estate tax
Many Republicans want to abolish the estate tax, or the "death tax" as they call it to make it sound scary. In support of their position, they tend to argue that the American people are on their side. I think that the Democrats should give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt and propose that we have a nationwide vote on the issue. The important caveat is that since the average American does not have time to research the issue, the vote would consist of answering 2 questions that effectively explain what the death tax is in simple language. I am so confident that the Republicans are wrong in claiming that the American people are on their side on this issue, I would propose that the American people should only have to vote the Republican way ("No" on this issue, as will be shown) on one of two questions for the Republicans to get their way and the death tax to be repealed. Here are the two questions:
Do you think that it is better to tax the wealthy than the poor and the middle class?
Do you think that is better to tax dead people than living people?
(The wordings of the questions could be reversed for some people so as to eliminate the bias of preferring to answer no rather than yes, or vice versa.)
If at least 50% of the American people answer no to either of these questions, the estate tax will be abolished.
Ok, I know what you're thinking...I characterized the estate tax unfairly. I implied that the estate tax only applies to wealthy people when in fact 2.3% of those the estate tax applies to have assets worth a measley $750,000 or less excluding the value of the estate. And in fact, the estate tax is a horrible scourge on those with estates worth $1.5 million or more as it taxes those in the $1.5-2 million range at a draconian 1.6%.
I apologize for my misrepresentations. Working men of all countries unite to abolish the estate tax. You have nothing to lose but the 4th Porsch of the asshole down the street.
-Larry
Do you think that it is better to tax the wealthy than the poor and the middle class?
Do you think that is better to tax dead people than living people?
(The wordings of the questions could be reversed for some people so as to eliminate the bias of preferring to answer no rather than yes, or vice versa.)
If at least 50% of the American people answer no to either of these questions, the estate tax will be abolished.
Ok, I know what you're thinking...I characterized the estate tax unfairly. I implied that the estate tax only applies to wealthy people when in fact 2.3% of those the estate tax applies to have assets worth a measley $750,000 or less excluding the value of the estate. And in fact, the estate tax is a horrible scourge on those with estates worth $1.5 million or more as it taxes those in the $1.5-2 million range at a draconian 1.6%.
I apologize for my misrepresentations. Working men of all countries unite to abolish the estate tax. You have nothing to lose but the 4th Porsch of the asshole down the street.
-Larry
posted by Larry R. Friedman at 11:12 PM
6 Comments:
Larry, your blog is getting more awesome. I don't have anything to say about the estate tax, but keep it up dude, it's fun to read.
The estate tax also affects a lot of small business owners, whose assets (such as a store, work vehicles, etc) though not liquid may still be assessed as worth a million dollars, for example.
But the estate tax really isn't the issue here. The real issue is the scope of government. I happen to believe that there should be no federal income taxes whatsoever. None. When the Sixteenth Amendment was passed in the early 1900s, during the debates its proponents argued that it was inconceivable the income tax would ever be higher than 2 or 3% and would never affect anyone except the super rich. And we can all see how well that turned out.
Right now the government takes money from hard-working Americans and wastes it. Billions of taxpayers' dollars are wasted on a bloated bureaucracy to feed the ever-hungy welfare state that only prolongs the cycle of poverty. Congressmen (Republican and Democrat) waste your money and mine on worthless pork projects in their district so they can get reelected and continue to feel important by bossing everyone else in the country around.
A better solution to the tax issue is abolishing all income taxes (and the IRS) and replacing them with a national sales tax. A tax of 20%, let's say, would be placed on all goods, but there would be no other taxation. There would be no double-taxing of corporate income and no taxing of savings and investment. Poor Americans would receive a check at the beginning of each month that refunds them the amount of the tax that would be required to buy a month's worth of necessities. There has been plenty of research on this topic and there are many more benefits to this plan that take too long to discuss now. Senators Zell Miller and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia placed a bill that would establish the national sales tax on the floor of the Senate, but nothing ever came of it. And don't expect George W. Bush to do anyting about it--he's too busy trying to justify appointing his incompetent cronies to FEMA and the Supreme Court.
The main purpose for the federal government should be to defend our nation from outside threats. Other than that function and a few others (giving patents and those specifically outlined in the Constitution) I see no purpose for the federal government. Just protect my life, liberty, and property and leave me the hell alone.
Right, a national sales tax of 20% would sufficiently replace the revenue from income tax and all other taxes. Perhaps you meant this would work after they got rid of those "worthless pork projects." Maybe you should elaborate on that. I would love to see what government projects you're talking about, and how much revenue they truly require.
I'm a big fan of how you also said that all goods should be universally taxed 20%. I suppose that a poor family paying for food should face the same level of taxation as a millionaire buying his second yacht. Besides a lack of regard for social justice, such a statement shows that you truly know nothing about economics. Applying a universal tax like that would fuck up plenty of markets and would not maximize the government's revenue assuming you want to place a cap on taxation at 20%. I recommend taking an introductory econ class.
Not only is your simple plan imbecilic in that it could not come close to providing the level of revenue our government requires for basic services, it also assumes that the government has no role to play in keeping the economy healthy. More fucked up though is how you seem to believe that the government has no level of social responsibility. I am absolutely amazed by your last paragraph. You should be really fucking ashamed of yourself.
Ashamed of myself? I am honored to be continuing in the proud tradition of limited government and self-sufficiency that our country was founded upon. The government should not be your nanny. People should learn to take care of themselves.
You suggest I take a class in introductory economics, I suggest you take a class in introductory reading. I clearly stated in the previous post that the poor are exempted from this tax with a "prebate" at the beginning of every month covering the cost of the tax on essential goods.
Whether or not the national sales tax would maximize government revenue was not a part of my argument. I'd prefer the government receive much less money than it currently steals from the paychecks of Americans. You, on the other hand, are interested in "social justice" by which you mean the process of millions of Americans become dependent upon the State.
If you'd like more information on the national sales tax (although I can't imagine you're open to this horrific, evil, elitist, capitalist pig proposition) consult the CATO Institute or the Heritage Foundaiton. The website for Americans for Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/) includes a list of many economists who have signed on to this plan. I assume you would recommend all of them take introductory economics along with me.
"I am honored to be continuing in the proud tradition of limited government and self-sufficiency that our country was founded upon. The government should not be your nanny. People should learn to take care of themselves."
Sounds like you're against the legitimation of tyranny, economically or otherwise, that's cool. Except that's not the only kind of tyranny. And if you point all your guns at authority and legitimation, you fuck everybody. But I mean, not that comparing the government to a nanny isn't reason enough for me agree with you on general principle, cause who wants a nanny?! Not me...
Oh Except That..., right. Except that whole structural theories of economics and poverty thing. Not that you aren't basically a republican (and nobody's accusing you of anything, there are worse things than republicans...right?) who hides behind the Spirit Of The Constitution, but I guess it's hard to be wrong when you speak for the Founding Fathers (cause they're always right especially about economics), so who am I to talk...
You're right, our government does waste a lot of money. If I could, I would like to change some of the ways they do business. But here's the thing: I think that the best system of government favors the model that you're against, and that there is more to be done within this particular system in this particular respect than without.
I'm sure you think that that sounds naive of me to say, naive because it's impractical, but in its own way it's much more practical than completely reppealing income tax, isn't it?
"There has been plenty of research on this topic and there are many more benefits to this plan that take too long to discuss now." I'm sure there is. That's mighty convenient for you, but that doesn't mean that you're wrong. Sounds scary, though.
In any case, what you're saying doesn't make sense. You have a problem with politicians wasting money. Yeah, I can see how they misuse funds. I don't think that at all means we have money to spare, but, yeah, I'd rather see money go to some different things sometimes. But where's the jump from that to sales tax? Oh, Right...legitimation, and the role of the federal government. Cause that's the only tyranny, and there are no necessary evils.
Not to be melodramatic - and this is most Certainly being melodramatic - but I got in this argument with a pacifist recently who told me that he wouldn't kill a man to save millions, classic example, right, this guy's finger's on the button of a terrorist nuke and the kid's just too good a person to end this guy's life, if that was the only way, of course...that's not you, is it chief?
"I see no purpose for the federal government. Just protect my life, liberty, and property and leave me the hell alone." Nevermind people who would need and (much more importantly for you) Want and Choose for the government to have more control over American economics because to "leave them the hell alone" would be like, a self-perpetuating injustice...?
Our schools are underfunded, Social Security, etc etc et al. But nevermind that. (The Social Contract is a bitch, isn't it?)
Wish I could end this with a whole lot of links but I just don't wield that big of a stick. Maybe some of what I said will stand on its own. ? Maybe not...fucking libertarians...
That is the most unconvincing and incoherent response to the national sales tax that I have ever read. Please attempt to counter the arguments I advanced instead of referring to me as a "f*cking libertarian." And lay off the ellipses and unnecessary capitalizations.
Post a Comment
<< Home