Laws reflect values.
Apr. 13th, 2005 07:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forsythLaws are the codified form of the values our society chooses. Here's a couple, Social Security and the Inheritance Tax.
And here's what the Republicans stand for, when they want to repeal the estate tax. I've gone into it before, but let me reiterate. The Estate Tax affects only the portion of estates over $1million right now, IIRC. That's 1.5% of the estates in the country. And it ONLY hits the parts that're over $1mil, the first million's free and clear. That doesn't wipe out family farms or small businesses. And the Democrats suggested a revised exemption of $3.5 million. Per person. Yes, the first $3.5 million anybody inherits would be completely tax free. Know how many that is? 0.3%. LESS THAN HALF A PERCENT.
The estate tax is designed to help prevent the creation of hereditary aristocrats who just inherit their money. It's designed to force the children of rich parents to at least do SOMETHING with all that expensive upbringing they've had. And getting rid of it, like the Republicans want to do, would cost $1 Trillion dollars over the next ten years. $1,000,000,000. Which would either be debt, which would become higher taxes for you, me, and potential kids down the road, or higher taxes for everybody else, now. So that 0.3% of the country can inherit more than $3.5 million dollars without paying any taxes.
To borrow from Kash, over at AngryBear, who's more familiar with the numbers than I am... "Let me simply point out that the repeal of the estate tax means that future income taxes will rise by some $40 or $50 bn per year (since the CBO estimates a cost of $30-$35bn per year starting in 2006, and the future tax hike surely won't happen during the first few years), depending on exactly when financial markets and/or the US’s political leaders decide that endless massive deficits are not sustainable. To put that in very specific terms, today’s action will therefore cost an average-ish upper-middle income family (earning a net of about $70,000 per year) an extra $500 per year or so in taxes." (emphasis added) (See also Josh Marshall, who ties it, like everything lately, to Social Security)
You want class warfare? That's it, right there. The folks who have lots are fighting to hoard even more, at the expense of you and me. And by voting in support of that, the Republicans show what they value. Like the ones in the House already did today. (Said article is a horrible example of "he said, she said" reporting, with lines like "...a repeal that Republicans hailed but many Democrats said would reward the richest families at the steep cost of deeper federal deficits." because the reporter couldn't be bothered to fucking look and see "Hey, yeah, it WILL add to the federal deficit, and reward the richest sliver of the country!" Presenting "both sides" isn't objective reporting when one side is not telling the truth. Objective reporting requires you to LOOK at things, and find out where the truth actually is, then SAY SO.)
Tags: Politics, Links, Economics, News
And here's what the Republicans stand for, when they want to repeal the estate tax. I've gone into it before, but let me reiterate. The Estate Tax affects only the portion of estates over $1million right now, IIRC. That's 1.5% of the estates in the country. And it ONLY hits the parts that're over $1mil, the first million's free and clear. That doesn't wipe out family farms or small businesses. And the Democrats suggested a revised exemption of $3.5 million. Per person. Yes, the first $3.5 million anybody inherits would be completely tax free. Know how many that is? 0.3%. LESS THAN HALF A PERCENT.
The estate tax is designed to help prevent the creation of hereditary aristocrats who just inherit their money. It's designed to force the children of rich parents to at least do SOMETHING with all that expensive upbringing they've had. And getting rid of it, like the Republicans want to do, would cost $1 Trillion dollars over the next ten years. $1,000,000,000. Which would either be debt, which would become higher taxes for you, me, and potential kids down the road, or higher taxes for everybody else, now. So that 0.3% of the country can inherit more than $3.5 million dollars without paying any taxes.
To borrow from Kash, over at AngryBear, who's more familiar with the numbers than I am... "Let me simply point out that the repeal of the estate tax means that future income taxes will rise by some $40 or $50 bn per year (since the CBO estimates a cost of $30-$35bn per year starting in 2006, and the future tax hike surely won't happen during the first few years), depending on exactly when financial markets and/or the US’s political leaders decide that endless massive deficits are not sustainable. To put that in very specific terms, today’s action will therefore cost an average-ish upper-middle income family (earning a net of about $70,000 per year) an extra $500 per year or so in taxes." (emphasis added) (See also Josh Marshall, who ties it, like everything lately, to Social Security)
You want class warfare? That's it, right there. The folks who have lots are fighting to hoard even more, at the expense of you and me. And by voting in support of that, the Republicans show what they value. Like the ones in the House already did today. (Said article is a horrible example of "he said, she said" reporting, with lines like "...a repeal that Republicans hailed but many Democrats said would reward the richest families at the steep cost of deeper federal deficits." because the reporter couldn't be bothered to fucking look and see "Hey, yeah, it WILL add to the federal deficit, and reward the richest sliver of the country!" Presenting "both sides" isn't objective reporting when one side is not telling the truth. Objective reporting requires you to LOOK at things, and find out where the truth actually is, then SAY SO.)
Tags: Politics, Links, Economics, News
