. income tax, social security, etc.).

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why does jfraud bitch about dems hating the poor/> I mean we've got police and prisons to handle them so its not like income inequality will effect those of us who matteR(middle class and up).

[Q]

I didn't expect this from someone like Blanche Lincoln.

Hmm... running for Vice President?

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Richard]

Tyranny by the majority/government.  No wonder you don't want your own citizens to protect their own property.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

as far as I'm concerned the majority can go fu(k itself. If the majority doesn't like me having more money then them or smoking hash or partying then they can STFU.