The GOP's blatant condencending views of the American Public

[RightIsWrong]

They keep getting elected no matter how little they do in regards to what they preach to their base so I think that they have a pretty good idea already.

Example #1:

Whole article here

The Senate late Thursday unanimously approved a bill that would increase Federal Communications Commission radio- and television-indecency fines tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000 per offense.

The bill (S. 193) is different from a House-passed bill, which would raise the maximum fine to $500,000, make it easier for the FCC to impose fines on shock jocks for willful violations and allow the FCC to commence a license-revocation hearing after the third indecency penalty within an eight-year license term.

?I am glad the Senate took action and increased fines for broadcasters that show indecent material,? Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), the bill?s sponsor, said after passage. ?It?s time that broadcast-indecency fines represent a real economic penalty and not just a slap on the wrist.?

Brownback?s bill, which also applies to obscene and profane material, would cap an FCC fine at $3 million for "any single act or failure to act."

Neither the Senate nor House bill permits the FCC to regulate indecent content carried by cable- and satellite-TV operators.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) pushed for Senate passage of the bill Wednesday after failing to round up support to pass the House bill a few weeks ago.

?The Senate took a great step forward tonight to protect children and families from offensive images broadcast directly into their living rooms. Parents should be able to watch television with their children without worrying about exposing them to unsuitable content,? Frist said in a prepared statement.

Example #2:

Full article here

The House voted 272 to 162 yesterday to permanently repeal the estate tax, throwing the issue to the Senate where negotiations have begun on a deep and permanent estate tax cut that can pass this year, even if it falls short of full repeal.

The House vote pitted repeal proponents, who held that a tax on inheritances is fundamentally unfair, against Democrats, who questioned how Congress could support a tax cut largely for the affluent that would cost $290 billion over 10 years, in the face of record budget deficits.

Sponsor Kenny Hulshof at right: Death "should not be a taxable event." (File Photo)

"This is reverse Robin Hood," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "We're taking money from the middle class and giving it to the super-rich."

"The death of a family member should not be a taxable event, period," said Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.), the bill's sponsor.

By a 194 to 238 vote, the House rejected a Democratic counteroffer, which would have shielded $3.5 million of an estate's value from taxation, enough to exempt 99.7 percent of estates from the inheritance tax, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Members then approved the measure, strongly backed by the White House, that would make a full repeal permanent. The repeal is scheduled to take effect in 2010, then disappear in 2011.

The real fight will come in the Senate, where repeal supporters still appear just short of the 60-vote majority needed to break a promised Democratic filibuster. The Republican leadership, backed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), has authorized Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to strike a deal that will win 60 votes.

So, as pointed out a few times already, aren't there more pressing issues than these? Why does regulating decency (thought policing) and giving the rich a tax break that, over ten years, would equate to more than the shortfall in SS take precedence?

Answer (at least in my mind) is two fold. The first is that they are just trying to make hay to give the appearance of accomplishing something, anything. The second is that they are fearful of November and they are attempting to get as much of their goals, no matter how much it costs the majority of Americans, passed while they still have a majority.

Why does the FCC fines need such a drastic overhauling and fines increased 10x when the violations are either minor, stupid or both? How can they justify this while they are unwilling to do anything on reforming ethics rules that have a much, much greater impact on society than Janet Jackson's tit?

Who really believes that repealing the estate tax will encourage entrepreneaurship(sp)? And do we really want the likes of Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie in charge of the U.S. economy?

Discuss.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Nothing to discuss, it's the typical repugs in action. Only Russ Feingold spoke up and called the gay marriage amendment what it really is, a racist biggoted move to make gays and lesbians second class citizens. And this estate tax repeal will cost us and our children billions of dollars, and who does it help? The ultra rich. I guess dumbsfeld will benefit a mere 100 million from this if it passes, and the dead-eye dickie family will get a paultry ~60 million.
How do they survive? :disgust:

 

[Genx87]

You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

Uh, if you have an estate that was large enough to be taxable, you weren't exactly middle class - unless you think the average middle class person is worth millions of dollars.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

Uh, if you have an estate that was large enough to be taxable, you weren't exactly middle class - unless you think the average middle class person is worth millions of dollars.

Uh I said "past" estate taxes. Which afaik 10 years ago was only 350,000 bucks. 350,000 means anybody with a house was getting taxed on death. Most middle class with some planning will have estates well over 350K even 10 years ago.

 

[zendari]

There's nothing fair about the estate tax; either everyone who recieves an inheritance should pay it or nobody should.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

Uh, if you have an estate that was large enough to be taxable, you weren't exactly middle class - unless you think the average middle class person is worth millions of dollars.

Uh I said "past" estate taxes. Which afaik 10 years ago was only 350,000 bucks. 350,000 means anybody with a house was getting taxed on death. Most middle class with some planning will have estates well over 350K even 10 years ago.

I highly doubt that "MOST" middle class had 350k estate 10 years ago. Even with housing going through the roof, I doubt most have it now.

Maybe those that got in on the 401k plans and rode them well in the early 80's but many did not.

Ah, what the hell. What's another 290 billion on top of 8.3 trillion anyway. We can always build a new money printing press to print more...or even better, we can outsource our money printing to the Chinese to save money on printing money!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

Uh, if you have an estate that was large enough to be taxable, you weren't exactly middle class - unless you think the average middle class person is worth millions of dollars.

Uh I said "past" estate taxes. Which afaik 10 years ago was only 350,000 bucks. 350,000 means anybody with a house was getting taxed on death. Most middle class with some planning will have estates well over 350K even 10 years ago.

I highly doubt that "MOST" middle class had 350k estate 10 years ago. Even with housing going through the roof, I doubt most have it now.

Maybe those that got in on the 401k plans and rode them well in the early 80's but many did not.

Anybody who owned a house most likely had near 350K in an estate. Tack on retirement funds ect ect. It wasnt hard back then to get past that 350K mark.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

My family when I was growing up was middle class, that meant your house was worth roughly 100,000 in 1985 in the Chicago suburbs. Where you get this 350,000 number baffles me. But then again, the apologies must be made for bad actions within your party

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody who owned a house most likely had near 350K in an estate. Tack on retirement funds ect ect. It wasnt hard back then to get past that 350K mark.

The median house now isn't even 200K. 10 years ago it was no where near 200k. Heck, even in expensive California the median price was near $200K. You are exaggerating quite a bit Genx87. The real estate tax did harm some families. But that is a very rare occurance.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

Uh, if you have an estate that was large enough to be taxable, you weren't exactly middle class - unless you think the average middle class person is worth millions of dollars.

Uh I said "past" estate taxes. Which afaik 10 years ago was only 350,000 bucks. 350,000 means anybody with a house was getting taxed on death. Most middle class with some planning will have estates well over 350K even 10 years ago.

I highly doubt that "MOST" middle class had 350k estate 10 years ago. Even with housing going through the roof, I doubt most have it now.

Maybe those that got in on the 401k plans and rode them well in the early 80's but many did not.

Anybody who owned a house most likely had near 350K in an estate. Tack on retirement funds ect ect. It wasnt hard back then to get past that 350K mark.

Considering the median home price still isn't in the 350k range even with the booming housing price rises, I again state that I highly doubt that the average was over 350k per middle class person 10 years ago. Many middle class people didn't save much 10 years ago (still don't for that matter). Sure, New York and California houses are worth a lot and some of the middle class people might have been worth 350k, but the majority of middle America didn't have home prices anywhere near that 10 years ago (median still isn't there).


I'm middle class (AFAIK), and my home is paid for and the equity and savings/retirements still just crosses 350k and that's after 12 years of market/retirement investing.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

Uh, if you have an estate that was large enough to be taxable, you weren't exactly middle class - unless you think the average middle class person is worth millions of dollars.

Uh I said "past" estate taxes. Which afaik 10 years ago was only 350,000 bucks. 350,000 means anybody with a house was getting taxed on death. Most middle class with some planning will have estates well over 350K even 10 years ago.

WTF ???

The Rule of thumb is that you get a house that is worth about 3 or 4 times your yearly salary. The middle class right now is about 40-50k per year so that would at max put a house at 200k in today's market. You are advocating about 8 times that amount and about 10 times that amount 10 years ago.

Do you just sit and pull numbers out of the air?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
My family when I was growing up was middle class, that meant your house was worth roughly 100,000 in 1985 in the Chicago suburbs. Where you get this 350,000 number baffles me. But then again, the apologies must be made for bad actions within your party

My grandparents who were middle class where my grandma didnt work or volunteered and my grandpa who was a middle manager at Super Value had an estate worth over 300K. This 350K number is very realistic 10 years ago.

I dont haver to make any apologies for a party who see's taxing somebody for death is ridiculous.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont haver to make any apologies for a party who see's taxing somebody for death is ridiculous.

There isn't a tax for death. It is a tax on income to a person who gets free stuff. Those concepts are not the same thing. For example, a dead person can give everything to charity. No tax - no matter how much the person had. Thus, it isn't a tax on death.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody who owned a house most likely had near 350K in an estate. Tack on retirement funds ect ect. It wasnt hard back then to get past that 350K mark.

The median house now isn't even 200K. 10 years ago it was no where near 200k. Heck, even in expensive California the median price was near $200K. You are exaggerating quite a bit Genx87. The real estate tax did harm some families. But that is a very rare occurance.

You dont think people had retirement accounts?????

Either way it is my belief estate taxes that low did indeed hurt the middle class more than the poor or rich.

I'm middle class (AFAIK), and my home is paid for and the equity and savings/retirements still just crosses 350k and that's after 12 years of market/retirement investing.

I said close, not all, people had retirement funds.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont haver to make any apologies for a party who see's taxing somebody for death is ridiculous.

There isn't a tax for death. It is a tax on income to a person who gets free stuff. Those concepts are not the same thing. For example, a dead person can give everything to charity. No tax - no matter how much the person had. Thus, it isn't a tax on death.

That money has already been taxed to the hilt through the lifetime of the person who died.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
You dont think people had retirement accounts?????

What was the median retirement account balance in 1996? Look it up and support your idea with facts. Then we can talk. By the way, of people near retirement age right now, that number is under $100k.

Thus using today's median house value + today's median retirement account, you get roughly $300k. 10 years ago, that'll be far under $300k. To me, median is a good approximate definition of middle class for this discussion.

And even if we pretend someone in middle class had $400K of assets 10 years ago, the tax would be ($400K - $350K) * 50% = $25K. Or a net tax rate of $25K / $400K = 6.3%. Boo hoo, you got $375,000 for free instead of getting $400,000 for free. You are harmed so badly, what will you do, you must be destitude. :roll: Also, in this case, your parents were stupid, they should have given you $50K before they died tax free and then you would not have paid any estate tax at all. So, lets call it a "middle class stupidity tax and a rich giving tons of money to other's who are rich tax".

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
That money has already been taxed to the hilt through the lifetime of the person who died.

So what? If you instead used the money at a store to transfer the money to the store-owner, it'll be taxed. Just about every money transaction is taxed. That is how our tax system works.

Why make an exception for this transaction?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

LOL, really, LOL then cry...

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

LOL, really, LOL then cry...

Genx87 is just another one of those "rich" republicans

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody who owned a house most likely had near 350K in an estate. Tack on retirement funds ect ect. It wasnt hard back then to get past that 350K mark.

The median house now isn't even 200K. 10 years ago it was no where near 200k. Heck, even in expensive California the median price was near $200K. You are exaggerating quite a bit Genx87. The real estate tax did harm some families. But that is a very rare occurance.

You dont think people had retirement accounts?????

Either way it is my belief estate taxes that low did indeed hurt the middle class more than the poor or rich.

It may pass the "truthiness" test, but your belief has no basis in fact. Further, your $350K red herring has no connection to the current Estate Tax. It is a diversion, plain and simple.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

If you got a $3,500,000 Estate, you are rich, by any measure.
But that's not who the Republicans worry about. This whole repeal estate tax drive has been funded by some billionaires.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody who owned a house most likely had near 350K in an estate. Tack on retirement funds ect ect. It wasnt hard back then to get past that 350K mark.

The median house now isn't even 200K. 10 years ago it was no where near 200k. Heck, even in expensive California the median price was near $200K. You are exaggerating quite a bit Genx87. The real estate tax did harm some families. But that is a very rare occurance.

Family farms and family businesses were not rare occurances. The estate tax is almost single-handedly responsible for destroying those (how many are even left compared to a couple decades ago?) and adding to our corporate world.
No good deed goes unpunished (aka the law of unintended consequences).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Genx87
You think only the rich have estates? I think some of the estate taxes of the past have effectively kept the middle class in the middle class.

If you got a $3,500,000 Estate, you are rich, by any measure.
But that's not who the Republicans worry about. This whole repeal estate tax drive has been funded by some billionaires.

Well in my quest to find the avg sized estate in the United States, I came across some interesting articles from the CBO and House. Both delve into issue of the estate tax being too low that it affects small business and farms. Both delve into the affect of wealth accumulation. And the House report has some interesting information on the costs to collect estate taxes where a Clinton rep said it doesnt even pay because the cost to the economy and govt equal nearly the same amount of money collected.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/65xx/doc6512/07-06-EstateTax.pdf
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/estattax/estattax.htm

If you have time. The affect on small business is interesting and the problem seemed to lie with not having enough liquid cash to pay the tax when the business is passed onto the heirs. The effect was loss of jobs to pay for the tax or loss of a job completely as the business was dissolved to pay the tax.

I agree the current situation pins the estate tax on the top 1-2%, but my point was when it was much lower it would and probably did hit a much larger portion of the population.
Effectively keeping them in the same bracket they were in before.

 

[GroundedSailor]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?PubID=311153

Under current law, the estate tax is reduced gradually through 2009, repealed in 2010, and then reinstated in full force in 2011. Few expect things to actually play out that way.

The president and many members of Congress would like to repeal the tax permanently, and many would like to do so before 2010. Repeal would be expensive, however: immediate repeal would reduce revenues by over $400 billion over the next decade. Even making repeal permanent as of 2010 would cost $270 billion in the next 10 years. Repeal would also be regressive, would reduce charitable giving by over $15 billion a year, and would invite significant tax sheltering. It would increase the concentration of wealth, and may increase the political power of a wealthy elite.

Critics of the estate tax counter that it burdens small farms and businesses with confiscatory tax rates, discourages work and thrift, and retaxes money taxed under the income tax. In fact, few small farms and businesses appear to be subject to the estate tax, although many families may undergo costly planning to avoid it. The empirical evidence on saving behavior is ambiguous: The tax may discourage work and saving for people subject to it, but it has the opposite effect on heirs who?expecting smaller bequests?choose to work harder and save more. And while the tax may "double tax" income in some cases, much of the wealth subject to estate tax was earned through untaxed capital gains and so has never been subject to the income tax.

In contrast to repealing the tax, retargeting the estate tax to very wealthy households and lowering its rates would blunt much of the criticism against it while retaining many of its advantages. This brief explains how the estate tax works and examines who is affected by it under current law. It discusses how reform would affect tax revenues, the distribution of tax burdens, farms and small businesses, and charitable giving and bequests. A concluding section discusses ways to reduce the tax's complexity.

Background

According to federal law, the executor of an estate must file a federal estate tax return within nine months of a person's death if the gross estate exceeds an exempt amount?currently $1.5 million. The exempt threshold has been phasing up and tax rates have been phasing down since 2001, when the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) enacted a gradual phaseout of the tax.1 After a scheduled elimination in 2010, the estate tax returns in 2011 with an exemption of $1 million and a top statutory rate of 55 percent.

The estate tax allows deductions for transfers to a surviving spouse, charitable gifts, debts, funeral expenses, and administrative fees. About 90 percent of married decedents who file estate tax returns avoid the tax entirely, largely because of the unlimited spousal deduction. Aunified credit exempts taxes on the first $1.5 million of taxable transfers in 2005 (including gifts made during life and transfers at death), a figure scheduled to rise to $3.5 million in 2009. In addition, the valuation of assets can often be discounted through careful tax planning, so the effective exemption far exceeds the statutory amount for many estates (Schmalbeck 2001).

Family-owned farms and closely held businesses receive especially generous treatment under the estate tax.2 Farmers and small business owners may reduce the value of their real estate using a special formula as long as their heirs maintain its use as a family-owned farm or business and do not sell it to a nonrelative for at least 10 years. Special use valuation can reduce the value of the real property portion of most farms by 40 to 70 percent of its market value. In addition, estates in which farm and business assets make up more than 35 percent of the gross estate may pay their estate tax in installments over 14 years at reduced interest rates. Only interest is due for the first five years. In 2003, the interest rate on the first $493,800 of estate tax was 2 percent; the interest rate on amounts above that was 45 percent of the interest rate that applies to underpayment of tax (which was 4 percent for the third quarter of 2004).

Who Pays the Estate Tax? About 66,000 estate tax returns were filed in 2003, of which less than half were taxable (Internal Revenue Service [IRS] 2004). Most of these returns reported deaths in 2002 when the estate tax exemption was $1 million. In that year, less than 3 percent of decedents had to file and less than 1.5 percent owed any estate tax. 4 By 2004, the estate tax exemption had increased to $1.5 million. The Tax Policy Center projects that about 37,000 estate tax returns will be filed for people who die in 2004, of which almost 19,000 will be taxable (table 1). The total estate tax will be an estimated $17.6 billion, or about $935,000 per taxable return. Based on historical averages, about $2.8 billion in gift tax will be paid on inter vivos transfers made in 2004.

Cliff Notes:
1. The individual limit is 1.5 million and 3 million for a couple - not exactly your average middle class.
2. Much of the wealth was earned through untaxed capital gains and so has never been subject to the income tax.
3. About 90% of the married people who filed the return avoided it altogether.
4. Only 66,000 filed estates tax returns in 2003 of which less than half were taxable. In a country of 280 million that is a very tiny fraction - hardly the vast middle class as some claim.
5. Loss of revenue is estimated to be above 270 billion -affecting the budget deficit negatively.
6. Repealing the tax is estimated to cut charity by around 15 billion a year. Thats money largely used for the poor or misfortunate.


Full article here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/311153_IssuesOptions_10.pdf