June 25, 2006
House passes The Paris Hilton Tax Cut Act
I'm fucking pumped! The R House managed to push through a big tax cut for American heir's who have already announced their intention to start a formal aristocracy.
"Frankly, the idea that we're 'all Americans' is just so... ordinary and base" Aristocracy spokeswoman Paris Hilton said. "We actually are better than you. I mean, it's so obvious that God loves us more. Why else would He have made us the winners of the genetic lottery? You can still work for us, though!"
Karl-Thomas over at BOR has a great piece up featuring an excellent speech from Congressman Lloyd Doggett.
For the wealthiest few, Republicans don't just aim to eliminate the misnamed "death tax," they want the death of all taxes.They have got some exit strategy, not for our troops sacrificing their all and facing death in Iraq, just an exit strategy for billionaires for the tax burden they should share to support our Nation.
For whom do they spell relief today?
Minimum wage. Won't raise it.
Gas prices? Won't cut them.
Drug prices? Won't lower them.
Veteran's health care. Can't cover it.
Student loans, Medicaid, Medicare. Cut, cut, cut.
This is truly the "Cut and Run" Congress -- cutting relief for most Americans, while running up a huge deficit to finance more billionaire tax breaks.
K-T has the video loaded and you should watch it... it's a great speech. The one thing about this that really irritates me is that The Estate Tax was originally misnamed (not to mention the R framing of 'The Death Tax'). This is a tax on inheritence. When someone dies, THEY'RE DEAD. They don't pay taxes anymore than they breathe, eat and drive (with the exception of Senator Cornyn). This is a tax that really affects only the children. Think about it this way, you're father dies and leaves you $20 Mn. What have you done for that money, other than go to dinner's and try to be a good kid? Nothing. It's found money, like the lottery... and we tax that, don't we?
Posted by mcblogger at June 25, 2006 01:45 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mcblogger.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/464Listed below are links to weblogs that reference House passes The Paris Hilton Tax Cut Act:
» shemale rape from shemale rape
shemale rape [Read More]Tracked on December 18, 2006 10:14 PM
» casa blanca travel from casa blanca travel
casa blanca travel [Read More]Tracked on April 1, 2007 01:23 AM
» albacete casa rural from albacete casa rural
albacete casa rural [Read More]Tracked on April 5, 2007 06:28 PM
» nurse diploma programs from nurse diploma programs
nurse diploma programs [Read More]Tracked on April 6, 2007 03:14 AM
Comments
I get your point, but I would say an inheritance is different than the lottery. In a lot of cases, the person leaving the heir that large sum of money did some sort of work in their life and earned that money. It's only right that they choose where it goes and most likely will keep it in the family by passing it to the kids. I know it's an ungodly amount of money in these cases that we're discussing, but the money does not belong to the government. I agree with the taxes, but it bugs me when the debate is framed as if the rich owe the government extra just for being rich.
Posted by: Bradley at June 25, 2006 04:53 AM
I forgot to make a point I was trying to make... probably because it's nearly 5am and I haven't gone to sleep.
Anyway, my point was that the lottery isn't really earned... it's just gambling and hoping for the best. In the case of inheritance, someone earned the money and is leaving it to a loved one. I find the two instances incomparable.
Posted by: Bradley at June 25, 2006 04:55 AM
What if the work done during the life of the deceased was gambling? Would that change your mind?
Regardless, the issue is not taxing the dead. You.can't.tax.the.dead. This is a tax on heirs. I'd be inclined to agree with you if the tax started at transfer's of $1mn and were for 70% of the money. However, I have no problem taxing any amount over $3million at the same rate as any windfall.
I see your point and agree that yes, the person may have worked hard. However, they're still very much dead and the all the person who'll actually be paying the tax had to do is be born.
Posted by: mcblogger at June 25, 2006 09:22 AM
Behind every great fortune there is a crime.
Posted by: Honare de Balzac at June 25, 2006 10:02 AM
McBlogger is right on the mark that this is essentially a tax on windfalls and not on an individual's accumulation of wealth. it is a windfall to whoever gets the money. The notion that an individual who accumulates wealth should be able to control that wealth beyond death has always been limited in our legal tradition going all the way back to Merry Olde England. That's why you can't control property in a will beyond passing it to an immediate heir plus twenty-one years thereafter [see "Ye Olde Rule of Perpetuities"]. Also, the 19th and early 20th centuries pretty much resolved any doubt about the NECESSITY - yes, NECESSITY - of preventing overconcentration of wealth. One study i've heard more than once cited by wills/estate professors is that approximately 80% of wealth in America is inherited. Basing our probate tax laws on the notion that "someone worked for it" ceases to make sense at a certain point and ignores the reality. Another ancient example of how wealth redistribution in our system pre-dates Thomas Jefferson is the doctrine of adverse possession - for centuries we've recognized that it's better for land to be in the stewardship of a resourceful vagabond than it is to languish fallow in the portfolio of a 4th generation aristocrat who doesn't know what it means to work.
Posted by: Harry Balczak at June 25, 2006 01:50 PM
By the way, to all my Ma Egan's/conventioneering pals, i'm very sorry i won't be making it tonight. i had planned on it all week but i have been assigned a Rumplestiltzkian task due Monday a.m. Hence, i can only afford a short mid-afternoon break in which to bloviate about how taxing estates valued in excess of 2 or 3 Mill is consistent with our Anglo-American jurisprudential traditions.
Posted by: Harry Balczak at June 25, 2006 01:53 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
