During his last run for the presidency, in 1999, McCain supported the drilling moratorium, and he scolded the "special interests in Washington" that sought offshore drilling leases. Yesterday, he announced that those very same "moratoria should be lifted" and proposed incentives for the states "in the form of tangible financial rewards, if the states decide to lift those moratoriums."Flip Flop.
John McCain on the Estate Tax on the Senate floor in June of 2006:
Senator McCain, June of this year:In his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the creation of a federal inheritance tax . Roosevelt explained: 'The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.' Additionally, in a 1907 speech he said: 'Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.' He noted, however, that such taxation should 'be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.'
I agree with President Roosevelt, and I remain opposed to full repeal of the estate tax."
Another of my disagreements with Senator Obama concerns the estate tax, which he proposes to increase to a top rate of 55 percent. The estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books, and the first step to reform is to keep it predictable and keep it low. After a lifetime building up a business, and paying taxes on every dollar that business earns, that asset should not be subjected to a confiscatory tax.I mean if we're gonna talk flip-flops, let's talk flip flops.
More to come.
Born on this day: Gustav Mahler, Ringo Starr, David McCullough and my brother's future sister-in-law. Happy Birthday, all!
21 comments:
I think Obama is okay with keeping the estate tax exemption at $3.5 million, which means that everything above that would be taxed at whatever rate it ends up at. If the rate is 55%, the effective rate won't be 55% since $3.5 million is tax free.
Answer me this neocons, when Warren Buffet, without a doubt one of the smartest businessman of our time, argues against repealing the death tax, and he has more wealth than anyone and therefore would be taxed more than most anyone, what are your arguments for repealing the estate tax?
Mr. Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, told the Senate Finance Committee that advocates of repeal were “dead wrong” to call the tax a “death tax.”
It would be more appropriate to call it a “death present,” Mr. Buffett, 77, said. “A meaningful estate tax is needed to prevent our democracy from becoming a dynastic plutocracy.”
John K: You got to be kidding. LMAO Its called a death tax because it is tax you pay after you die. And Warren Buffet could care less what happens to his income after he dies. He gave all his nephews and nieces a couple million and said that is it, you are on your own. Warren Buffet believes everyone earns their own way thru life which is why he really doesn't care what happens to his wealth after he dies. LMAO remarkable at how dumb the left is how they think they can spin anything. LOL
John K: But the biggest Hussein Obama flip flop is coming. He ain't pulling out of Iraq. What do you lefties do then? Nothing! I told you, the left is not opposed to the war in Iraq, they just want credit for it. LOL LOL And in Feb 2009, regardless of who is President, I can't wait for the cabal of Schumer/Pelosi/Reid to say they supported the war in Iraq all along and knew it was the right thing to do. Murtha has already flipped. LMAO. Bush was right.
The term "death tax" is yet another example of Republican "re-branding".
Guess what? Nobody pays taxes when they die. When Conrad Hilton shuffles off this moral coil, he will not pay any taxes. However his granddaughter Paris will pay taxes on the millions she will inherit--money she did nothing to earn other than being born into a wealthy family.
Born on this day: Gustav Mahler, Ringo Starr, David McCullough and my brother's future sister-in-law.
NP: Mahler Symphony No. 1 ("Titan") Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra conducted by Raphael Kubelik. Next up in the queue: The Beatles "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".
I'm currently 400 pages into David McCullough's biography of John Adams (it's a pretty good read but McCullough, like a lot of biographers, has a tendency to downplay his subject's flaws and over-emphasize the flaws of others--in this case, McCullough seems to go out of his way to denigrate Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin).
John K: Yo, Dave stop taking financial advice from the homeless guy under the bridge. You should have paid attention in school instead of hugging trees. (Sidebar--I used to pee on the trees LOL LOL)
In this State after you die your income is annualized (which means you take what you made so far and extrapolate it as if you had actually worked for an entire year) and pay taxes on that income. Which means even if you are in the grave, the State of Pa figures you earned income and they want the taxes on that.
As for the federal govt, yes you do pay taxes on your wealth after you die. Start by checking the instructions for form 1041 and you will see what taxes you pay on an estate.
Man are you left wingers dumb. Stop hugging trees and start living in the real world.
"Guess what? Nobody pays taxes when they die. When Conrad Hilton shuffles off this moral coil, he will not pay any taxes. However his granddaughter Paris will pay taxes on the millions she will inherit--money she did nothing to earn other than being born into a wealthy family."
So freaking what?! Why should she have to pay taxes on that money? Why should the government have the right to tax an estate that was taxed repeatedly as it was accumulated? Wealth redistribution is property theft. Period. If you want to help the poor and less fortunate, do it through personal initiative and/or charitable organizations. Don't steal from people just because you think it's horribly unfair that they're rich and other people aren't. Take your stinking paws off my property, you damn dirty socialists!
John K wrote, "Warren Buffet believes everyone earns their own way thru life which is why he really doesn't care what happens to his wealth after he dies."
Isn't that the core of Republican conservatism? How can John K. and the other conservatives argue against that??
What Warren Buffet chooses to do with his estate is his prerogative. If he relinquishes that prerogative to the State, so be it. It's still his choice, though.
A bequest to a son or daughter or nephew or uncle is a transaction, as is hiring a neighbor to mow your lawn or paying a company to provide cable television service. The recipient of inheritance should be treated no more favorably by our tax code than the person who works for money. The money I use to pay a teenaged lawnmower was taxed, too . . . why should that be treated any worse than the money that young person receives as a gift from someone who has died?
For just about every reason other than right-wing ideology, acquisition by inheritance should be taxed at a rate at least as great as acquisition by work.
The problem is that the gov't taxed the estate as it was being acquired. Why should the gov't get another cut (assuming they have the right to any). BTW, income tax is theft of the fruits of labor. However, if everyone were robbed at the same rate at least it'd be fair. Furthermore, bequeathing all or part of an estate is essentially a gift. Should every check Grandma sends for birthdays be taxed, too?
Explain to me how the State has any right to the fruits of my labors. Then explain how it has the right to tax a gift I leave to my progeny.
Eric W., is any level of taxation okay? Should there be no taxation at all? (I'm guessing that's where your preference would fall). So how do roads get built and maintained? How do we defend our country from the terrorists? Must we all pay for our own private roads and private militias?
Is there any level of taxation that is fair in your mind?
Just asking...
Hey John K.
So, Maliki has demanded a timeline for withdrawal.
Last year Bush said if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, we'd comply.
So what's he waiting for?
As for theft of the fruits of labor, let's talk about how long working people have been getting screwed with low wages. Wealthy interests have been redistributing the fruits of hardworking Americans' labor right in to their back pocket.
Attacking the Estate Tax is equivalent to supporting the establishment of a monied aristocracy.
"Is there any level of taxation that is fair in your mind?"
If there must be an income tax, it should be a single rate applied to everyone, with a minimum of exemptions. A graduated income tax would not be needed if loopholes were closed.
I'd rather, though, if taxes were limited to tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes. For instance, if you use a road, you should help pay for its upkeep. Even those who never drive would pay the tax, though indirectly. The goods we buy would be more expensive as the cost of road taxes is passed on to consumers. If you consume less, you are taxed less. If you're concerned about the effect of taxes on necessities hurting the poor, do what PA does and leave food and clothing tax-free. The US did fine without an income tax until 1913. If gov't spending is kept low, income tax revenue shouldn't be needed.
But Eric, consumption taxes or VATs necessarily place a greater burden on those who are less off because they are spending all of the money they earn. The taxing schema you outline does not involve any taxation on money earned through savings and investments. Those that are more well off will see their effective tax rate reduced because significant portions of their incomes will not be spent.
I don't disagree with you that our tax code has way to many loopholes and favors many special interests. I am totally in favor of reducing those to a minimum. But a VAT is not the way to go.
One way to address taxation would be to collect a per-block fee (a nickel, perhaps?) for use of the roads, to be remitted at each intersection. Extra fees could be collected for each crossing of a bridge or use of an elevated roadway. One could also be taxed for each block of public sidewalk used, in the same manner (perhaps at a penny for each block or fraction thereof). That would be unusually fair, at least from some perspectives, but the transaction costs (direct and indirect) would strike most as prohibitive. If we were to employ this method to public toilets, water fountains, use of fire or police services, and so on, the transaction costs would become comical. For this reason, most people find a government funded by user fees to be a simplistic notion.
Most Americans appear to accept the income tax as a reasonable system, with pay-as-you go aspects and tradeoffs between regressive and progressive taxation, transaction costs and ease of administration. This system appears to have enabled the United States to build a sturdy country, especially since the income tax was introduced.
I see no persuasive distinction that favors taxation of money (on which I paid taxes) earned by my lawnmowing neighbor at a rate higher than that assessed on money (on which I paid taxes) inherited by my nephew or my son. Each transfer of wealth constitutes a transaction involving money already taxed. The principal distinction, from my perspective, is that one recipient earned his money and the other did not.
"The taxing schema you outline does not involve any taxation on money earned through savings and investments. Those that are more well off will see their effective tax rate reduced because significant portions of their incomes will not be spent."
I should think encouraging saving is a good thing. Now that the housing bubble has burst, and the credit debt bubble is about to burst, there's plenty of evidence of what's wrong with a consumption-driven economy.
"I see no persuasive distinction that favors taxation of money (on which I paid taxes) earned by my lawnmowing neighbor at a rate higher than that assessed on money (on which I paid taxes) inherited by my nephew or my son. Each transfer of wealth constitutes a transaction involving money already taxed. The principal distinction, from my perspective, is that one recipient earned his money and the other did not."
I still have yet to see a convincing argument that the State has a right to the fruits of labor, much less off the top.
States are not bestowed taxes as inalienable or God-give rights Eric. They are the method we choose as a society to fund those projects that are not best funded individually. These are the institutions that benefit us all and are therefore worthy of shared funding. That's the concept.
But hey, if you don't dig that, by all means, start up your own society on an island somewhere and pay for all of that stuff yourself. In the mean time, I'd appreciate you not driving on the roads we paid for, going to the schools we funded, benefiting from the police and fire service we all have contributed to, and so on.
Your perspective is a useful one, just don't take it to such an extreme.
John K: I have never seen a govt that doesn't skim from the top. If the govt used money to fund roads that we drive and police and fire that we use then there would be no problem. But the govt, as evidence in how the City of Pittsburgh operates, funds items not needed by the general public first and the necessary items last.
By the way, if we all use the roads, fire and police then we all should be paying some sort of tax for that use. Exactly what tax does a person demanding EITC pay for the use of that services?
"States are not bestowed [income] taxes as inalienable or God-give rights Eric. They are the method we choose as a society to fund those projects that are not best funded individually. These are the institutions that benefit us all and are therefore worthy of shared funding. That's the concept."
Yes, income taxation is a chosen method of funding projects. It's by no means the best. If it were abolished, society wouldn't grind to a halt. The gov't would just have a smaller budget and wouldn't be able to fund expensive, undeclared, and pointless wars. Also:
1) I'd tolerate a flat tax.
2) I'm fairly certain income taxes don't pay for roads, bridges, etc mentioned by infinonymous. I could be wrong, though. Anyone? Bueller?
3) There are too many anonymous posters to keep track of. How hard is it to pick a pseudonym? ;)
I'm going to do something scary and agree with John K. Politicians for too long have used our income taxes to fund all kinds of things that aren't truly for the common good. We need elect people who are willing to stop the insanity of funding all of these pet projects that only help out small or special interest groups. Taxpayer money is not a trough to be fed from.
For the record Eric, several of those anonymous posts were mine. But you want a handle and deserve one...
Post a Comment