The problem with the democrats now is that outside of Obama there leadership sucks. Pelosi and Harry are great at playing the poor me underdogs but suck at leading. Harry is like the biggest pansy looking dude there is and Pelosi looks like a limousine liberal.
Democrats on how to get raped in midterms
- Thread starter Topspin
- Start date
I still blame Pelosi for exacerbating the financial crisis by using one of the key junctures - a time when bipartisanship was not only called for but a necessity - to posture & give a politically charged partisan speech on the floor.
She & Reid have to go; they have been terrible party leaders, imo...
Where did I say I wanted to eliminate anything? I simply asked some questions about your assumptions.
How much is a family-run ranch worth? (Your figures are incorrect, BTW). How much should they be forced to pay? Should it be just enough to force them to sell to corporations or should it be more than that?
I'm trying to figure out what you think is "fair", and I do that by asking questions. Are you going to answer them or try to ascertain my motive through ignorance again?
Your figures stink. First the value of a Ranch isn't solely the land it is on, like any other company it has more value than its components. Secondly, the components you list aren't half what it takes to run a ranch. Even smaller ranches (only a few thousand acres) will run far more than the 1.3 to 3 million range you give. Even worse, much of the value is locked into machinery and other tangibles, it isn't like it is run with a ton of cash on hand, thus in order to pay the taxes you must sell things, when it comes to the 45% range you wind up selling more than you can reasonably run a ranch with, thus you wind up selling the family business in order to pay for the taxes.
Just a few weeks ago I saw somebody "steal" a very small horse-breeding ranch (about 100 acres) for 1.5 million... Just down the road another with 150 acres is selling at the cut rate of 1.85 million... and those aren't even close to the values of ranches that are run as businesses.
Topspin
Verified User
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yet another strawman coupled with incorrect information. Even with the property value declines we have seen over the last year, you are off on your 'cursory review' of price per acreage. In fact you aren't even close... unless of course your hypothetical ranch is covered with a pile of rocks.
Ranch land in Montana, like anywhere, is going to depend on location and what is on the land. But here is a sample of ranches available.
http://hallhall.com/ranches-for-sale/properties.php?stid=26
Farmland in Iowa averages about $4k per acre. The range (again depending on the actual property) got to as high as $8k per acre last year (though to be fair that is the extreme).
Also... for many of these families, it is not some unearned 'windfall'. It is family property that the family has typically run for a long time. If the bulk of the assets of the family is the land, then they are going to be forced to sell portions of the property to pay the tax. The same holds true for many small business owners.
All you are doing is helping the large corporations and government put them out of business. That minimum needs to go up... not back down.... and no matter how giddy you get pretending that the estate tax only hits the super wealthy... you are flat out wrong. Small business owners, farmers and ranchers face this nightmare even at last years $3.5mm limit.... more will be hit if it reverts back to $1mm.
Damo, from the non-partisan CBO Report:
Few Wealthy Farmers Owe Estate Taxes, Report Says
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: July 10, 2005
The number of farms on which estate tax is owed when the owners die has fallen by 82 percent since 2000, to just 300 farms, as Congress has more than doubled the threshold at which the tax applies, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released last week.
All but 27 farmers left enough liquid assets to pay taxes owed, the budget office found, although it hinted that the actual number might be zero. The study examined how much in cash, stocks and bonds these farmers left to pay estate taxes, but the report noted that no data existed on how much life insurance the farmers had put into trusts. Virtually all wealthy farmers own life insurance in trusts, say estate tax lawyers who specialize in working with farmers.
The estate tax raised an estimated $23.4 billion last year. Repeal would shift part of the burden of taxes off the fortunes left by the richest 1 percent of Americans, some of whose fortunes were never taxed, onto the general population. The lost revenue could be made up in three ways: through higher income taxes; reduced government services; or more borrowing, which would pass the burden of current government spending to future generations.
President Bush, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association have asserted that the estate tax is destroying family farms. None, however, have cited a case of a farm lost to estate taxes, although in June 2001 Mr. Bush said he had talked to such farmers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501EFDD153DF933A25754C0A9639C8B63
Few Wealthy Farmers Owe Estate Taxes, Report Says
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: July 10, 2005
The number of farms on which estate tax is owed when the owners die has fallen by 82 percent since 2000, to just 300 farms, as Congress has more than doubled the threshold at which the tax applies, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released last week.
All but 27 farmers left enough liquid assets to pay taxes owed, the budget office found, although it hinted that the actual number might be zero. The study examined how much in cash, stocks and bonds these farmers left to pay estate taxes, but the report noted that no data existed on how much life insurance the farmers had put into trusts. Virtually all wealthy farmers own life insurance in trusts, say estate tax lawyers who specialize in working with farmers.
The estate tax raised an estimated $23.4 billion last year. Repeal would shift part of the burden of taxes off the fortunes left by the richest 1 percent of Americans, some of whose fortunes were never taxed, onto the general population. The lost revenue could be made up in three ways: through higher income taxes; reduced government services; or more borrowing, which would pass the burden of current government spending to future generations.
President Bush, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association have asserted that the estate tax is destroying family farms. None, however, have cited a case of a farm lost to estate taxes, although in June 2001 Mr. Bush said he had talked to such farmers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501EFDD153DF933A25754C0A9639C8B63
Good at being critical.. bad at being a leader.
"You must never take from people you lead" Richard D. Winters
You've got to be kidding me with that Pelosi nonsense. Give me a fucking break. The Republican leadership couldn't round up the votes they said they could get from their caucus and so they blamed Pelosi for hurting their feelings. Their excuse had to be the most ridiculous I'd heard in a long long while.
Reid is a disaster (although the Senate as an institution is generally a disaster lately), but Pelosi has done everything the Democrats said they would do in the House.
Other than giving a speech that allegedly hurt the feelings of a dozen Republicans such that they refused to act in the economic interests of the country, what has Pelosi done that is problematic for you.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
wow... so even when someone like Lorax criticizes the dear leaders of your party... you STILL go into full on apology mode.
At least you are a consistent hack.
So the CBO report mentions what I am talking about the number of family farms that fell into that category in 2005 (which fell because of tax cuts) was still in the hundreds. (And BTW - Family Farms are different than ranches, however selling portions of the family farm to pay taxes isn't fun even if the farm isn't "lost".)
Now, can you tell me what happens if it snaps back to the place it was in 2001? How many of those farms would survive a 45% tax rather than the more minimal 35% tax that they pay only over 3 million now? Of the hundreds of farms that were subject to the taxation at over $3 Million (the taxation level in 2005 because of the lower taxes), imagine if that number was now 1.3 million, 45% taxes on 1.7 million more...
What you call "landed gentry" we call neighbor and people like my uncle often bought family ranches when they were at their most vulnerable...
That speech was the reason the vote failed; period. It was the worst crisis the Congress has faced under Pelosi, and a critical juncture. She chose to abandon leadership at exactly that moment, and use the time for political grandstanding. It was one of the saddest things I've seen in politics. And the extra week cost a LOT of people their businesses, and their jobs.
It was everything that I consider to be wrong with Washington, in a nutshell.
What more do you need? I think in general, she has displayed poor leadership skills, and chosen the partisan path more often than not. She doesn't understand the power of symbolism. When something fails or stalls, it's my impression that she tries to make excuses & throw others under the bus, instead of just being straight-up. A lot of leaders are like that, but I don't think the Democrats are well served with her being one of their 3 main voices...
First, the vote failed because the Republican leadership couldn't get the votes they said they could get. Period. They blamed Pelosi for their failure. If you buy their bullshit reason for their own failure, that's fine, but don't act like it is the truth of the matter.
And give one example of something that failed where she threw others under the bus. (And I note there isn't a hint of irony in you saying this while accepting the Republican leadership blaming Pelosi for their own failure).
They had the votes, some were on the fence, she pushed them back over. Pretending that acting like an a$$ doesn't effect people because you really want them to not be effected is just inane. She expected them to ignore her partisan hackery and swallow that pill, some of those on the fence refused to do that. In short they acted as partisanly as she... Was it the right thing to do? They believed so.... I'm not so sure.
To start with, I don't excuse the GOP in that circumstance. I think the Republicans using that speech as an excuse is PATHETIC under the circumstances.
But one of the free world's "leaders" GAVE them that out, on a silver platter. The votes they were able to get were reluctant votes, anyway - all they needed was a little push. And I don't even care if they're making it up that it cost them votes (I don't think they are). It is TERRIBLE leadership. A moment of crisis like that is when you want a leader to step up; it's a time when the great ones rise to the occasion. That speech was just sad; partisan sniping & BS. And it cost people their livelihoods.
As for "under the bus," just recently regarding the pledge to put hearings on C-Span. "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail"....awful....
I agree, I don't think it was the proper time to "teach a lesson" to Pelosi. Even if it is one for, "Your actions do have consequences..."
I believe she did this because she expected them to swallow that bitter pill, as you and I believed that they would too. However a responsible leader wouldn't use such a circumstance in this way, because sometimes your actions actually do have unexpected consequences and this was important.
This is going to be in ads across the nation....
The C-SPAN thing is almost as hilarious as the first. It's Pelosi's fault that Obama pledged to put healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN during the campaign? How is it throwing Obama under the bus? He made the pledge. She didn't. I don't get it.
Edit: Can you point to a single legislative failure? Even the bailout bill passed within days of it failing.
Okay, Damocles...."hundreds" of families will be subject to the estate tax under the new Marxist regime, instead of the mere 300 that were subject to it in 2005. Hundreds.....in a nation of over 300 million. You make a compelling case, that the estate tax is an appalling burden on average families.
Here's the problem - much like the climate science deniers, proponents of Bush Economics never give any actual peer-reviewed or published studies from reputable expert sources to validate their position.
I gave a link to non-partisan CBO who reports that pretty much nobody lost a farm because of the estate tax. And there's no documented cases of families losing their asses because of the estate tax.
All I ever hear are second-hand assertions, and unvalidated claims from George Bush, and conservative message board posters.
Its really not all that convincing. In my profession, in my education career, and in my life generally, I tend to be convinced by empirical data from reputable non-partisan experts. But that's just me.
Legislatively, I wouldn't take much issue w/ her record. It's not that kind of leadership I'm talking about.
How can you not see the problem w/ her choice of words on the C-Span issue? It's total Washington-speak - it's exacly the kind of disdainful tone that most voters hate to hear out of DC. All it says is "oh, people say all kind of crazy stuff on the campaign trail to get elected, but once they get here, different rules operate. People are gullible - they'll forget."
As a "leader," she needs to at least choose her words better. As Damo said, that kind of quote is great ad fodder (not sure if they'll use it like he thinks, but it is). Why not take a few extra moments to talk about the why's and lay out the reasons?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
and, as the opening post indicates, Congress is currently locked at seeing that threshold drop by 80%...isn't that the problem we are discussing?.....
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The estate tax should apply at estates of 5 million and above at a 50% rate.