Democrats on how to get raped in midterms

[Damocles]

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.

I don't have studies because I don't have the money to spend on it, but I knew my uncle and watched him purchase the ranches. My mother sent me out every summer to work for him... (and no, he didn't pay me and he sent me to do some of the worst things.)

And you gave me a link that validated what I said, in 2005 the taxes had lowered yet there were still 300 farms (How many people do you think die that own family-run farms each year, Cypress?) that were effected even at that high level. Basically it said that farms are worth more than your "guess" previous.

Maybe $3M is a good level because they pay tax but don't "lose" the farm in just one generation... but one thing that I do know is that I know one man who got extremely rich on the backs of the family-run ranches in just such a situation. He died before 2001, I don't know how he would have reacted to the new lower taxes.

Now, I never argue that he shouldn't pay any "estate" taxes, I only argue that your idea of "landed gentry" is a bit off and it still ignores what the states may charge on top of your "blessed" punishment for being "landed gentry"...

 

[Bonestorm]

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?

I just don't see how Pelosi is responsible for what promises Obama made on the campaign trail. The person to be pissed at about that is Obama.

And I think you also have to keep in mind that Pelosi is the leader of the Democrats in the House consisting of 257 individual members. A lot of hose members think Obama totally fucked them on healthcare by not going to bat for key provisions in the House bill when it was kicked over to the Senate. There's a fine line between covering for Obama and alienating the people that she actually has to lead.

Frankly, I think she was pissed that she was even put in the position of having to answer questions about why the negotiations wouldn't be televised, as if getting agreement on a final health care bill wouldn't be difficult enough.

 

[Onceler]

I just don't see how Pelosi is responsible for what promises Obama made on the campaign trail. The person to be pissed at about that is Obama.

And I think you also have to keep in mind that Pelosi is the leader of the Democrats in the House consisting of 257 individual members. A lot of hose members think Obama totally fucked them on healthcare by not going to bat for key provisions in the House bill when it was kicked over to the Senate. There's a fine line between covering for Obama and alienating the people that she actually has to lead.

Frankly, I think she was pissed that she was even put in the position of having to answer questions about why the negotiations wouldn't be televised, as if getting agreement on a final health care bill wouldn't be difficult enough.

I agree with the last part, but she has to understand the effect of those words coming from a party leader.

I'll admit I'm biased on Pelosi; I didn't think she was a very good choice for leadership to begin with. It became one of those lifetime achievement awards, like Dole's Presidential candidacy, imo.

But man, when she made that speech last year, it really tipped the scales for me. She crossed the Rubicon beyond which it is no longer possible for me to think she's a decent leader. I was hanging on every moment of those negotiations & through that process, and I just couldn't believe anyone would treat that moment with that kind of carelessness, much less the Democrat's leader in the House...

 

[Damocles]

I just don't see how Pelosi is responsible for what promises Obama made on the campaign trail. The person to be pissed at about that is Obama.

And I think you also have to keep in mind that Pelosi is the leader of the Democrats in the House consisting of 257 individual members. A lot of hose members think Obama totally fucked them on healthcare by not going to bat for key provisions in the House bill when it was kicked over to the Senate. There's a fine line between covering for Obama and alienating the people that she actually has to lead.

Frankly, I think she was pissed that she was even put in the position of having to answer questions about why the negotiations wouldn't be televised, as if getting agreement on a final health care bill wouldn't be difficult enough.

Pelosi isn't responsible for the promise, she's responsible for her own words. Choosing words carefully when you are in such a position is one measure of the value of leadership you provide.

IMO a more effective leader who wanted to hide their activity would have done the same thing, but would have more carefully worded the response.

Side note: If I were Obama, any meeting the Administration is part of would be on TV, because I promised it so repeatedly and insistently on the campaign trail...

 

[Cypress]

I don't have studies because I don't have the money to spend on it, but I knew my uncle and watched him purchase the ranches. My mother sent me out every summer to work for him... (and no, he didn't pay me and he sent me to do some of the worst things.)

And you gave me a link that validated what I said, in 2005 the taxes had lowered yet there were still 300 farms (How many people do you think die that own family-run farms each year, Cypress?) that were effected even at that high level. Basically it said that farms are worth more than your "guess" previous.

Maybe $3M is a good level because they pay tax but don't "lose" the farm in just one generation... but one thing that I do know is that I know one man who got extremely rich on the backs of the family-run ranches in just such a situation. He died before 2001, I don't know how he would have reacted to the new lower taxes.

Now, I never argue that he shouldn't pay any "estate" taxes, I only argue that your idea of "landed gentry" is a bit off and it still ignores what the states may charge on top of your "blessed" punishment for being "landed gentry"...

Okay, so you have some anecdotal personal experience with somebody getting fucked over by the estate tax. That's fine, but you shouldn't expect to present unsubstantiated, anecdotal personal experiences and expect it to be that convincing on message boards. Especially, when that anecdotal assertions run contrary to what non-partisan studies, by experts show broadly about the estate tax: i.e., that there's no documented evidence of anybody being fucked over by it.

I realize you don't have money to conduct studies. But Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and the RNC have millions of dollars at their disposal. But, curiously, they've never hired any independent experts to study and validate their assertions that the estate tax is any kind of burden on the middle class, let alone the modestly affluent. I think if there was evidence of that, they would have dug it up.

I don't think there's a magic number on what should be taxed, that's something for policy experts to hash out. But, it should start with the premise that large amounts of untaxed wealth should, at some point, be subject to taxation, and it should be based on the premise that this nation was founded on the principle that we don't want to coddle or enable a class of landed gentry, like they had in europe.

For the life of me, I don't see why 3 million dollars should not be the upper limit on tax exemptions. But whatever, that number can be tweaked around.

My problem is with the Republican Party's position in general. Bush, and the GOP more broadly, wanted to completely eliminate the estate tax. That's completely indefensible, in my opinion.

 

[Damocles]

Okay, so you have some anecdotal personal experience with somebody getting fucked over by the estate tax. That's fine, but you shouldn't expect to present unsubstantiated, anecdotal personal experiences and expect it to be that convincing on message boards. Especially, when that anecdotal assertions run contrary to what non-partisan studies, by experts show broadly about the estate tax: i.e., that there's no documented evidence of anybody being fucked over by it.

Yet it did show that I was correct and even farms (different than ranches) are worth more than your original "guesstimate"... In reality, everything seems to be worth more than you want it to be because you want to dismiss the effects of taxation on regular people and call them "landed gentry"...

I realize you don't have money to conduct studies. But Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and the RNC have millions of dollars at their disposal. But, curiously, they've never hired any independent experts to study and validate their assertions that the estate tax is any kind of burden on the middle class, let alone the modestly affluent. I think if there was evidence of that, they would have dug it up.

And again, your one link showed taxation at the 2005 level which was MUCH less than the taxation they spoke of. You'd think that if nobody was ever effected as you seem to want to insist then moveon, etc. would have proven it rather than spinning using lowered taxation levels after tax cuts had been ongoing for more than 4 years.

I don't think there's a magic number on what should be taxed, that's something for policy experts to hash out. But, it should start with the premise that large amounts of untaxed wealth should, at some point, be subject to taxation, and it should be based on the premise that this nation was founded on the principle that we don't want to coddle or enable a class of landed gentry, like they had in europe.

Again, nobody in this thread has argued that there should be no estate taxes at all, that is something people outside of the board may have stated but they aren't here.

For the life of me, I don't see why 3 million dollars should not be the upper limit on tax exemptions. But whatever, that number can be tweaked around.

I think they should tweak it for different circumstances, my point in this thread was that you were mistaken about the value of family run ranches and that contrary to how much you want to believe 3M isn't as much as you think when you start looking into farms their costs, etc. This was proved by the CBO link you gave. Thanks for that. A farm with the value of $3M probably keeps a family in the median range of income, but they must be taxed because you want to call them "landed gentry" and heck, they only lose PART of the farm!

My problem is with the Republican Party's position in general. Bush, and the GOP more broadly, wanted to completely eliminate the estate tax. That's completely indefensible, in my opinion.

I'd like to eliminate the breaks for the trusts so that the Kennedys would also have to pay, but heck... that might just be class jealousy...

 

[Chapdog]

I think they would do better to put the cap on individual inheritance as opposed to total estate value... 3M is not much when its split between 8 kids.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

the death tax as it is not a good thing

if you're going to have it, it should only be on estate's over 20 million dollars....for those of you claiming 3 million dollars is a lot of money, where have you been living? in so cal and central coast cal, 3 million is basically upper middle class....if you want to tax only the super wealthy, it should be only the super wealthy, but to argue that taxing people worth about 3million is good for america is plain ignorant, full of class envy and should be considered unamerican

 

[Topspin]

the death tax as it is not a good thing

if you're going to have it, it should only be on estate's over 20 million dollars....for those of you claiming 3 million dollars is a lot of money, where have you been living? in so cal and central coast cal, 3 million is basically upper middle class....if you want to tax only the super wealthy, it should be only the super wealthy, but to argue that taxing people worth about 3million is good for america is plain ignorant, full of class envy and should be considered unamerican

exactly on the super wealthy, but the brackets and all the other taxes are going to hit currently upper middle. And they never index what's rich. The $250,000 in a decade or two will be middle class. And the top bracket to 39% is well below the 250,000

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yet it did show that I was correct and even farms (different than ranches) are worth more than your original "guesstimate"... In reality, everything seems to be worth more than you want it to be because you want to dismiss the effects of taxation on regular people and call them "landed gentry"...



And again, your one link showed taxation at the 2005 level which was MUCH less than the taxation they spoke of. You'd think that if nobody was ever effected as you seem to want to insist then moveon, etc. would have proven it rather than spinning using lowered taxation levels after tax cuts had been ongoing for more than 4 years.



Again, nobody in this thread has argued that there should be no estate taxes at all, that is something people outside of the board may have stated but they aren't here.


I think they should tweak it for different circumstances, my point in this thread was that you were mistaken about the value of family run ranches and that contrary to how much you want to believe 3M isn't as much as you think when you start looking into farms their costs, etc. This was proved by the CBO link you gave. Thanks for that. A farm with the value of $3M probably keeps a family in the median range of income, but they must be taxed because you want to call them "landed gentry" and heck, they only lose PART of the farm!



I'd like to eliminate the breaks for the trusts so that the Kennedys would also have to pay, but heck... that might just be class jealousy...

I have a couple of friends that are farmers and they told me that the only way their going to be able to keep the farms in the family, is to split the operation up between all their children.

There's an old saying, among farmers, and it goes like this:
Land rich, money poor.